Posted on 02/04/2014 4:00:56 PM PST by Zeneta
What is called “science” today behaves exactly like the church did before the Rennaissance.
It is even more hypocritical, for it takes positions of theory and presents them as absolute, incontrovertible fact. It stands that its understanding is unassailable.
And yet, every year, science itself discovers that hundreds of its positions on fact - are, in fact - wrong! It continually, with new information, discovers where it has been totally wrong in its positions and views.
And yet - it is never humbled by its new discoveries that disprove previous “truths”. It never “repents” of having taught that which it learns is not true. It forever maintains its arrogance that its current views are absolute.
True science is always admitting it may be wrong. It is not like math, where 2 + 2 always = 4. It tests, retests, and retests - and is open to new discovery.
That today’s science is absolute on its current understandings proves that it is far more like a cultic religion than true science. It condemns, criticizes and condemns opponents to its views in no less a degree than the church of the Inquisition.
Former public shool science teacher......
You mean the science lies such as Global Warming, Acid Rain, DDT scare, Ozone Hole growing, Spotted Owl and Evolution. Which side spends its entire time lying?
Pray America is Waking
Bill Nye - “Noah was a simple man.”
He’s obviously never heard of Archimedes.
It was recently pointed out that only about 3% of the biological cell, which has been likened to the almost unending complexity of a vast city, is currently understood by scientists. Do you seriously believe that this almost incomprehensible level of complexity - and purposeful design - is wholly the product of blind chance?
If we were walking in a forest and came across a wristwatch lying on the ground, and if I exclaimed that here arose a most marvelous confluence of natural forces, i.e, lightning, combining with and just the right proportion of minerals, etc., to produce such an artifact, you would consider me to be insane.
To assert that infinite complexity and design arises totally spontaneously is contrary to reason. I challenge you to have the courage to resist the atheistic attack on the Divine act of Creation.
Amen!
Excellent post - especially the part about how dogmatic "science" is never humbled...
He should have been more specific. We can't have scientific advancement in the biological sciences without using the theory of evolution. Probably, there are areas of physics where understanding evolution is not necessary for discovery.
Creationist con men are very slick, and very good at what they do.
I read an opinion piece a while back discussing why scientists should never engage creationists on the creationists' terms. The scientists enter these debates thinking that since they have facts and logic on their side, the debate should be a cake walk. They are unprepared for the fact that the creationist cares nothing for facts, evidence, and logic--he is there to make the scientist look like a bumbling fool in front of an audience that is utterly (and willfully) scientifically illiterate.
This opinion piece did point out that there are ways to make the debate less one-sided, but no creationist has ever agreed to a debate with fair terms and conditions.
My opinion, as an educated scientist, is that creationists do more harm to Christianity than any atheist could ever do. To be absolutely clear: Creationism is separate from Christianity. The Christian tradition actually embraces the advancement of human knowledge.
Yes, I'm a creationist. Don't expect to change anybody's mind about it. Just decided for myself when I believed that Christ was born of a virgin, died for my sins, and read the account of creation in Genesis and Matthew that he must be God alright. It's my choice and I see no reason to get in somebody's face about it.
I'm sorry I forgot to include the qualifier "conman" after "creationist." People like Ken Ham, Duane Gish, Kent Hovind, Michael Behe, etc., are absolute conmen who manipulate and lie to people. They are scum. They make Christians look stupid, and are more damaging to Christianity than any atheist could ever be.
To be clear: I consider "Creationism" as a separate religion from "Christianity." It may have a few superficial similarities to Christianity, but it is *NOT* the same thing.
For someone who claims to have been a public school science teacher, you show absolutely no understanding of what a scientific theory is. In science, a theory is the framework that provides the logical framework for the observed data. It both explains existing data and provides a framework in which to devise testable hypotheses. Theories are always being refined over time as new evidence is revealed by hypothesis testing--that is how science works. The fact that a theory is constantly being updated does not mean it is wrong.
Recently pointed out by whom? Did you read that in the scientific literature, or was that one of the untruths constantly invented by some creationist conman at Answers in Genesis or similar website?
Hint: no matter how scientific the words they use look, you will not find any true science discussed by The Discovery Institute, Institute for Creation Research (which does no scientific research), etc. If you are truly interested in science, there is a plethora of resources that provide real scientific information.
Despite what any of those con websites claim, we actually do understand quite well how cells work.
Come on. Ken Ham a con man? Dinosaurs were once vegetarians and peacefully frolicked with humans 6,000 years ago before “sin” and the “flood”. Heck there were even dinosaurs on the Ark. Ken Ham says so therefore it must be true. / s
I am not a creationist (though I am a Christian) and thought the debate was painful to watch. That being said, the Discovery Institute is not a Creationist organization or even specific to Christianity. Intelligent design is not creationism, nor is it a religious position. It is the application of design theory to the natural and living world.
As for science or research - from the new intelligent design research lab, there was discussion of two technical articles published in the Journal of Molecular Biology by protein scientist Doug Axe (for abstracts, see here and here). As the New Scientist acknowledged, funding for the research underlying these peer-reviewed articles was provided by Discovery Institute's research fellowship program--thus disproving the twin canards that Discovery Institute does not support scientific research, and that pro-ID scientists do not publish peer-reviewed research.
