Posted on 05/28/2007 5:44:20 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
That would just be stating facts.
To the best of my knowledge, no one on DLR's ping list accepts methodological naturalism -- as formally defined by Isaac Newton in his Principia -- as the defining methodology of science.
[I have, over the last year or so, pointed out that some FR posters are “anti-science”, “science-deniers”, and “science-haters.” ]
And you have given no proof that those you caleld anti-science, sciencehaters were actually science-haters- all you’ve done is mention their own personal beliefs as proof that they must therefore be science haters. Repeated mentioning of personal beliefs NEVER renders the actual science being conducted or discussed invalid, but apparently you think it does. I wonder, being that DI has complete agnostics on their team, how does that make them ‘religious’ or even ‘religiously motivated’? I’ve asked you this before, and you’ve simply ignored it and kept right on insisting in new threads that because some members of ID have personal beleifs about where Intelligent Design originates from, then this renders their science invalid. Crying out that DI is antiscience repeatedly is no proof, contrary to your assumtpions, that DI doesn’t conduct sound science. Posting hteir statements of faith does nothign to undermine the science that is conducted. It’s like taking your car to a mechanic, having him fix the problem, then learning that he belongs to an organization that beleives that cars evolved, and stating that because he beleives that, then he must not have fixed your car correctly- when infact, he did. Personal beliefs have NOTHING to do with the occupation one delves in- it is the mechanics of what the person does that is important, not hteir personal beliefs.
I don’;t know how many times I have to repeat this, but apparently it is quite a few times- I think I’ll just have a copy on hand for the umpteen times you post someone’s personal beleifs in the mistaken belief that somehow that renders the mechanics of what they conduct invalid.
[To the best of my knowledge, no one on DLR’s ping list accepts methodological naturalism]
Since when is methodological naturalism the gold standard by which scinetists are either accepted or rejected? I thought science sought to discover truth, not priori belief about something? Who’s antiscience here again?
When one goes into the argument stating that no matter what evidence is presented, he will NOT believe the earth is greater than 6000 years old and that the Bible is supreme over science texts, it must be assumed that he is anti-science.
How can one do nuclear reactor safety analysis if they believe that the earth is less than 6000 years old?
[According to the written requirements for tenure at the Iowa State University, a prospective candidate is required to have published at least fifteen peer-reviewed scientific papers. With sixty-eight papers to his name, Dr. Gonzalez has already exceeded that requirement by 350%.]
Where does it state he had to write them during his employment. Does the tenure requirements include having to have had grants during that time? Or even to be a board member? The article states that according to the written tenure requirements, He more than fulfilled them.
Tenure requirements are based on work done while employed at the university.
Does the tenure requirements include having to have had grants during that time? Or even to be a board member?
A major role in a department is bringing in money. That is part of how tenure is decided. And, it would have been nice if he showed up for department meetings, etc.
The article states that according to the written tenure requirements, He more than fulfilled them.
Obviously he didn't.
See your #319. Pot calling the kettle black?
[When one goes into the argument stating that no matter what evidence is presented, he will NOT believe the earth is greater than 6000 years old and that the Bible is supreme over science texts, it must be assumed that he is anti-science.]
They are anti-science Because why? Because the dating methods are spot on accurate and not prone to mistakes due to natural annomylies & such? Because we have proven that the earth is billions of years old without a doubt? Or simply because people THINK that there enough evidence to SUGGEST that earth MIGHT be billions of years old? There is evidence that SUGGESTS that the earth MIGHT be younger than the error prone dating methods SUGGEST- infact there is actually quite a bit of evidnece, and when these evidences are found- all sorts of excuses come out, and inevitably, the ones that point out the evidences are maligned and disparraged for thinking there might be something to the evidence.
Again- TRUE science seeks the truth! it doesn’t give excuses when counter points are brought out. You ASSUME the earth is billions of years old- You ASSUME you have neough evidence to lean that way, yet what you stand on is nothign more than an ASSUMPTION (Caps are simpyl to stress the key points), and therefore, your ASSUMPTION based beliefs lead you to label all science done by folks with differing ASSUPTIONS isn’t valid. That unfortunately isn’t how TRUE science works.
At least since Isaac Newton. I don't know of any exceptions.
They are anti-science Because why?
I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, but one is definitely anti-science when he says he will not accept a position no matter how much scientific evidence there is for that position and states that the bible is supreme over science texts.
And the anti-science crowd will reject truth no matter how much evidence is presented because it is not consistent with their beliefs.
youl ost me- how does that have anythign to do with the fact that I have to keep repeating that personal opinions do NOT render the mechanics involved invalid when certain posters keep posting the same lame accusations time and time again?
