Posted on 03/29/2008 6:54:19 PM PDT by wastedpotential
Of all the factors that led to Mike Huckabee's demise in the 2008 presidential sweepstakes (insufficient funds, lack of foreign policy experience), there's one that has been largely overlooked: Huckabee's disbelief in the theory of evolution as it is generally understood – without the involvement of the Creator.
Perhaps you're thinking: What's evolution got to do with being president? Very little, as Huckabee was quick to remind reporters on the campaign trail. But from the moment the former Baptist minister revealed his beliefs on evolutionary biology, political commentators and scientists lambasted him. Some even suggested those beliefs should disqualify him from high office.
We believe most Americans
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Thanks so much for pointing that out, AndrewC!
I see.. so, the scientists that are correct are correct..
And the scientists that are WRONG are wrong...
Well..... Duuuugh!..
Dr. Gould was the rare honest evolutionist.
The rest are dishonest, like all the evo supporters here, totally lacking in moral fiber, and unwilling to address the truth.
LMAO!
The rest are dishonest, like all the evo supporters here, totally lacking in moral fiber, and unwilling to address the truth.
Bullshit.
So you are my judge? And I have no moral fiber? Gosh. You must show me where in the Bible you were given such privileges, yes?
I think you just called me a liar.
Never fight with a man who drinks coffee through his ass.
Since we've been told repeatedly that science isn't about truth or proof, how could you expect anything else? If science isn't about truth, then what else is left for it to be about?
Thing I still can't figure out is without knowing what the truth is, so many evos accuse others of lying. In order to determine if something is a lie, you have to have truth to compare it to. Without any knowledge of the truth, there's simply no way to determine if something is a lie.
Let’s tone it down a bit on both sides, unless you want this thread to become a case study for moderator-induced evolution.
Coyoteman:
Just because editor-surveyor makes a claim that you feel is pointed at you does not mean that it is true.
If he wrong, then refute his statement.
But resorting to vulgarities is not only inappropriate and inexcusable, but makes him look right.
And remember, just because somebody says that a group of Atheists/Evolutionists are dishonest or liars, does not mean that it is true.
Many of them really do believe what they say they believe, and from a Christian/Creationists perspective, they are either dishonest or deceived.
Vulgarity and name calling is NEVER appropriate in any sort of debate, EVER.
You are correct. I apologize.
LOLOL! I’m sure it makes perfect sense to some.
The short answer: Logic and reason, the same "tests" that scientists use. Don't forget: the natural sciences are first-born of philosophy; the subdiscipline of epistemology is particularly strongly emphasized. (What do we know? How do we know it? How do we know we know it?)
Coyoteman, I gather you'd answer dan1123's query -- "...is [it] your position that all universal truths can or will eventually be discovered by science? That there are none excluded by definition or by method?" -- in the affirmative. Evidently you believe that in a few hundred years you'll have corroborating evidence for this expectation.
"There are two forms of evidence, direct and indirect. Direct evidence for the existence of postulated entities means that the entities directly impinge upon human or machine sensors. Indirect evidence for postulated entities and their behavior means that there is no direct evidence. However, using defined scientific logic and the assumed behavior for the postulated entities that themselves cannot be directly observed, verified predictions are made in the behavior of other entities that can be directly observed. The major examples of where indirect evidence is a mainstay are atomic physics and early-history cosmology. [Plus Darwin's evolution theory is another prime example....].*** According to the author of the above -- the mathematician Robert A. Herrmann, "Metaphysical" (or "supernatural") is defined as "any entity that is not confined to material space and observer time." In general, such entities are considered to reside in realms "exterior" to any defined physical universe or universes. "Metaphysical processes are also not so confined, they are initiated by metaphysical entities and must employ procedures that are not defined as physical in character.""In physical science, a language is used to describe physical laws and physical behavior. The descriptions follow logical patterns that include classical logic, as well as certain modifications of classical logic and some aspects of universal logic. These patterns are termed as "scientific logic." For all that follows, a rational description is any description that satisfies such logical patterns. Although Marx and Engels suggested that other dialectical methods might be used, this has not occurred. Science communities could simply state, 'the metaphysical does not exist.'*** However, as so stated, they would be condemned for employing the unacceptable ad hoc method. Spurred on by the often-stated notion that metaphysical discourse is inherently irrational and scientific discourse is definably rational, scientific atheism and those philosophic systems that presupposed this belief system consider the following, explicit or implicit, hypothesis as irrefutable.
