Posted on 03/13/2004 11:53:26 AM PST by js1138
The rest of your post confirms the truth of this statement. The puzzle that needs to be assembled is not the world itself, but a useful explanation or description of how it works. It is the description that is the puzzle, not the object of the description.
So yes, you do ask the wrong questions.
to the fact itself.
But this ought to be a question of scope, as I indicated in reply #10 to the idea that scientific knowledge must limited to the natural world: scientific knowledge must be based on evidence, be predictive, logical, subject to modification and limited to the natural world. The question of scope suggests these problems: does the concept of universe exceed the limit of the natural world? Is the assumption of universe not warranted by the concept the natural world? Or, moving from space to time, is the dilineation of fields of inquiry justified over time? Are no limits to time?
The dilineation of scope is the most problematic issue here, so problematic that it will result in politics, IDist or no IDist.
And I say that an ID experiment IS credible!
Zap it, heat it, cool it, irradiate it, get it wetter, drier, hungrier or leaner: your choice.
I could be remembering wrong by now. You were on these threads a lot for a while 3(?) or so years ago but details get hazy.
No. The only point that you've made is that belief in Greek gods didn't hinder scientific inquiry either. The point was made in this thread that ID hinders scientific inquiry. Between my list of Christian scientists and your list of Greek discoveries, I'd say we've proven that religion in general doesn't limit scientific inquiry. However there are particular religions such where scientific inquiry is shunned or considered irrelevant. Christianity and the proponents of ID are not one of those.
Jehovah doesn't get credit for Newton's work, Newton does. That Newton was both Jehovah's work and was studying Jehovah's work, does not matter. Anymore than Aristotle, thinking he was Zeus's work when he was actually Jehovah's.
What experiment would that be?
How much theological baggage did these guys bring to the table? Very little, if any, I suppose. What purpose would it serve?
Wrong in both cases. Socrates was sentenced to death for "impiety." And Galileo was convicted of heresy and locked up for the last seven years of his life. These are only the most famous cases. There were others.
Scientists are quite sensitive to such things. Which is why they are quick to resist anti-rational movements like creationism and ID. They know what it's all about, even if most of the followers of creationism and ID haven't a clue.
Bosh. Both go together, and both are characterized by intelligent design. You speak as if you've made a bold distinction, but you haven't. Besides, the world as it exists has far more evidence of intelligent design that a scientist's meager efforts to understand and sketch it out.
No, I don't ask the wrong questions. You make the wrong assumptions.
And so does the appearance of God...
|
Ruth 2:12
May the LORD repay you for what you have done. May you be richly rewarded by the LORD, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to take refuge." Psalms 17:8-9
8. Keep me as the apple of your eye; hide me in the shadow of your wings 9. from the wicked who assail me, from my mortal enemies who surround me. Psalms 36:7
How priceless is your unfailing love! Both high and low among men find refuge in the shadow of your wings. Psalms 57:1
Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me, for in you my soul takes refuge. I will take refuge in the shadow of your wings until the disaster has passed.
Psalms 61:4
I long to dwell in your tent forever and take refuge in the shelter of your wings. Selah Psalms 63:7
Because you are my help, I sing in the shadow of your wings. Psalms 91:4
He will cover you with his feathers, and under his wings you will find refuge; his faithfulness will be your shield and rampart. Matthew 23:37
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. |
As does the other fields too. No doubt that's because history needs a few years to determine which scientists stand the test of time and were truly great. I have every confidence that in 2200 we will be looking back at scientists from this era and there will be people who were considered heretics in their field who will be in the list of truly greats.
After Darwin, the list of working biologists who question commmon descent shrinks to virtually none, even among ID proponents.
Well here is some. I don't know that most biologists are on record as to what they believe. I do know that there are many in the Medical field who believe in God and the power of prayer.
Not the Olympians per se, but certainly gods, resulting in architectonic and systematic thought. Greek thinking is permeated with the ideas of cosmos or universe. The divine name changes from Zeus to Logos for the Stoics. And the Stoicism was a favorite of Enlightenment thought.
IDer's stand back and see a big picture, and say, "That piece doesn't look right there."
The "E" person will say, "Why not? It fits, so it MUST be right!"
(And.... you can up your page count...)
Oh?
It's considered proper etiquette to cite your sources. (So says PatrickHenry )
The next two sentences are perhaps literally true but are hollow as "challenges."
HMmmm.. perhaps.... Can something bee TRUE and NOT be 'literally' true?
There is no controversy in science over the shape of the earth.
No and there hasn't been much controversy historically either. As a link I believe I sent you earlier pointed out that the church has been wrongly accused and never supported a flat earth view. But this was a view promoted by evolutionists in the late 1800's and early 1900's as a way of discrediting the church.
There is no controversy in science over the age of the earth or the age of the universe; at least nothing that would change accepted numbers by more than 10 percent.
I beg to differ. There are scientists who question the assumptions underlying dating methods. That you refuse to acknowledge them does not mean that there is not a controversy, it simply means that you wish to ignore the controversy and have the world adopt a groupthink mentality that agrees with your world view.
There is no controversy in science over the geologic column
Again, I disagree. There are scientists who disagree with the geologic column. This whole thread touches on this. How can you say there is no controversy. Wishful thinking.
There is no controversy in science over common descent.
Absolutely there is controversy over common descent. Again this thread is proof. Only in your super narrowly defined world of science is there no controversy.
There is no controversy over the age of fossils, give or take about five percent.
Yes there is controversy. There is controversy over the assumptions underlying dating methods. There is no way to know how often different dating methods do not correlate. And there is bias built into the dating game used by scientists.
There is no controversy in science over the constancy of the speed of light.
Actually there is still some very small controversy over this. I saw an article published this year that was again questioning this, from yet another angle.
There is nothing in science that points to a coding function for 95 percent of human DNA.
This is the one that you have already mentioned has been questioned by someone you trust and I appreciate your honesty in mentioning that. But I will go ahead and add, that in addition to finding function for some of the code previously thought about as junk. That all of the "junk" code seems to play a part in cell size and definition. Without that "junk" DNA, we might be very different creatures if we were viable at all.
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.