Thought you might get a kick outta these:
>
Posted on 12/19/2003 7:47:15 AM PST by Mr. Silverback
G. K. Chesterton once told a story about "an English yachtsman who slightly miscalculated his course and discovered England under the impression that it was an island in the South Seas."
The yachtsman "landed (armed to the teeth and speaking by signs) to plant the British flag on that barbaric temple which turned out to be the pavilion at Brighton." Expecting to have discovered New South Wales, he realized "that it was really old South Wales."
Chesterton was talking about the way in which we cast off the truths we learned as children, only later, if we are fortunate, to rediscover them as adults. What we dismissed as "simple" often turns out to be far more profound than we ever imagined.
According to Stephen M. Barr, a theoretical particle physicist at the University of Delaware, what's true about people is also true about science. In his new book, MODERN PHYSICS AND ANCIENT FAITH, Barr tells us that after the "twists" and "turns" that science took in the twentieth century, it, like Chesterton's yachtsman, wound up in "very familiar surroundings": a universe that "seems to have had a beginning . . . [and is] governed by laws that have a grandeur and sublimity that bespeak design."
Instead of man being merely the result of a "fortuitous concourse of atoms," we now know that the "universe and its laws seem in some respect to balance on a knife's edge" -- exactly what is needed for the possibility of life. A slight deviation here or there, and we wouldn't exist -- the anthropic principle.
These and other "recent discoveries have begun to confound the materialist's expectations and confirm those of the believer in God," writes Barr.
Notice, he said "materialist's," not "scientist's." As Barr makes clear, sciences like modern physics can and must be separated from materialism. Materialism is the belief that nothing exists besides matter, and it is a philosophical opinion. It may have, as Barr puts it, "[grown] up alongside science," but it's not science. Remember that, a critical point.
The assumption that you have to take a materialist worldview in order to do science is simply wrong. There's nothing about physics, for example, that assumes, much less demands, that view of the universe. In fact, many of the greatest scientists, like Newton, Galileo, and Copernicus, were religious believers.
Despite these facts, philosophical materialism has become so identified with science that scientists, and the general public, often have trouble telling them apart, which is why the discoveries that Barr describes come as a surprise, and their implications are resisted by many within the academy.
These implications aren't inconsistent with science, but rather with their dogmatic materialist worldview. Resisting these implications has required ingenious, almost fanciful, attempts to interpret the evidence in a way consistent with the materialist worldview.
Tomorrow I'll tell you about some of these discoveries and how they have "damaged the credibility of materialism." It's an important story about how science, far from being the enemy of faith, is only at war with those who, against the evidence, insist that England is "Tahiti."
Sorry, but nothing's going to bump bat boy and the space alien.
“… a well-written and logically argued presentation on the relationship between religion and science … Barr makes both modern physics and theology understandable to the general reader. This is a worthy successor to P.C.W. Davies’s God and the New Physics … highly recommended.” —Library Journal
“[a] lucid and engaging survey of modern physics and its relation to religious belief. . . . Barr has produced a stunning tour de force . . . [a] scientific and philosophical breakthrough.” —National Review
“Written from the viewpoint of an accomplished physicist, this book is an invaluable contribution to the growing interest in the relationship between science and religion. The arguments are rigorously logical and the documentation is excellent.” –Robert Scherrer, Ohio State University
“ . . . an unusual and provocative affirmation of religious faith. Neither religiously sectarian nor technically daunting, this is a book that invites the widest range of readers to ponder the deepest kinds of questions.” —Booklist (starred review in March 2003 issue)
“The author's ability to explain complex scientific theory in an enlightening manner makes the book worth reading even for people who reject on its face any religion-versus-science debate. Skeptics will feel themselves pulled by the clarity and logic of Barr's discussions. His description of entropy, illustrated by how energy is dissipated by a rolling ball, is beautiful in its simplicity and hard-hitting in its conclusion." —ForeWord Magazine
Thought you might get a kick outta these:
>
You haven't answered my question about evidence that the process actually occurred or the testable hypothesis. I know soft tissues aren't in fossils etc.
In any event, is each of those intermediate steps found at a more advanced stage corresponding to organisms known to be older in the evolutionary chain than the ones with more primitive "eyes"?
Because everything is matter, right? That's why the theory is called materialism. If there is supposed to be something besides matter in motion, let me know. I've found very few materialists who are rigorous about their materialist reductionism. 98% are selective reductionists.
Of course, this theory has nothing to do with reality. We have to speculate about what a strictly material universe would be like.
Truth is the adequation of thought and reality.
Do you agree?
I don't see how that helps to explain how the woodpecker's tongue came to wrap over and around its skull. The anchor point of the woodpecker's tongue is in the back of its mouth, like most other animal tongues.