"Secular Hypothesis"Today, based upon aspects of "scientism," secular humanists, secular scientists, ... most atheists and even certain so-called theologians accept this secular hypothesis. Relative to human comprehension, they also accept the following axiom.
It is impossible to give a rational description that combines accepted human laws of behavior, physical laws or physical behavior based upon such laws with metaphysical concepts such as the behavior and attributes of a deity, the Christian concept of a higher intelligence, various Trinity notions, miracles, a metaphysical notion of 'evil' entities [or metaphysical influences of human thought], among others.
"Axiom of Physical Consistency
A description for any portion of reality is acceptable if and only if it is a rational description." [emphasis added]
But this is precisely what the secular hypothesis rejects. It stipulates that the scientific method should be applied in all fields of investigation whatever, and that "all meaningful questions can be answered by using a scientific method." The name for this presupposition is scientism, not science.
As Dr. Herrmann points out, scientism is a philosophical system with a hidden premise: that reason and logic can be applied to physical entities only. Dr. Herrmann characterizes this rationale as the consequence of "the extreme egotistical belief that given enough time the human mind will describe, via scientific logic, all important aspects of physical behavior, social behavior, etc., as well as 'explain' all observed phenomena using a scientific method."
That, to me, is like looking at reality through a preconceived filter that screens out more than it lets in.... The parts that are "filtered out" are still very much as real as the parts the scientific method can admit.
Giving Dr. Herrmann the last word: "From a purely abstract and unemotional viewpoint, it can be minimally stated that Christianity with its metaphysical component is just as 'real' as any scientific theory based upon mathematical models."
Just some food for thought....
Thanks for the ping Coyoteman!
The short answer: Logic and reason, the same "tests" that scientists use. Don't forget: the natural sciences are first-born of philosophy; the subdiscipline of epistemology is particularly strongly emphasized. (What do we know? How do we know it? How do we know we know it?)
Not correct. Science also uses evidence. It is very possible, even easy, to reach an erroneous conclusion using logic. Science takes this process to a higher level by introducing evidence into the equation whereby answers can be evaluated. (See Kettering's Law.) Philosophy seems to do its best in the absence of evidence.
The rest of your post is your usual effort to get the definition of science changed to include the metaphysical so you can claim scientific backing for your religious beliefs. Not interested. Try down the hall.
Evidence can be "spun" as surely as "logic" can be spun..
A few bones can be spun in a tale of fiction as surely as a meme of logic..
Tall tales of evolution "can happen" just as surely as religious tales of Gods miraclous events..
Scientific "purity" is a myth.. only believed by SciencBots..
Are you pure Dogman?... (shineing nails)...
One would not need to hate God, or even believe in God in order to believe that no such thing as wrong exists.
Even if one has no concept of God(And you can't hate what you don't have a concept of) but they believe with all their heart that all came to be by chance and that there is no moral lawgiver greater then man, the only logical position is that no such thing as wrong exists. What one man says is wrong another might say is just fine. Logically, the only rule is to preserve one's self and offspring -- in other words, the rule of the jungle: Don't get caught.
Not necessarily, though it's not quite what I meant in any case; there are very good societal reasons for ethics. "I don't rob you blind, because it's more profitable for me to do business with you for the next fifty years" - "I save your life, because it builds our relationship and gives you reason to save mine" - "I don't lie to you, because if we all know the truth, we're more likely to agree and there's less room to trip up" - these examples are slightly cartoonish, I admit, but they illustrate my point. While there are short-term benefits to all unethical action, when viewed from a community perspective, in the long term, acting ethically is usually the only reasonable course to action. Coincidentally, this is the same reason that it's difficult to create a truly evil and believable antagonist in fiction, unless one makes him stupid or insane - evil is not, by and large, a successful strategy. It creates too many enemies, and destroys too many otherwise useful assets.
I digress, though, from my original point, which is that evolution is not incompatible with God, and that most believers in evolution also believe in God. Presuming, for the sake of this argument, that macroevolution is true, then God made it so; God made all of the laws of the universe, after all. Why, then, wouldn't God have used the processes that he created to bring the various species into being? While I can respect that others have answers to that question that differ from my own, I prefer to believe that the easiest answer is that evolution existed precisely as a simple, elegant way of enacting his design, and that the proof is that he would not have otherwise made it possible. God, after all, has no unintended consequences.
Atheists consist of roughly ten percent of the population (in the US - it's higher elsewhere), while believers in evolution consist of roughly thirty to forty percent of the population (depending on which statistics you consult, what year you look at, and how you define evolution) - while it's safe to say that all of those ten percent believe in evolution, that still leaves billions of people who must reconcile their faith with evolution - I believe that most answer the question in the same way that I did, that God created this process with a deliberate design in mind, and made Evolution as a simple means to fulfill that end.
