Posted on 02/08/2006 3:35:44 PM PST by bondserv
Ping!
Creation-Evolution Headlines making a strong effort to pull back ahead of Joseph Farah in egregious idiocy.....
Well, yes, that is how science is done. No teleological or supernatural explanations are permitted.
I note that the writers do not offer an alternative model to explain what is observed. Can they?
Perhaps they were put there at the behest of Jesus Christ to perpetuate the Mystery Of Faith, and yet allow scientific exploration of our solar system to continue.
Well, I have to admit it's sort of quaint having actual Young-Earth creationists around; sort of like taking a tour of Amish country.
The idea they present of 4.5 billion years just being pulled out a hat is laughable. There are multiple lines of evidence giving that as the age of the solar system.
Can anyone?
"This discussion is not really about God at all, but about the truth claims of methodological naturalism in dealing with the unobservable past. Even if one finds the right settings of the knobs that produce a resemblance to these bodies, how would one know the model is true? By tweaking parameters in a model, which is not reality but a simplification of it, the modeler has only applied his or her intelligent design to achieve a correspondence between an imaginary prehistory and the actual history of the world. Is the correspondence real or contrived? If it feels satisfying to discover a correspondence, how is this feeling validated? When a whole class of causes (specifically, intelligent causes) has been ruled out from the get-go, then what remains must be forced to fit even when it does not fit very well."
I.E. "we don't have a clue but given enough time and money, we'll keep guessing".
“Science works by first making definitive theories, and then doing many years of research to discover if we were right,” said an unnamed NSF spokesman. “During the extended research phase, our job is to vigorously promote our assumptions until the facts disprove them.”
The unnamed above is fictitious. Have you ended your low-fat diet yet?
Science is entertaining and sometimes helpful. We have God given intellect and curiosity to explore the creation around us.
Mankind's failure to realize Science has nothing to do with a person's character, has given many a false sense of misguided purpose.
I am sure that scientists will try. And very likely someone will come up with an explanation—a model—that accounts for the observations.
If and when that happens, will that be the "Truth"? No. It will simply be a model that has not yet been discarded. The model may be nothing like what really happened; but so long as it explains the facts and allows us to make predictions, it will be useful. That is about all we can expect from a scientific model.
Look, I believe that God created everything in the heavens and the earth. But God's methods of creation—including his timetable—he has chosen not to share with us. (Personally, I think that God almost always operates according to what we might call natural law.)
It could be that God created everything out of nothing in a mere six 24-hour days, as some interpreters of the Bible maintain. But where does that leave us? To my knowledge, no one has built a useful scientific model on the foundation of creation ex nihilo.
And that was precisely the point of my question: Can the critics actually offer an alternative model based on a creationist point of view that (1) adequately explains the observed facts about nature and (2) allows us to make predictions?
There is no moon but Luna, and Aldrin is her pilot.
Are you drinking blackberry brandy too?
I think that people who are obviously intelligent that spend their good time on Earth disproving the thirst for knowlege because your singular interpretation of a scriptual passage forbids it or speaks to you somehow makes me laugh, just like I do at the muzzies, or the Jews and the rest. Please...
Knock it off.
You don't have to eat a whole omelet to know it's got a bad egg. I've had enough of CvE Headlines and its offensively silly nonsense for a while. I'm not even going to read this one.
For some reason many scientists feel a need to be exclusively right in their opinions, whereas the God of the Bible has chosen to prefer persuasion.
The great thing about real freedom, as exemplified in the Christian principles of our Founders, is that it is all about persuasion over oppression.
The Creator of the universe (Jhn 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.) preferred free-will (Mat 26:53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?) over destruction of those choosing to oppose Him.
I know how you feel (although my fedupedness comes from a fabricated skull history image overfrequently posted). :-)
RCH has a better idea than Al-26.
" Well, yes, that is how science is done. No teleological or supernatural explanations are permitted."
It's interesting that he paraphrases John Locke in the second paragraph. Locke was a philosopher and contempory of Isaac Newton.
Locke's notion of primary and secondary cause as well as primary and secondary qualities are a relic of eighteenth century philosophy when philosophers were attempting to reconcile theology with the emerging scientifice revolution.
No modern philosopher or scientist would use these terms while discussing modern science.
Plus none of the English Empiricists argued that theological terms were necessary in order to explain the natural world, including Bishop Berkeley.
This guy is trying to make it seem like
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.