I don't know what that means.
Truth is the adequation of thought and reality.
But the following questions arise. Does this constitute "science"? And, does a mechanism exist making such morphological changes possible?
The problem with evolutionary theory boils down to the following. Either evolution happened gradually or in giant leaps.
The former theory contradicts the fossil record, which overwhelmingly shows stasis in species. (No illustrations here. The fossil record is factual.)
On the other hand, if evolution happened in giant leaps, a plausible mechanism for explaining such change must be provided. There is none.
If that's the definition you want to go with for your argument, feel free.
Now try to explain how your reasoning (I'm using the term generously) in post #56 accords with your above definition. While *specifically adopting the premise that materialism was true*, you claimed that between the two thoughts, "materialism is false" and "materialism is true", that "Neither assertion can be more or less true than the other."
Care to pull the other leg now?
By your own definition of "truth", only *one* of those assertions is true, and the other is plainly untrue.
As I said before, "nice try". That was when you started waving your hands and asking, "what is truth?".
Do you agree?
Don't look at me, the subject is the definition of "truth" that *you* were working from when you made the line of argument in post #56.
But by your own chosen definition of truth, you not only don't get yourself off the hook for post #56, you actually set the hook deeper.
Philosophy. The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.
That's not just my opinion, that's reality. Do you have a different definition? If we can't agree on the definition of the terms it will be logically impossible to proceed any further.
Besides, science implicitly depends upon this definition. If you reject it, you'll be sawing off the metaphorical branch that you're sitting on.
Now try to explain how your reasoning (I'm using the term generously) in post #56 accords with your above definition. While *specifically adopting the premise that materialism was true*, you claimed that between the two thoughts, "materialism is false" and "materialism is true", that "Neither assertion can be more or less true than the other." Care to pull the other leg now?
This is why we need to define terms. In reality, using the real definition of truth, that truth is the adequation of thought and reality, then two contradictory statements cannot both be true.
But if one assumes for the sake of argument that we live in a strictly material universe, then necessarily there would exist no basis for determining the "truth" of contradictory statements.
Yet we live in a universe where we can know with certainty that two contradictory statements cannot both be true. Therefore, we do not live in a strictly material universe.
By your own definition of "truth", only *one* of those assertions is true, and the other is plainly untrue.
Precisely. I'm NOT a materialist. I'm a moderate realist. The is a problem for materialists, because if everything is reducible to colliding atoms (which must be the case in their theoretical universe), then there would exist no basis from which to judge whether any statement conforms with reality.
As I said before, "nice try". That was when you started waving your hands and asking, "what is truth?".
The definition of truth is not tangential. Logically, terms must be defined before logical propositions can be made and reasoning can proceed.
So I ask again, how do you define truth?
Don't look at me, the subject is the definition of "truth" that *you* were working from when you made the line of argument in post #56.
Why are you afraid to define truth? Do you believe that truth exists? Certainly you must since you're arguing with me. So why then are you so reluctant to define it?
I don't see how that helps to explain how the woodpecker's tongue came to wrap over and around its skull.
This was all covered in the links I provided for you in post #62 -- did you not bother to read them?
The anchor point of the woodpecker's tongue is in the back of its mouth, like most other animal tongues.
Hint #1: The anchor point of the hyoid apparatus which supports the tongue and powers its movement (in birds), and the anchor point of the muscular part of the tongue proper, are two different things.
Hint #2: The creationist writers who are baffled about the anatomy of the woodpecker's tongue aren't aware of the distinction.
Hint #3: But their ignorance doesn't stop them from triumphantly waving it around as a "disproof" of evolution anyway.
Again, this was all covered in the links I provided for you. I provided them expecting you to read them.
I am reminded of the proverb about leading horses to water.
Oookay...
Do you have a different definition? If we can't agree on the definition of the terms it will be logically impossible to proceed any further.
Nonsense -- it is entirely possible to point out that *your* definition is or is not logically consistent with your argument, whether I agree with the definition or not.
[Ich. wrote:] Now try to explain how your reasoning (I'm using the term generously) in post #56 accords with your above definition. While *specifically adopting the premise that materialism was true*, you claimed that between the two thoughts, "materialism is false" and "materialism is true", that "Neither assertion can be more or less true than the other." Care to pull the other leg now?
[Aqu. wrote:] This is why we need to define terms.
You already defined your term (post #109). And I pointed out that by your own definition, your argument in post #56 falls flat.
In reality, using the real definition of truth, that truth is the adequation of thought and reality, then two contradictory statements cannot both be true.