I only mentioned that because as I think about the issue I see that a person is presented with two contradictory stories ("In 6 days God created the heavens and the earth" vs "Long long ago, far far away, there was, for all practical purposes, nothing, and then it exploded") and they both require significant faith. So then it is perfectly logical to ask ones self which story is more likely true: The one which proves that no such thing as wrong exists, or the one who says that such a thing as wrong does exist.
I don't really see the stories as contradictory, to be honest; the sudden creation of massive amounts of matter, exploding in energy that give rise to the precise natural laws we need to survive looks to have fingerprints of divine intervention all over it, to me. Why, then, shouldn't I simply say God did it, and walk away? It's not as though scientists have an answer as to what ELSE it might have been.
(Though, to be fair, I view the events of billions of years ago to be of little concern to myself, and so haven't exactly looked into it much)
But my main point was that the evidence that the earth is billions of years old and that the big bang happened requires us to have faith in things which we did not see and which, in the case of the big bang, are now impossible.
My own main point was that the evidence that the Earth is billions of years old is persuasive when taken as a whole, and that there are fields with significant predictive success that would require a great deal of explanation as to why they were working, should the Earth truly be young (bar God having created a young earth with the appearance of age)... But that none of that requires belief in the Big Bang.
All the Big Bang really provides for (or such is my understanding; as I said before, this is nowhere near my field) is a reason why the universe is expanding - essentially, noting that all matter seems to be speeding away from a central point, and that for this to be true, a massive expansion must have taken place at that point. Literally almost anything could fill that void, and Big Bang is a simple label to attach to it, because sentences grow too long without one.
My point, which has already grown obscured, is that the universe can very easily be old without a Big Bang, so long as you provide another explanation as to why the universe is expanding; saying "God did it" might rub a few people the wrong way, but it's not rewriting much of science.
Herein I am not trying to prove ID or anything else -- I'm just trying to logically and honestly look at this big bang idea.
To be fair, I wasn't really trying to prove evolution, the Big Bang, or much of anything; I rather lack the expertise to any serious questions on those issues. I was just honestly a tad confused as to how you divided things between a hardcore naturalist and a disbelief in evolution and the big bang, when the vast majority who believe in those two concepts still place their ethical core in Christianity.
If you agree that it's possible and common for one person to believe in both Christianity and evolution/an old earth, then I really don't have much of a disagreement with you.
I think if we just asked people on the street whether the big bang was true, they would say yes. But if we asked them further, I'm betting that for the vast majority of them, it is a pure faith. They have chosen to believe in it and chosen to trust people that they don't know, about a thing that is physically impossible today, that nobody ever saw.
Well... To be fair, I suspect that almost everything people believe in these days is based on faith. The complexity of science, technology, and society have all risen to the point where one must spend years of research to really understand an issue for oneself, free from elements that would otherwise disprove it.
This is particularly true when you have unscrupulous people and organizations specifically contracting studies to obfuscate issues as a way to advance their own positions.
I further suspect that if you asked them the question "Would you care if the Big Bang were disproved?" that most of them, if they answered honestly, would say "no" - for most people, it's not an issue that affects them, or anything that they care about. Sadly, they'd probably say the same for things that really mattered...
I sure hope that somewhere, somebody knows it to a significantly better degree then as a mere faith. After all, it's being taught all over as fact to innocent schoolchildren.
Well, to be fair once again, if the amount of time spent teach astronomy is the same as it was when I was in school, it probably merited a sentence, at the most... And, if classrooms are as unruly today as they were then, most of the class probably missed it. And, well, of those left, most have probably already forgotten it once the test was over.
Of those who are left, you have those who earnestly care about knowledge, and will pursue answers on their own... Most of them will likely never care about the Big Bang, unless they go into a related field, and it's true that those will remember and probably never question it. Of those that do care... Well, they'll dig deeper. And maybe they'll find more supporting evidence, and maybe they'll find a different answer. But isn't that what the pursuit of knowledge is all about?
(quietly moves her soapbox away, but remains unable to find a less preachy way of ending the post)
You mean like radiometric dating? Based on circular reasoning? Where you use the method on recently formed rock and the test says that it is hundreds of thousands of years old?
Ah, well. While I must confess to finding this a tad disappointing, such is your right; I'll just have to demonstrate my sincerity at a later date.
Maybe more like relativity. That’s science isn’t it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.