Posted on 10/07/2005 7:48:04 PM PDT by Heartlander
Creationists have been trying to link scientists to socialists for 150 years. It doesn't work though, because the socialists all come from the soft sciences, philosophy, sociology, psychology, etc.
And science doesn't discourage God. That's just a small number of folks who've got issues of one kind or another.
(shineing fingernails)(removing glasses).. HuH!... translate whale breath.. d;-)~
A lot of his argumentation in this regard was theological in nature, not scientific.
Cordially,
I beg your pardon. Einstein would have howled if a YEC had stood up to oppose him. If he kept out of religion it was because there was no organized movement of fundamentalists trying to shout him down during his lifetime.
As for evolutionists, it's pretty difficult to avoid conflict with religion when your life's work says the literal interpretation of scripture is wrong.
Sociologists or Socialists.?...
Hmmm.. there may be no or little difference.. Now thats heavy..
No it doesn't. That's just wrong. Unless you define cousin as a relationship spanning hundreds of thousands of generations.
However, students receive precious few hours of science instruction as it is. There is simply not enough time to present any but the prevailing viewpoint. There are too many minority views and competeing theories in legitimate science to do anything but teach the prevailing view. Also, as most school curricula is designed as college prep, primary and secondary schools should approach science education with the goal of teaching what they need to know to go on to further science education at university. This speaks to a need to teach the basics, and do so in such a way as to be useful later in education.
Despite the exclamations of some supporters of intelligent design/creationism, science and math class is actually one of the least politicized disciplines within the educational establishment. I can't see how a legislative or judicial victory for the intelligent design/creationism movement could improve the situation. Basic science must be taught, not science with a eye taken towards cultural sensitivity. If the intelligent design/creationism movement succeeds politically, this sets a precedent for other non-scientific theories to do the same. Wait until the Raelians, or Scientologists demand to have their "science" taught, as well. Wait until the Council or Islamic-American Relations gets its finger in the pie.
A Reasoned approach.. sounds logical to me..
We don't speak the same language; I am an empiricist, and you seem to be some sort of platonist.
On one post you assert that cosmology is speculative
Cosmology can be done within the confines of this universe using the scientific method: gathering evidence, forming hypotheses, testing them, etc. "Cosmology" beyond our universe is sheer speculation. Perhaps science will find a way to overcome this limitation at some point in the future, but there is no way at this time to test hypotheses about what is outside of our own spacetime.
The most sure statements we can make about physical reality are mathematical.
I disagree. Mathematics can offer avenues of research, and suggest hypotheses, but the rubber meets the road, so to speak, when hypotheses are tested against reality. Whether it is in the lab or in the field, it is empiricism which tells us whether or not our mathematical models conform to objective reality. The weakness of Greek natural philosophy is that it did not generally test the results of its logical forays. Logic alone doesn't get results; empiricism is the reality check.
The universe is intelligible because it is mathematical. The point raised by Eugene Wigner (and affirmed by Cumrun Vafa) is there is no reason why mathematics should be so effective wrt physics.
Conversely, one could say that our mathematics were formulated precisely to be effective in modeling the universe.
All presuppositions made in those two disciplines are stated as axioms and postulates related to the investigation at hand.
Mathematics, sure. But I don't see physics operating that way.
In those disciplines, no theory is treated as Holy writ.
And, in biology, the theory of evolution would likewise be replaced with a better model if it were falsified. You seem to be saying that the very success of evolution as a theory is a strike against it.
Either an unsupported assertion, or a tautology.
The theory of evolution is a myth, a story. That doesn't mean it is false. It could indeed be true.
All historical science theories are myths. They are stories based on an incomplete quanitization of the continuum of history (e.g. archeology, Egyptology). Again, that doesn't mean their stories are all false - or true.
But conveying Truth is often the purpose of a myth!
Parables, metaphors and types are a most excellent way of conveying Truth - and are frequently used for that exact purpose throughout Scripture.
Likewise, the Greek philosophers used myths to convey truth.
Assuming without justification that that the only scientifically acceptable causes in science are mechanistic (as to opposed to the actions of intelligent agency) is the sophistry. If the same methodological criteria were applied impartially to evolutionary theory then it doesn't meet the strict criterion of testability and positive verification by repeated observation of cause-effect relationships either. There are a host of Darwinian theoretical postulations of past, unobserved and unobservable events that purport to account for present impirical biological data. In either case the "testabilty" lies in the putative explanatory power rather than verification by direct and repeated observation. In the case of a theoretical postulate of ID, the past action of an unobservable agent could have empirical consequences in the present just as an unobservable genealogical relationship between organisms does.
Cordially,
Cosmology within this universe is mostly shere speculation.. i.e. black holes.. The speed of light is SOoo damned slow.. its a wonder anything can deduced from it(correctly)..
Spiritually, I am living proof of the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit because the old me is dead and gone; the new me is nothing at all like her. The old me was mean-spirited, rude, self-serving and completely unloveable. The new me is very much alive in timeliness while yet in the flesh; I have no interest in the old things and my life goals now are to love God absolutely and my neighbor unconditionally.
I'm sure betty boop and xzins and many others here on the forum have a similar testimony.
Nope, I'm not saying that. But we call that "pre-history."
I'll note that I was speaking specifically of "supernatural causes", not merely "intelligent design".
To assert that such theories are not scientific because they are not naturalistic
They are not scientific because they are neither testable nor falsifiable.
The postulate that there was agency involved in the origin of life and its diversity is no more outside the bounds of that which is directly or indirectly observable, testable and falsifiable than is the postulate of unobservable genealogical connections between organisms as the result of purely mechanistic processes.
Sure it is, because you are adding in an additional element, agency, when the theory of evolution, as it stands, accounts for the evidence just fine without it. Which is not to say that one may not also believe in a supernatural agency behind it, but this belief is not a matter of science.
Presumably, you do not deny that it is possible that the actions of an unobservable agent could have empirical consequences in the present, do you?
It is not my place to deny it. If you wish to assert that actions of a (in terms of what I was discussing above) supernatural agent could have empirical consequences in the present, then it is incumbent upon you to come up with evidence for it, and formulate a testable hypothesis by which first, one could distinguish between supernatural and natural causes, and second, one could repeatedly demonstrate evidence of supernatural agency. That is, if you wish to insist that religion be accepted as science.
And concerning Dawkins - he howls indeed but his is certainly not the only discipline which disputes a 6,000 year age of the universe measured from our space/time coordinates. Off the top of my head, there's also astronomy, geology, archeology, cosmology, geometric physics.
Methinks he doth protest too much...
Ok Diamond, what discovery could we possibly make that would prove ID to be false?
Unless you can give a specific answer to that question, ID isn't science.
Thank you for your reply!
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.