Though I do not speak in any official capacity for FR, as a member of this forum for nearly nine years, I have to say FR isn’t “anti-science” at all; it’s “anti abuse of science” — that is, to say, any use of science dedicated to political and social change purposes. The scientific method itself allows no scope for such proclivities/activities.
Personally, I strongly object to this "disenchanted evo" mischaracterization. And Nancy Pearcey’s article well documents the reasons why — in logic and reason — I feel justified in objecting to the baseless claim that FR is "anti-science."
In the end, science must confine itself to the elucidation of the physical. When it starts treading on metaphysical territory, it is illegitimately going beyond the scope of its mission, and trespassing on territory that its method is not designed to engage. That is to say, trespassing on philosophy and theology: It simply has no warrant there. And perhaps the time has come when certain “scientists” need to be reminded of that.
FWIW.
FYI and welcome to the party, should you choose to show up.
FYI - will read it later tonight. Looks interesting.
I think you have to distinguish between real science, and scientism.
Darwinism is a parody of science, which tends to be a kind of secular religion.
Science is a good deal more open minded and willing to adjust to the realities if a hypothesis proves to be wrong. Darwinists simply cannot get themselves to agree that they possibly could be wrong. Their position is that Darwinism is true, scientific, factual, period, end of conversation. If you disagree, they will call in the activist judges to shut your mouth, because you are deemed unscientific and therefore not worthy to be heard.
I was a math and physics major at Harvard before I changed fields, and I have studied the history of science and philosophy for most of my lifetime. Descartes's mind-body problem is certainly one source of the difficulty. But it goes back even further to John of Ockham's nominalism. This is the illusion that if you can't see and touch something, it's not real. Therefore there is no such thing as a tree, or a maple, or an oak. There are only individual trees, maples, and oaks. The individual is more real than the universal. But paradoxically we can only think in universals.
That soon leads to theories like those mentioned: that we have no free will, no real consciousness, no real intelligence, that all our ideals are really illusions, and so forth. But as Samuel Johnson said, while kicking a stone, "Thus do I refute Berkeley." Anyone with even a dash of sense knows that he has free will, intelligence, choice. It takes a brainwashing education to make people think otherwise, and of course that's why Darwinists want to impose brainwashing educations in the public schools, with no opportunity to discuss whether they are actually real or scientific.
History tells the same story. Science and technology grew up in the west to unprecedented heights BECAUSE of Christianity, not in spite of it, as the pseudoscientists would have people believe. Philosophy, or the love of knowledge, thrived under Christianity long after it died in Greece, and philosophy died in the West precisely because Christianity weakened in intellectual circles.
Such materialistc determinism is the cornerstone of Marxism.
Cicero is right. The "isms" try to simplify our world by amputating what doesn't fit, all for the sake of power.
Science by it's very nature is amoral.
In science anything that is possible is permissible.
Science not tempered by morality is a very dangerous place..
Free Republic in my experience is an expedition of herding cats.. Mothers and even Mothers Apple Pie could be debated from many different angles.. To say there is an anti science animus on FR could easily be true... and also UNtrue at the same time.. Depends on which thread you are reading at the time and the time you are reading it..
Its that way with "Cats"... Freepers are just "scratching" for some truth.. and howling for "red meat".. What amazes me is that a conversation about "the Observer".. goes wanting.. Many think their observation post is the best.. and compared to others it might be, but to yet others it could "suck"(the observation post)... Cats are not very humble creatures..
Nevertheless, I like Cats...
"...Moral conservatives"
...as opposed to all those immoral conservatives...
I'm going to like this article, thanks for posting it.
Nevertheless, philosophy should encompass science and religion, both at the same time. This can be done, or a move can be made in that direction if we realize that philosophy itself has been a process in evolution. There is a Cartesian dualism of some kind, at least that of subjective and objective, or private and public. Science deals with public matters and religion with private to some degree. A cause is something that if present will have the same result every time--the basis of science. Morality is the power to choose, and ethics has come to mean making legal choices where the law itself is bifurcating partially from logic as the ethics of the community mature. These distinctions were not always present but are being evolved morally--by us.
Nice to see you on 'my' side of this issue Betty..
Our Constitution is based on an unscientific philosophy of human ideas & principles, -- principles that most of us can agree are 'natural laws'.
At one point Nancy noted:
" --- The expansion of the "fact" realm into theology can be traced in the work of scientists such as Harvard's E.O. Wilson, who seeks to explain religion itself as a product of evolution.
Religion is merely an idea that appears in the human mind when the nervous system has evolved to a certain level of complexity.
In Consilience, Wilson says religion evolved because belief in God gave early humans an edge in the struggle for survival. --"
I have no doubt that Wilson is right about the fact that about our beliefs in a 'Golden Rule' gave us an "edge in survival" ..
-- But to claim that these beliefs are "merely an idea" is belied by his own reasoning. -- Political freedom is a necessary precursor to scientific freedom - to my way of thinking.
Without the golden rules of religions, our freedom to pursue science could never have grown past those of pagan Greek & Rome.
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Baptist Ping
Cling to that false belief if you really can after all that has transpired here in the past year, but don't expect those of us who have been paying attention and been deeply involved in this issue to be naive enough to fall for it.
Once again, I must insist that you respect my oft-repeated statement that I have no desire to have you ping me to any of your through-the-looking-glass posts or threads, at any time, for any reason. You have burned that bridge too thoroughly, and then been so disingenuous as to pretend not to know the reason why even after it has been explained to you more than once. Whatever you choose to say, I have no interest in it. Do not ping me.
Some people just need a good dose of peroxide
ping
That sure states it clearly. The accusations of people with certain religious views as being *pig ignorant* and other more derogatory terms, is all part of the strategy. Try to make them look so stupid that others will not want to be associated with them and pull back and lend their support to the *scientific* view. All that'll do is hasten the day when Christian morals are no longer considered valid and anything goes.
A freeper, whose screen name I unfortunately do not remember, commented that right now, we are still riding on the coat tails (so to speak) of the moral hertitage we inherited and so that although, there is moral compromise now, there is still enough to protect us. But in a couple generations, our grandchildren will be reaping what we are now sowing and it just may be too late to do anything about it then.
Bookmark, and bump.
placemarker bump