Posted on 08/04/2005 6:47:03 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback
That is why scientific theory suffers from lack of vision...it assumes that any theory that would provide a path to the truth must be at its heart falsifiable.
Modern science assumes that any theory relying on tautologous assumptions are themselves automatically false paths and not to be considered as true science. This is where science has become blinded. Modern logic dictates that tautologies can neither BE PROVEN TRUE OR FALSE. Logic DOES NOT dictate that tautological arguements are FALSE simply because they are not falsifiable.
Scientific vision is enhanced when the experimenter is open to those undefinable tautologous "guesses"(though politically the experimenter dare not call them such), that while not supported in theory, nevertheless lead the experimenter into new realms of discovery. These discoveries force science to be redefined by the expanded parameters of such new knowledge. Much of Science unfortunately has degenerated into the "art" of description of reality with no new root sciences being developed in over a century(I said ROOT sciences, not branches of existing realms).
Nicolai Tesla would not have had any support if he existed in this modern scientific era...I'll bet neither would Einstein...especially Einstein...he talked about God too much...even theoretically!
There are areas where evolutionary processes can, and must, explain the physical world. I am speaking of evolutionism as a whole explaining the world and where it came from. While some evolutionists would deny altogether that evolutionism has ahything to do with such a point of view, in point of fact this is how evolutionist teaching manifests itself in elementary and jr. high science textbooks and classrooms.
Should we propose that an Intelligent Binder must be holding the particles in the nucleus together?
When science is faced with an inexplicable force related to particle physics it posits a new particle. It cannot do otherwise, even if it would care to ascribe intelligence to either the particle or the force holding it together. When science goes on to say this phenomena is, or is not, the product of an intelligent agent, it oversteps its bounds and launches into philosophy.
When evolution starts being able to predict how the gene pool will evolve in the future and having those predictions come true, it will assume the status most evolatriasts claim for it now. Until then, you find "pre"dictions of patterns that have occured in the past. For some reason, evolatriatsts don't understand why predicting the past is less convincing to us than predicting the future.
The biblical texts have the Creator as their Author, while other accounts are stories spun out of the imagination of man. The biblical texts also describe the events of creation in a more detailed, matter of fact way; a way that can be, and has been (at least in regard to the results) corroborated both by personal obervation and science. Furthermore, they represent the eyewitness testimony of those who were present as the first created humans.
I bet there's some pretty good creation theories out there!
There are some pretty good fairy tales, too. Pretty good books. Pretty good movies. But "pretty good" doesn't cut it when dealing with the origin and destination of the world and mankind. It's the truth that matters.
I'm not sure what you mean by "definitively shown"; I know that hominid remains have been progressively dated via radiometric dating, et.al.
Evolutionary theory's strength lies in its ability to predict. The discovery of many links of hominid skulls showing a structural progression is one many examples where its predictive ability has been shown.
That's all science can do; make predictions, not explain why we are here and who put us here. Evolution remains the mainstream theory of origins because it continues to successfully predict what we observe. I can't prove the earth wasn't suddenly created 6000 years ago with the appearance of evolution & age, but this isn't a idea that makes any useful predictions, so it isn't scientific.
Excellent point. I have yet to see an evolutionist admit to the tautological foundations with which they operate, though they are willing and able to point out those on the other side and cry out, "Fairy tale!" Either way, I am confident the evidence will, by and large, fit the foundations upon which the observer places himself.
For some reason I think you're right. But they would not put it so crassly. It's predicting "what will be found" in the historic record that allows certain folks to palm off reasonable conjecture as if it were pure science.
By your logic, meteorology isn't a science because we can't accurately predict the weather a month from now. I guess we should get rid of weather forecasters and attribute hurricanes and blizzards to divine will.
Until then, you find "pre"dictions of patterns that have occured in the past. For some reason, evolatriatsts don't understand why predicting the past is less convincing to us than predicting the future.