Look- the deeper we look at a molecualr biological level, we discover the more intricate and interlaced the design is. Evo folks beleive, despite evidence to back it up, that this intricacy and complexity comes from a non directional, non thinking process of mistakes. ID believes that it is nearly mathematically impossible for the multitude of complexities we see today, that show irreducible compexities, and which show species specific uniqueness, could come from a directionless, non thinking process devoid of a director of some sort. The evo side will eventually have to show how these intricate systems could have formed, and be able to explainj much better how it is possible because it is becoming quite clear through scientific research, that design is a fact and that it is indicitive of some force that quite possibly has an intelligent quality.
Repeated accusations about someone being anti-science simply because they hold to a PERSONAL belief based on evidences they think quite validly counter what is conventionally thought, isn’t a scientific way to discredit someone- it’s simply nothjing more than a biased personal opinion about the other, that does nothign to show just how the person conducts ‘anti-science’- The results of ID scientific investigation stand on their own merrits, and although many biased people will malign peoplel ike Behe, His investigations and ponderings are infact valid enough to withstand the petty personal insults hurled his way. While Behe doesn’t believe in creation, He does believe in intelligent design, and his work has been an important venue for the further investigation of what we are beginning to see as a fact- that design exists- that it is intricate, that it resists being tampered with beyond certain caps, that it is more interconnected with a lot of other intricate designs within species, and that the breakdown of some highly specific complexities within a species would render the species unable to exist.
This is all facinating stuff, but apparently, some think that because some people within the ID realm hold certain personal beliefs, that this makes all investigations into the design present at the molecular biological level invalid. That’s just, I’m sorry to say, an assinine, personally biased and biased motivated opinion that blinds a person to the TRUE sciences that seek a completely objective truth.
According to this ISU statement, he was warned at every previous evalution that he was not meeting tenure requirements.
Dr. Gonzalez was evaluated for tenure and promotion to associate professor by the tenured faculty in the Department of Physics and Astronomy. That evaluation was based on an assessment of the excellence of his teaching, service, scholarly research publications and research funding in astronomy, using standards and expectations set by the department faculty. The consensus of the tenured department faculty, the department chair, the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, the dean of Liberal Arts and Sciences, and the executive vice president and provost was that tenure should not be granted. Based on recommendations against granting tenure and promotion at every prior level of review, and his own review of the record, President Gregory Geoffroy notified Gonzalez in April that he would not be granted tenure and promotion to associate professor.
No sir- We will reject personal opinions based on HUGE assumptions that ignore the impossibilties of biological macroevolution. We beleive, and we have VERY good reason to beleive, that it is impossible for mutational mistakes, to result in macroevolution. You may differ in your opinion, but that doesn’t make your opinion any more true than ours- both are opinions based on science and evidences.
As I said, we have enough scientific evidences, as well as having pointed out enough problems and impossibilities in evolution hypothesis, that we feel there is a strong case for a coutner hypothesis to evolution.
Shouting that ID is anti-science will never ever do away with the fact that it is impposible for the thousand plus amino acids to have survived in an energy destructive environment long enough to assemble themselves in an intricate and directed purpose for the necessary evolution to protiens. We also believe their is evidence enough to show that the immense complexities of hte eye show that a slow gradual process of mutational accumulations over the course of billions or even millions of years simply could not happen.
Did the “11-cis-retinal” gather in the non functioning eye? Or did it accumulate in the body somewhere near the head, wating for the other chemicals to find their way to gather in the right spot waiting for their cue to begin working in conjunction with each other before the ete and it’s components were fully functional? When “11-cis-retinal” is struck by a proton, it changes shape, thereby changing the shape of another protien called rhodopsinwhich enables it to stick to another protien, which then connects with transducin, then you have many processes after this- so on and so forth. How many billions of years did it take for all this to happen in such a specificly complex manner\? How long did all these highly specialized protiens sit around with nothign to do? More specifically, where is al lthe evidence showing it? Or any evidence for that matter?
What is the truth about the evolution of just an eye coldwater? Please, give us the unconditionally true truth of the matter? We ‘Truth-Haters” would like to know what the real truth about a small organ like the eye’s evolution took place. How long did everything flounder in useless suspension until everythign was mysteriously moved into place and ready for business?
[I don’t know how many times I have to repeat this, but one is definitely anti-science when he says he will not accept a position no matter how much scientific evidence there is for that position and states that the bible is supreme over science texts.]
ah, but here’s where your argument breaks down- We don’t have to base our objections on the fact that we think God did it. We have enough counter scientific evidneces to suggest that infact an Intelligent Designer might indeed have done it. You can poresent evidneces you think suggest the earth is old, and we can present evidneces that might suggest something else. We think that science will show the bible to be factual- there is nothign wrong with that belief- just as there was nothign wrong with the belief that science will show suggestions that naturalism might be a truism. Some feel that there is enough evidence to suggest this- others think that the evidences provided are a huge stretch of the imagination and nothing more than a personal opinion that does indeed have counter evidences to suggest otherwise.
Are you saying that no matter what evidence is presented, you will reject evolution?
gotta go- long day ahead of me again- probably won’t get to reply again until tomorrow.
Objections to science?
Objections to science?
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.