For more ID papers see HERE or HERE
Excerpt from Pulitzer Prize-winning author Daniel Walker Howe’s What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1844, p. 464:
As this chapter is written in the early twenty-first century, the hypothesis that the universe reflect intelligent design has provoked a bitter debate in the United States. How very different was the intellectual world of the early nineteenth century! Then, virtually everyone believed in intelligent design. Faith in the rational design of the universe underlay the world-view of the Enlightenment, shared by Isaac Newton, John Locke, and the American Founding Fathers. Even the outspoke critics of Christianity embraced not atheism but deism, that is, belief in an impersonal, remote deity who had created the universe and designed it so perfectly that it ran along of its own accord, following natural laws without need for further divine intervention. The common used expression “the book of nature” referred to the universal practice of viewing nature as a revelation of God’s power and wisdom. Christians were fond of saying that they accepted two divine revelations: the Bible and the book of nature. For desists like Thomas Paine, the book of nature alone sufficed, rendering what he called the “fables” of the Bible superfluous. The desire to demonstrate the glory of God, whether deist or – more commonly – Christian, constituted one of the principal motivations for scientific activity in the early republic, along with national pride, the hope for useful applications, and, of course, the joy of science itself.
I stand by my statement that not only are theories fine-tuned as you say - they are also proven totally wrong.
I do understand the whole theory thing, but didn’t want to spend the time & trouble detailing all of it....
Your religion appears to be closer to Gaia worship of the Earth rather than Christianity. While seemingly unwilling to attribute Creation to the divine act of God, you have no problem attributing direct creative acts to "Mother Nature". You write elsewhere (yeah, I like to know a little about the person I am addressing): "She should be irate with Mother Nature for making us this way. For making men big and strong ... for making women smaller ... so that nature can compel them into caring for (children). Nature does not care what we do with our lives..."
Really? You attribute creative acts to "Mother Nature" as if "she" possessed intelligence and has "designed" men and women, etc. Sounds very much like the "Intelligent design" that you ridicule. So Intelligent Design makes perfect sense after all - so long as it is not Biblical?
You would do well to, as the old fishermen used to say, "fish or cut bait." Either stop being ashamed of, and denying, the central understanding of God as Creator, or quit pretending you are Christian.
You quote Bible verses on your "about" page, apparently in an authoritative sense, yet you deny a fundamental understanding of God that is taught very clearly throughout the Scriptures. Jesus spoke of those who "choke on a gnat but swallow a camel..."
Your Ph.D. is obviously not in cell biology, because if it were, you would be aware that our understanding of cell morphology has exploded in recent years, and we now realize the almost infinite complexity of the cell - and how much more there is yet to learn. (No, I did not read this on any - what you sneeringly call "con artist" - Creationist site). Full disclosure: I also have an earned Ph.D. - in theology.
I am not interested, and have no time for, pointless argumentation. I have spoken my peace, and you will forgive me if I do not respond further. I wish you the best - but we can only expect God's blessings if we stand for His truth:
We read in Genesis: "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."
Our Lord states: "“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’?"
Note that Jesus affirms God as Creator. Jesus also warned: "Whoever is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels."
Thank you for the reply.
How would an evolutionist define "Christianity"? I think I gather you are a Christian and an evolutionist, and maybe could answer my question.
Thanks in advance if you are able to respond.
I don’t care if you believe in your view of Biblical Literalism and YEC; in a 6,000 year old Earth; that all dinosaurs were once vegetarians and peacefully co-existed with humans and were present on the Ark; that starlight was created by God so that it became visible to us under some sort of trick of time and so as to bend the known laws of physics to allow for the fact that such light is coming from a very long distance, 13 billion light years away; that there is no such thing as plate tectonics, that all the continents were in their present position since the creation of the Earth; that the Grand Canyon proves YEC; that radiometric dating is a lie (and if you live anywhere near a nuclear facility, you better hope that it isn’t); and other such complete and utter nonsense that Ken Ham and other creationists claim and push on their websites.
I don’t care if that is what you “believe”, what you want to preach from your pulpit, what you choose to teach your children in your Sunday schools, in your church run parochial schools, home schools or at home. Be my guest. And FWIW, I fully support and defend your right to believe whatever you want. You can also believe that vaccinations cause autism, that all disease is the result of sin and the cure is to just pray harder, that organic foods are better for you, that GMO foods are harmful, in homeopathy, in demonic possession as the cause of mental illness …..and on and on and on. I am not saying that you believe in all these things BTW but I’ve seen enough over the years to know that people who don’t believe in an old earth, those who believe in young Earth Creationism, also buy into a lot of other unscientific nonsense.
And I won’t get into all the reasons why creationist claims are bad scientifically - there is already much to prove that it is. My problem is that these arguments always boil down to the Christian Biblical interpretations of the YEC’ers, their particular and rather small but very vocal subset of Evangelical Christianity and that they hold the position that if “you don’t believe what we believe, then you are a “bad Christian” a “false” or “lapsed” Christian, a “Gia Worshipper” or a closet Atheist”. Those are religious arguments, not scientific arguments.