Fine, but that's not where the fault lies in your argument, so don't try to divert attention over to another point entirely.
But if one assumes for the sake of argument that we live in a strictly material universe, then necessarily there would exist no basis for determining the "truth" of contradictory statements.
Once again, I must point out that this claim of yours is unsupportable, *even* using (in fact, *especially* using) your own chosen definition of "truth".
Let me try it again in small words, maybe you'll grasp it this time: By your own definition of "truth", if "we live in a strictly material universe", then there most certainly *IS* a "basis for determining the 'truth'" of the "contradictory statements" (A = "materialism is false", B = !A = "materialism is true"). And that basis is the observation that B ("materialism is true") is the one that "adequates thought and reality", whereas A ("materialism is not true") doesn't.
Piece o' cake.
So by what bizarre thought process do you conclude that there would be "no basis" for resolving which one was true and which was not?
Yet we live in a universe where we can know with certainty that two contradictory statements cannot both be true.
Thank you, Mister Obvious.
[Ich. wrote:] By your own definition of "truth", only *one* of those assertions is true, and the other is plainly untrue.
[Aqu. wrote:] Precisely.
Thank you. So stop making bizarre statements like "Neither assertion can be more or less true than the other" or "necessarily there would exist no basis for determining the 'truth'" -- they're just foolish.
because if everything is reducible to colliding atoms (which must be the case in their theoretical universe), then there would exist no basis from which to judge whether any statement conforms with reality.
[Ronald Reagan voice:] "There you go again..."
One. More. Time. By your *OWN* definition of truth, there most certainly *IS* a basis by which to judge "whether any statement conforms with reality". Not surprisingly, the method is *comparing* it with reality.
Okay, fine, I'll bite: How does this differ from the way that "moderate realists" determine the truth of a statement? If someone says "the sky is blue", do you a) read the Bible in the hopes that it has made a declaration on the topic, b) wring your hands and declare "this can be neither more nor less true than the statement that the sky is not blue", or c) do exactly what any materialist would do and go out and *look* to verify whether the sky is or is not actually blue in order to determine the veracity of the declaration?
In short, praytell, how does your allegedly non-materialist reality resolve things any differently than the materialist version (which you declare is unworkable)?
The definition of truth is not tangential. Logically, terms must be defined before logical propositions can be made and reasoning can proceed.
Then maybe you should have defined them *before* you used them, instead of *after* I had identified the flaw in your "logic" and you were hunting for some side issue to quibble about in order to avoid having to go "oops".
Why are you afraid to define truth? Do you believe that truth exists? Certainly you must since you're arguing with me. So why then are you so reluctant to define it?
Yawn. Yet again you are attempting to place *your* failure to accord *your* argument with *your* own definition in *my* lap somehow. I'm not going to let you do it.
*Your* argument is inconsistent and flawed. It remains so no matter *what* definitions I may personally prefer, and your badgering is simply a red herring.
...keeping in mind that the Bible even predicted that, despite the inarguable proof of its Truth, there would be many (like you) who would still flail pointlessly against even the most obvious of facts...
You yourself are fulfillment of much Biblical prophecy. :-)
Merry Christmas, Vade.
Yes it does.
And, does a mechanism exist making such morphological changes possible?
Yes.
The problem with evolutionary theory boils down to the following. Either evolution happened gradually or in giant leaps.
You left out "small leaps", along with a number of other possibilities.
The former theory contradicts the fossil record,
AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
In a word, "no".
which overwhelmingly shows stasis in species.
This is *grossly* misleading. The only question is whether you actually believed you were giving a fair description of the fossil record, or whether you were aware of the magnitude of your misrepresentation. That is not a rhetorical question, I expect an answer.
(No illustrations here.
No sources or citations either, I notice.
The fossil record is factual.)
The fossil record is factual, pretty much by definition. Your description of it, however, is not.
Jesus teaches even you that none can know the date and time, and anyone who suggests the opposite is doing Satan's work. However, He did want all to be generally aware of the "age" in which He would fulfill His promised return, and He listed many signs of that age, some of which I paraphrased above here.
All of those have now come true, three remain as-yet un-filled.
...I doubt if there has been a century in the last 2000 years in which serious people didn't see end times on the near horizon.
There could exist no past century since His promised return during which His Glorious Reappearing did not loom on the horizon. "Soon" is a relative term, especially to The One Who has been since before He formed the foundations of the earth, and the stars in the heavens.
Their analyses are on the scrap heap, just as yours will be pretty soon.
I pray that you get lucky enough to be correct about at least this one thing, and that my "analyses" are soon on the "scrap heap." I pray for where yours will be then... and forever thereafter.
Merry Christmas to you and yours. :-)
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.