Posted on 10/17/2005 5:36:09 PM PDT by gobucks
An international group of scientists have filed a "friend of the court" brief with federal Judge John E. Jones III advising him that "the identification of intelligent causes is a well-established scientific practice" and asking him to allow "the freedom of scientists to pursue scientific evidence wherever it may lead."
Jones is presiding over the Dover intelligent design trial.
The 24-page brief — carrying the names of 85 scientists in fields including chemistry, molecular biology, mathematics, neurological surgery and environmental science — states "the definition of science and the boundaries of science should be left to scientists to debate."
"Any (court) ruling that depends upon an outdated or inaccurate definition of science or which attempts to define the boundaries of science could hinder scientific progress," the brief states in asking Jones to find in favor of the Dover Area School Board.
Ping to post #120.
You're very welcome:-)
Bacon would not hold Behe in high esteem.
Science vs. Religion, from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment
The shift in the western mind from the medieval to the modern was underpinned by the growth of science. However a two hundred year long intellectual battle was to take place between the established Church and the emerging empiricism, before the Enlightenment could flourish. Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) challenged the view that the Earth was at the centre of the universe. He suggested that the observational evidence would be better explained by the theory that the earth orbited the sun. Francis Bacon (1561-1626) argued for the use of experiment rather than deduction as a means to increase knowledge. Johannes Kepler's (1571-1630) employment of observation and mathematics enabled him to supplant the Pythagorean (ancient Greek philosopher Pythagoras' (c. 530 BC)) theories of perfect heavenly spheres by showing how planets moved in ellipses. Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) was placed under house arrest for agreeing with Copernicus.
Actually, no.
Form AIG (excerpt on the history of separation of church and science):
Leave the Bible out of it’ (reflects content, not AIG position)
Near the end of the list of ‘idols’1 which Bacon said must be ‘abjured and renounced’ were any systems of natural philosophy which were built on Genesis 1, Job, or any other part of the Bible.2 This wilful and untrue presupposition, that the Bible has nothing to teach us about understanding the workings of nature, is the ugly root which has influenced some of the greatest scientific minds from Bacon onwards. The mindset among scientists to set aside the Bible did not commence with Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859) nor prior to that with Lyell’s 3-Volume Principles of Geology (1830–1833). The trend had been firmly launched more than 200 years earlier in Sir Francis Bacon’s works.3 The scientific method, we were told, allowed no room for divine revelation. Bacon wrote that man ‘understands as much as his observations … permit him, and neither knows nor is capable of more.’4
"But if the matter be truly considered, natural philosophy is, after the word of God, at once the surest medicine against superstition"
Duh. It says 'philosophy' not religion. Every intelligent person knows that Bacon separated philosophy from religion. That was one dumb post you made!
Now for the better quote related to your feeble, failed argument. It very specifically separates religion from philosophy, in fact in his comparison, he lumps religion with superstition. So much for your 'hero'.
Actually yes! (from your link)
(Bacon): "Neither is it to be forgotten that in every age natural philosophy has had a troublesome and hard to deal with adversary — namely, superstition, and the blind and immoderate zeal of religion."
Is from Chapter 65 in Book I.
Again, when man contemplates nature working freely, he meets with different species of things, of animals, of plants, of minerals; whence he readily passes into the opinion that there are in nature certain primary forms which nature intends to educe, and that the remaining variety proceeds from hindrances and aberrations of nature in the fulfillment of her work, or from the collision of different species and the transplanting of one into another. To the first of these speculations we owe our primary qualities of the elements; to the other our occult properties and specific virtues; and both of them belong to those empty compendia of thought wherein the mind rests, and whereby it is diverted from more solid pursuits.
Is from Chapter 66.
Bacon is a pretty solid ID proponent and would certainly be a evo skeptic as far as evolution goes for all things biological.
And we know he had great disdain for atheists and atheism.
Care to explain how? Anyone can cut and paste. Be a man. Of course, I have already shown you how you make absurb assumptions (philosophy=religion) when the basis for Bacon's life works was to separate philosophy from religion. Duh.
From your post. Here is what he says about the creo movement to put ID into the classroom:
"because from this unwholesome mixture of things human and divine there arises not only a fantastic philosophy but also a heretical religion."
Thanks for the publicity.
It says natural philosophy. Do you know what that is?
Oh heck. You don't.
Your "65" supports my case, not yours. Your '66' you will have to explain. I can't see how there would be anyway for anyone but a creo to say that condemns evolution.
Oh, not to everybody. Think about it for a while and if your are really stuck, I'll help you.
Thanks for pointing to that link! It shows how utterly wrong you were to link "philosophy=religion" when referring to Bacon.
"Natural philosophy was the term whose usage preceded our current term science in the sense that prior to the replacement of the term "natural philosophy" with the term science, the term science was used exclusively (and comparatively rarely) as a synonym for knowledge or study and when the subject of that knowledge or study was 'the workings of nature', then the term "natural philosophy" would be used."
hmmm. So you need some time to figure out how you might be able to misconstrue the words of Bacon that you posted. Have at it. I can wait.
It sure ain't religion, as you stated earlier! You really blew.
It says natural philosophy. Do you know what that is? Oh heck. You don't.
It sure ain't religion!
(Bacon): "Neither is it to be forgotten that in every age natural philosophy has had a troublesome and hard to deal with adversary — namely, superstition, and the blind and immoderate zeal of religion."
You know. You dug a hole when you posted Bacon's quote. That's the trouble with the unlearned. Sort of like 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing'. You should really go study Bacon before digging deeper.
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.