Science is all about predicting future findings of data describing the past, present and future, and hopefully applying it to a meaningful use. Some examples of predictions made by evolutionary theory and a better explanation can be found here.
And yes, evolutionary theory has made useful predictions about biological systems & biochemistry in humans and other living things that have turned out true - its predictions go quite beyond what new fossils will be found.
And what the hell is an "evolatriast"? That's not a term I'm familiar with.
Ah, but the bible is a book, heavily and repeatedly edited. And many of the events in the bible are second-hand accounts. And an account like 'on the second day, God created the stars and planets' is *not* detailed, it's laughably vague! The bible is fine for philosophy and theology. It's completely useless and irrelevant for science.
I agree. Evolutionary theory makes no statements, pro or con, as to whether or not observable phenomena are ultimately the product of an intelligent agent.
Evolutionary theory is well-supported by physical evidence, makes predictions, and has never been falsified. No competing theory of origins has come close to its level of success in these regards. (If one has, I'd certainly like to know about it.)
From a scientific standpoint, yes, but only small portions on a small scale.
You've inadvertently switched from "blbical texts" to the bible as "a book." I prefer to address them as texts authored and inspired by the Creator, and as such, they have not been "heavily and repeatedly edited." They have been been faithfully copied and preserved, much more than any other written texts. Not only so, but those who respect their authority have taken great pains to leave them alone and let them say what the original Author intends.
While not intended as detailed scientific texts, they do lay down a terrific foundation upon which science can operate. The fact is, unless the universe were intelligently designed and filled with intelligent beings, there would be no such thing as science. I doubt the Creator is amused by those who, in the name of science, deny His gift of an intelligently designed creation.
Got any hard evidence for that? Evidence giving them preference over, say, the Koran?
The fact is, unless the universe were intelligently designed and filled with intelligent beings, there would be no such thing as science.
If by 'Science', you mean the systematic process of trying to discover the processes and order governing the behavior of the universe, then it certainly doesn't require an Intelligent Designer.
And I don't really care whether *your* presumed creator is amused or not. :^)
ping
Scientific findings, as published in all relevant mainstream journals and literature, also support macroevolution.
A small sample: 29 Evidences for Macroevolution
It is considered the mainstream scientific theory of origins for good reasons. Contrary to what many believe, there is no real serious debate among scientists as to whether or not evolution is correct (for the very reason that is so well-supported by evidence). There are debates as to how specific aspects of evolution work, but no real significant dissent as to the effectiveness of the overall theory.
The biblical texts testify to themselves as being inspired by the Creator. They also preceed the Koran - which does not claim Divine authorship for itself but is only called such by those who wrote it and as such qualifies as another imaginary tale - in history by at least several millenia.
. . . then it certainly doesn't require an Intelligent Designer.
Yes, it does. There is no science without communication. There is no communication without design. There is no design without intelligence, and that includes the 110 elements and all physical laws currently known to science, none of which are capable of maintaining their constancy without the sustaining power of the Creator.
And I don't really care whether *your* presumed creator is amused or not.
That stands to reason. You don't care whether real science is taught in the classroom either.
It is not as if those evidences are beyond question or critique. The evidence will always fit the working assumptions of the observer. You assume the words of science unguided by biblical texts are true, and make your bed accordingly. But you err in expecting the children of every classroom to buy your faith.
Amongst other things you are confusing 'science: the act of people discussing the universe' with the actual structures they are discussing. Consider the Mandelbrot set: the set of all points that fail to diverge to infinity as a quadratic function is repeatedly iterated. This function displays a great deal of complexity and internal order, and has been laying around waiting to be noticed since, well, forever.
This pattern requires no communication to cause it's existence, and I doubt your biblical creator had a long checklist of mathematical patterns he needed to create on the eighth, ninth or tenth days.
Likewise, nobody had to talk amongst themselves to cause sodium and chloride ions to pack themselves in a cubical structure.
No intelligence involved with that concept or process. Nosirree.
I'm glad we agree on something!
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.