Replies

What is stupid is saying to question a scientific theory you must do it from a scientific perspective (you must play the game by our rules, that way we always win). That is both stupid and dishonest. You can challenge the very basis of the assumptions themselves and question their correlation with reality. The science of the past is riddled with logical fallacies, as an example.

First, playing by the rules. What rules would you have science play by? Biblical scholarship? Science is built on specific rules and methods, and its not going to change them unless it can be shown that they do not produce results. You may not agree with the results, but you can't just say they are wrong.

Second, how do you know there are (or were) any "logical fallacies" in science? Because science found the errors and corrected them, perhaps?

It sounds like you disagree with what science (evolution in particular) has come up with. So, you are out to destroy the scientific method, or at least people's trust in that method, for your own ends. If you destroy science, then where will you be?

I asked this question earlier, but got no good answer: Kept up on your fencing lessons? The folks with scimitars are coming, and it is only our science and technology that keeps them at bay. What will do you do if you destroy that?

Science is built on specific rules and methods, and its not going to change them unless it can be shown that they do not produce results. You may not agree with the results, but you can't just say they are wrong.

I can say they are the best that science can offer and the science is done using the scientific method, but that science works best when dealing with things that currently exist, and not as good when explaining things that happened 1 billion years ago, due to the lack of available evidence. Science can only work off the evidence it has.

Second, how do you know there are (or were) any "logical fallacies" in science? Because science found the errors and corrected them, perhaps?

That is part of why, science has learned many things from past errors and earlier science. But, for example, the uniformity of nature assumption is not logically provable, but is assumed so science can proceed. Or that because species have similar characteristics, they have common descent. Or because formulas can be created in nuclear reactors on highly unstable elements with half-lives of nanoseconds, that those formulas can be used on all elements, etc.

It sounds like you disagree with what science (evolution in particular) has come up with. So, you are out to destroy the scientific method, or at least people's trust in that method, for your own ends. If you destroy science, then where will you be?

In part yes. It is not logical to say that if some science is successful, then the scientific method is always equal. Assumptions used to advance science are different in different fields, and some assumptions may be more valid than others. I love science, I think, however, that saying we got from single simple cells to where we are today by random mutation and natural selection alone are like punting on the first down of a football game. In the historical context, it does not seem to explain the increasing complexity or large changes but rather seems to just be a bow to naturalism.

I asked this question earlier, but got no good answer: Kept up on your fencing lessons? The folks with scimitars are coming, and it is only our science and technology that keeps them at bay. What will do you do if you destroy that?

Questioning random mutation does not mean I dislike or question science in general. Science has acheived many things and has proven its meddle time and time again. But I believe in the not to distant future a mechanism (which could be naturalistic in nature) other than random mutation will be found. As long as we were actually created by naturalistic processes evolution will probably be safe in its current form, but if there is some other force or mechanism behind biological change, it will hopefully be discovered.