Posted on 10/07/2005 7:48:04 PM PDT by Heartlander
I bet in your other personality you make fun of sociologists.
You are playing games with the definitions. Unless, of course, you are saying that nothing existed or happened before it could be recorded by humans?
Accept it or not, call it history or not, spacetime existed before man was around to write about it. And things happened during that time. To say that "X happened around 5 million years ago" is not 'mythmaking'; rather, it is to state a proposition which is objectively either true or false. The evidence suggests that the descent of humans and other apes from a common ancestor is true. To argue the contrary, you must offer a better explanation for the evidence at hand, and support the assertion that it is false. You cannot simply wave your hands and declare, "Oh, that. That's not history. We simply cannot know."
Amazing how many John Kerrys we find on these threads when you ask an ID advocate whether they accept common descent. At least Behe and Denton have decided to take a stand. Braver than some.
Of course. That has been the point all along. The fallacy is to imagine that an ideal positivist system should be implemented in place of the naturally Conservative system as a social system and that it will be better than living in a grass hut on a faultline under a mud cliff during the hurricane season.
This attitude that religion has nothing to do with science, and science (though it proports to explain everything...) goes straight back to Emanuel Kant, and is the root of liberal lunacy. Put religious over there in that box, don't let it influence real life, and everything will be fine.
Marxists and Fascists alike agreed. Religion was at best used to manipulate people, not something to base life on.
All the great ancient universities were founded by the religious, and even the philosophy that says nature has objective laws that can be discovered (i.e. SCIENCE) is demonstrably from a religious root...that a stable law-giving God made a stable, law-abiding universe.
The whole frantic reaction against someone just putting what can be merely theistic evolution (that God guided evolution) -- on to more specifically creationist models (Intelligent Design is from it foundation a umbrella movement) is evidence of the philosophical, non-scientific basis of much of the professional scientific establisment...
No scientist objected when Carl Sagan (or Dawkins) put atheistic religious dogma into their "science" but let the religious say that just to believe in God says you MUST believe He made the universe--and "ohhh noooooooo! The Muja-Hadin fundamentalists are taking over!!!"
Make no mistake about it, if one is a Christian, Jew or even just a theist, you by your very nature, believe in Intelligent Design.
Either God made the world or He didn't. If He didn't, there simply is no God worthy of any sort of devotion or worship.
Thank God for our Intelligent Designer.
OK (trying to narrow things down) is this how you think evolution works? Or (as in your linked post) do you accept the assumption of evolution, that parent and child are always of the same species.
Strange that it is the scientists who posit design and the religious grab design as the modern evolution of creation.
I thought you wanted to make science "epistemologically pure". How does redefining science to include myths and metaphysics, all untestable and unfalsifiable, contribute to the epistemological purity of science?
Theories from all the historical sciences are myths
Theories from the 'historical' sciences have evidence to support them.
If science would only give up the presupposition of naturalism then there could be no complaints that the conclusion drawn was kluged to fit the orthodoxy.
The only ones complaining seem to be those who want science to give up the presupposition of naturalism.
I have nothing against teaching creation in science class, to the extent that the methodology employed in forming hypotheses and testing them is emperical and scientific.
I do believe that believers will be disappointed in the results.
Though most public schools are designed as pure college prep, there are a growing number of vocational high schools. Vocational training doesn't necessarily imply blue-collar work the way it once did. Many vocational high schools offer college credit. In my area off the top of my head I can think of a high school for performing artists, a high school for law enforcement professionals, and a high school for health care professionals. They all offer college credits.
Yes. But there's nothing like that near us.
My kids don't even have wood shop or electronics in their schools. At least I got to do that.
Disprove it!
Correlation is not causation.
As an example, spotting a bunch of storks appearing at the time a bunch of babies are born doesn't establish a causal relationship.
IMHO, the better standard is in the doxa that betty boop was addressing - whether the scientist presents his ideology under the color of science.
Einstein for instance was a socialist but never let his ideology get intermixed with his physics. Dawkins on the other hand is an atheist and drenches his work product with his ideology.
Lewontin drenches his work with his Marxism - that makes his whole work product sour and unacceptable to me. But that doesn't mean I'd dismiss all evolutionary biologists either.
That is sad. In seventh and eighth grades I got to dabble in wood shop, metal shop, printing and leather work. Still have the scars.
Now the schools have specialized, so college bound kids never see shop class, never even get to walk past one.
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.