Posted on 09/30/2005 2:09:51 PM PDT by truthfinder9
. What I mean by anti-supernaturalism is partly the reaction to the gnosticism of many clerical scientists, the amateurs who dominated the profession before 1860. But it is also an anti-religious attitude which neither Galileo nor Newton subscribed to. Aristotle was as much a naturalist as Darwin. In fact his philosophy was greatly influenced by his biology knowledge and was, in many respects, as naturalistic as Darwin's or Dawkins," for that matter. But Christian theology managed to create a synthesis --an uneasy synthesis--with Aristotle's science and philosophy, which many 19th century scientists refused to attempt. Marx, Darwin and Freud were all personally hostile to religion, with Darwin more or less masking his because of the piety of his wife.
That is not to say science is a game--it is saying the rules of science aren't competent to describe everything, all the time, when science is limited naturalistic explanations. Unless I'm missing something really obvious, the only logical retort is to deny these phenomenon exist, or to admit science needs to grow to be able to address them.
There you go again....trying to redefine science. I think you'll need something better than ID to be successful in this.
1) Did you read Dembski's explanation that I linked to?
2) Do you have any logical responses other than the two I listed: 1) deny that phenomenon exist beyond the ability of science to explain, or 2) admit science needs to grow.
You have yet to offer a reason to support your view.
deny that phenomenon exist beyond the ability of science to explain,
Duh...there are always phenomenon currently beyond the ability of science to explain. That's what scientists do for a living. They try to find explanations.
admit science needs to grow.
Duh...science is always trying to expand scientific knowledge (=growing) by exploring the unknown and seeking explanations.
Also, I don't think game analogies are valid, I don't expect to convince you of my view (and all that implies), and I need sleep.
Exactly why the evos are so desperately fearful of ID.
The question is whether these phenomenon are beyond the current methods of science.
...science is always trying to expand scientific knowledge (=growing) by exploring the unknown and seeking explanations.
The growth I mentioned isn't the growth of knowledge, but of methodology.
Even though backed into a corner, you seem unwilling to to make the tiny conceptual leap that is right at the edge of your argument. We're no longer dealing with the analogy of the chess board, but the definitions of the terms we are using and their logical implications. There is nowhere left to turn but to admit that science must eventually change its methodology if it is ever to explain phenomenon it is currently, by definition, incapable of explaining.
Good night...
Your comment reveals one of many reasons that your side is losing the argument. The design folks keep on making their case, presenting evidence, continuing research. The Darwinians tend to rely almost exclusively on the ad hominem fallacy and never tap into that mythical mountain of evidence they often claim to have.
You'd think that so-called men of science would try and make a scientific case in support of evolution.
oh please
You confuse the attitude of Galileo and Newton toward religion with those of someone like Gould, who reduced religion to personal psychology while science deal with the "real world." Galileo's world view presupposed an orderly universe. just as did his Aristotelan opponents. God was the cause of this order --of the reality they found--and what they did was to express the existing patterns in nature in mathematical terms. Kurt Goedel was more of this mind than someone like Dawkins, whose world view is a product, directly or indirectly of German idealism.
Forget it - he can't see because he won't see. Why waste time with it?
No church/state issue there -- unless you're a card-carrying member of the ACLU.
It was just a placemarker
So was mine ;)
You made the assertion. Prove it.
The burden of proof may be on the new idea or it may be on the more elaborate explanation. Either way, evolution is the new idea and the more elaborate explanation. The burden of proof is not necessarily on the one making an assertion.
Since you were accusing others of being poor logicians, does that make you a hypocrite?
Dembski said this week in a radio interview that ID will never be silenced by the materialists because it is already causing vigorous debates in scientific circles. It seems that the more alert scientists see the handwriting on the wall. Those darwinists that close their eyes and plug their ears will willingly go the way of the alchemists.
> SCIENCE never gives up.
Sadly, neither does pseudoscience. Thus Creationism, like astrology, is probably immortal.
>> My low opinion of their knowledge of science, you bet.
> No, your low opinion of their ability to run their own local affairs.
So you'd be ok with a local school board that authorized Naked Play Time With Uncle Bob.
Chess pieces, like any other intelligently designed objects, don't mate and bear children on their own. Such advanced complexity only occurs through biological evolution.
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.