Posted on 08/13/2008 9:44:45 AM PDT by Sopater
Look who's really at risk for making up 'any damn thing they want'. It's the scientists, as admitted by Richard Lewontin.
"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Richard Lewontin
Coyoteman shows his ideological dishonesty again. He really can't help it. It's who he is.
Hey, that's great. Then is is more than just your opinion, the most worshipful CalTech says that science is not interested in truth.
"And I don't know why you creationists are so worried about science and the assumption of naturalism. If you think you can get better results using some other method, well go do it! Don't complain to us because our results contradict your a priori beliefs. If you want to disprove science and the assumptions it uses quit complaining and do some research. Or whatever it is you do."
Again, we see the fallacy of equivocation, this time from Coyoteman. Technology is equated to the philosophy of naturalism when there is no rational reason for doing so.
Philosophical naturalism does not logically follow from the existence of natural physical laws, nor does the existence of natural physical laws mean that materialism is the limit of reality.
It takes a fantastic deficiency in critical-thinking ability to even make such a statement, much less believe it.
Quoting Marxists again. Nice going.
Yes, a scientist who is also a marxist.
You didn't actually believe that claptrap about scientists being 'ideologically independent', did you?
YOU were the one that used the Marxist’s opinion to support your opinion. Again, it was opinion, not fact. The FACT is you used a Marxist’s opinion to support your opinion.
You fail to address the second statement of my post. I’m guessing you see the UC schools superior to all others of this nation.
It was a statement of fact by a scientist who is also a marxist.
The FACT is that you so desperately want Lewontin's statement not to be a fact, that you will make any claim and say anything to avoid dealing with that fact.
Anyone who understands science can see that his statement is the simple conclusion of the fact that science is based on philosophical naturalism.
If this causes you problems, using the fallacy of personal attack against Lewontin does not help you.
No. It was an opinion. You seem to have a problem separating fact from opinion.
Anyone who understands science can see that his statement is the simple conclusion of the fact that science is based on philosophical naturalism.
Again, we see the problem. You don't understand science.
A Marxist who is also a scientist? One would think you would be more careful than use Marxist's opinions to support your opinion.
No. It was a fact. You seem to have a problem separating fact from opinion. Were it an opinion, it would be easy to point to an example where science has proposed a non-naturalistic origin for the universe. That is not possible.
Lewontin's statement is a fact unless refuted and that is impossible because of the very definition of science.
"Again, we see the problem. You don't understand science."
I understand science just fine. You are simply willing to make any claim and say anything to avoid the truth of that fact. Unfortunately, you have zero evidence to back up your position while 100% of the evidence supports mine.
Deal with it.
Another fallacy that could be pointed out here is the fallacy of poisoning the well.
But of course, you will make any claim and say anything to avoid dealing with the reality of Lewontin's statement. Too bad you don't understand what science is and what it is not. Science is exactly what Lewontin said it was and is not an empirical standard by any stretch of the imagination.
You pick out a quote from ONE Marxist to support your opinion and you want us to accept it as fact? Get Real!
Interesting that you admire Mr. Lewontin so much as to accept his word without question. Let's examin Mr. Lewontin's statements.
It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a FACT, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a FACT that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a FACT that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a FACT that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a FACT that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a FACT that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
Let me give you a quote from your esteemed Mr. Lowentin:
Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
Farrakhan blasts educational system
SOUTH SIDE | He wants religion in schools, and a new curriculumAugust 4, 2008
...
Farrakhan condemned America for implementing an “extreme separation of church and state” in taking God out of schools, saying that a new educational paradigm is one rooted in faith.
Silly, they don't want his religion in schools! They want their own!
ID is open to anyone who opposes empiricism. I’ve got the Dembski book that makes this statement.
Does F's religion support evolution or ID?
Now there's science for you. Yeah!
What a crock.
Now is a Good Time to cut/paste your skull flowchart. Make sure to mention its an ‘airtight case’ and toss in your academic credentials too.
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.