Posted on 05/16/2007 6:54:51 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
dogma does not belong in science is itself dogmatic and does not need proof, and may be set off to the side and ignored. That doesn't mean it is part of a non-trivial axiomatic system.
4) life didn't begin on this planet but was remodeled to include human creatures->> which are fleshly body suits inhabited by evil angels(as opposed to good ones) getting a second chance.. to restart previous errors made by them..
NOTE: Second chance = 2nd chance at harmony of divine resonance.. At one ment.. or the reality of the prodigal son metaphor of Judeo-Christian fame..
Thanks for the link:
http://www.amazon.com/Everyman-Revived-Common-Michael-Polanyi/dp/0802840795
I’ll check it out.
Well, this has become a fairly science-hostile site, and it gets depressing seeing a continuing parade of young-earth creationists and their brethren cycling through the same old set of half-baked untruths.
Not if he's referring to the biblical definition of Life. Luke 9:59-62 ":...let the dead bury the dead...". God considers men to be "dead" unless they are regenerate (given "Life").
The statement “dogma does not belong in science” is not a statement about the natural world, hence it is not a “scientific” statement. It is a philosophical statement *about* science and the “scientific method.”
On the other hand, the statement, “life arose by purely naturalistic mechanisms with no intelligent design whatsoever,” *is* a statement about the natural world. So is the statement, “Intelligent Design cannot be found in nature.” Those are *scientific* statements, and they are perfectly legitimate *hypotheses*, but they are often asserted as *premises* for science right here in FR.
As I said, many hard-core evolutionists (i.e., pure naturalists) do not understand the difference between a hypothesis and a premise. Worse yet, many of them do not understand the difference between a premise and a conclusion. Hence their rejection of ID is both their premise *and* their conclusion — like the verdict in a kangaroo court.
They are 'fantastic postulates' as an attempt to explain the existence of life after assuming the philosophical axiom of naturalism.
'Science' is nothing more than the philosophical presumption of naturalism. Operating from an 'a priori' assumption of naturalism means that you are prevented from presenting anything other than a 'natural' solution. Not good if the universe and life were not 'naturally-derived'. You'll never recognize it.
What difference would you have in evolution if life started 1) naturally, 2) seeded from outer space, or 3) by some divine intervention?
And this led you to debate the three choices.The actual answer is that evolution could proceed as described with any of these three origins -- because evolution involves change, not origins."
Which proves that 'evolution' means absolutely nothing at all. It's the old bait-and-switch routine played upon credulists. Nothing more.
What difference would you have in evolution if life started 1) naturally, 2) seeded from outer space, or 3) by some divine intervention?And this led you to debate the three choices. The actual answer is that evolution could proceed as described with any of these three origins -- because evolution involves change, not origins."
Which proves that 'evolution' means absolutely nothing at all. It's the old bait-and-switch routine played upon credulists. Nothing more.
You are wrong (again). You seem to have missed the entire meaning of my post. Please try again, and read for comprehension this time.
Nope. Got it right on. You yourself said that evolution means 'change', nothing more. Big deal. A created biology that is fragmenting and accumulating errors is 'changing'.
If you had a point, you would have made it. Hand-waving and pretending to have a point doesn't cut it.
Son, you are not worth talking to. Good night.
Funny, your “son” is not nearly as dense as you are. He must have had a bright mother.
But philosophy does influence the interpretation of the data.
Facts are facts, as far as we know them, until some other *fact* comes along to contradict it, but anything beyond that is going to be colored by one's world view. Scientists are not inherently objectively neutral simply because science is perceived to be. Science can perhaps be reduced to a purely mechanical system of observation but the subjective factor of the scientists observations and conclusions would render it incapable of being entirely neutral. The only way that can happen is if science can be divorced from human interference; scientists, if you will.
Russ P is right. You do have a philosophy of life. Everyone does.
And the discussion you and A-G are having at this point, is about as important a thing to say as can be said as it pertains to the relationship between religion, philosophy, and science. It’s significance, I think, cannot be overstated.
But for those of us who have not acquired all the needed skills in science or philosophy to fully partake in every aspect of the discussion; we nevertheless are not without resources to arm ourselves against anyone who believe themselves so possessed of invincible virtue that they may bypass public policy or otherwise ignore human rights with impunity. So, as one who is in possession of a Bravo Sierra detector of a different sort, I would just like to express my appreciation for the efforts of all of the participants on this thread.
Good ‘n mom.
You were exactly right when you said that "Intelligent Design is not and cannot be science because it implies a Designer, and science cannot possibly study the Designer." It has nothing to do with liking or disliking religion and everything to do with what science is and is not.
Until someone smarter than all us can propose a scientific mythology for the study of the designer we are in the "how many angels can dance on the head of pin" territory."
You don’t need to be able to study the designer to know that one exists. Evidence for a designer’s existence is clearly observable and testable. The order and complexity that science itself depends on is evidence of design and can be tested.
Certainly scientists running a complex, controlled experiment expect it to show thought, reasoning, and intelligence. If order and complexity are not evidence of intelligence than all of the above reduces science meaninglessness. A *scientific* experiment then means nothing more than chaos.
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.