Teaching creationism in public schools will allow some teachers who are YEC’s to not only teach bad science but then also call into question the religious beliefs of their students and their families and evangelize their faith over the faith of others. And yes, I absolutely get that teaching actual science to students threatens the beliefs of the YEC’s and that public schools also teach a lot of PC crap now days, but that doesn’t make that any more right than what the YEC’ers are pushing. But teaching Biblical literal creationism in the science classroom is teaching religion, and a small subset of religion at that and it has nothing to do with science. I am all for teaching religion in schools in say “comparative religion” classes, in letting students and teachers with similar POV to have their clubs and discussion groups outside of the classroom if they choose but teaching YEC in the classroom is the same IMO as outwardly teaching Hinduism, Mormonism, Buddhism, Judaism, Islamism, Wiccanism, Catholicism, Zoroastrianism in the science classroom. If the Judeo-Christian creation story should get equal time in the name of “fairness” in the science classroom then shouldn’t the creation stories of Norse religion also be given equal time?
You question exDemMom’s credentials as a working scientist, someone working daily in the field of cell biology, you even question her Ph.D. while proudly proclaiming your Ph.D. – “in theology”. If you can question hers, then why shouldn’t I be able to question your credentials?
I am not interested, and have no time for, pointless argumentation. I have spoken my peace, and you will forgive me if I do not respond further.
That sums it up pretty well: “I am not interested”.
Courts have ruled that ID is a form of creationism, and have thus disallowed its being taught in school science classes. Without getting into too much detail, I'll just say that ID was invented to put a scientific veneer on creationism. In reality, neither ID nor creationism have any scientific basis, and their resemblance to anything in the Bible is fairly thin, as well.
The articles you linked by Doug Axe are only available for a price from ScienceDirect. I found him as an author of 9 articles indexed in PubMed, of which 2 are free access. One of them predates his association with the Discovery Institute, but with the other, I was able to see that he is funded by Discovery Institute, through their "Biologic Institute." The research done at the Biologic Institute seems limited (very few researchers and limited labspace is my impression), but, as far as I can tell, is pretty standard research which fits into everything we know about evolution.
I am a Christian, and I am familiar with the various creeds. As a rule, I do not discuss religion in public places.
Your religion appears to be closer to Gaia worship of the Earth rather than Christianity. While seemingly unwilling to attribute Creation to the divine act of God, you have no problem attributing direct creative acts to "Mother Nature". You write elsewhere (yeah, I like to know a little about the person I am addressing): "She should be irate with Mother Nature for making us this way. For making men big and strong ... for making women smaller ... so that nature can compel them into caring for (children). Nature does not care what we do with our lives..."
Really? You attribute creative acts to "Mother Nature" as if "she" possessed intelligence and has "designed" men and women, etc. Sounds very much like the "Intelligent design" that you ridicule. So Intelligent Design makes perfect sense after all - so long as it is not Biblical?
I have nothing but contempt for those who elevate the earth--an inanimate object--to the level of a deity and worship it. Nature has been personified for as long as humans have recorded history (and probably before then, although we cannot know that); using the personified term to refer to the physical forces that shaped human evolution to make us what we are is hardly a religious statement. Especially in the context of that particular thread, where I was commenting about some young man-hating "feminist" who was blaming all of her personal problems on men, when her real issue is with the biological characteristics of our species.
Your Ph.D. is obviously not in cell biology, because if it were, you would be aware that our understanding of cell morphology has exploded in recent years, and we now realize the almost infinite complexity of the cell - and how much more there is yet to learn. (No, I did not read this on any - what you sneeringly call "con artist" - Creationist site). Full disclosure: I also have an earned Ph.D. - in theology.
You would be wrong about my PhD. As a biochemist, I am very aware of how cells function--how they make biomolecules, how they make energy, how they grow and eat and crawl around, etc., etc. It is a lot of knowledge, all packed away in my head. I have grown millions, if not billions, of cells for research. And, interestingly, I talk about those cells as if they were aware, sentient beings--much in the same way that I referred to "Mother Nature"--even though I am very aware that those cells have absolutely no awareness and only respond to chemical signals. My personification of inanimate objects stems from the human desire to personify everything--to see human faces wherever we look.
If I will be honest, I see creationism as being little different than Gaia worship. Like Gaia worship (or Paganism), Creationism elevates the physical world to divine status.
Well that settles it then... The courts get everything correct. But seriously, don't ignore the other links provided for many other peer-reviewed articles and research. Do you subscribe to the alternative to ID?
Consider this, to remove any ‘creator’ from our very existence including the beginning of our universe is to remove any ‘thought or intelligence’ from the equation. By definition, you are ultimately left with an existence from stupidity.
…that if we would maintain the value of our highest beliefs and emotions, we must find for them a congruous origin. Beauty must be more than accident. The source of morality must be moral. The source of knowledge must be rational.How do you explain mindlessness ultimately creating human consciousness?
- Sir Arthur Balfour
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.