Posted on 09/01/2009 8:23:27 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Welcome to scientism, a belief system founded on the conviction that everything from neutrinos to supernovae to conscious beings who marvel at such things are reducible to material processes explicable through science. It is a conviction based on neither observed fact nor experimental evidence, but rather on dogmatic faith in naturalistic science. In scientism, nature is God, science is revelation, and scientists are the new exegetes.
Echoing Dr. Porco, biologist Stuart Kauffman urges us to “reinvent the sacred” by embracing the universe “as a reinvention of ‘God.’” Kauffman has unflagging trust in nature, all the while acknowledging that her laws, including Darwinian evolution, cannot account for the world as we know it. Kauffman cedes that “beyond natural law . . . is ceaseless creativity.” But just when you think that he’s opening the door to the divine, the biologist adds this: “with no supernatural creator.”
Stuart Kauffman is a victim of his own presuppositions. In a world where God has been dismissed, there is no escape from the absurdity that the universe is its own cause and effect. While creation ex nihilo is awe-inspiring, creation per nihilo is, to put it as delicately as possible, feebleminded. Others have attempted to avoid that pitfall with theories that could have been lifted from The X-Files.
(Excerpt) Read more at salvomag.com ...
LOL
Ping!
Professing to be wise, they became fools.
The Universe is contingent and transient.
Ping!
Ping!
The Universe is contingent and transient.
The funny thing is all the thoughtless atheists who think they are asking an unanswerable question when they say "Where did God come from?" or "Who made God?", when all the while they believe in an uncreated, eternal Nature. The issue is not whether we believe in something uncreated and self-existent. We all do, in some form.
The issue is what belief is the most parsimonious and avoids pitfalls of logic or violations of natural law. For example, the naturalistic position violates the unity principle, by asserting that the same law of causality that governs everything in the universe somehow fails to hold true for the universe as a whole. By contrast, the creationist position is that natural laws and nature itself were created by a transcendant source that is not subject to the laws He created. Thus the irrationality of asserting something had to make God, because the answer is that the law of cause and effect wasn't operative until God began to create (at which point it implicitly came into being).
Thanks for the ping!
And they think they're being pretty clever when they do that, as well.
An act of creation itself would be transcendant, but all subsequent events would presumably fall within the realm of natural science. This is where the somewhat misnamed 'creation science' comes into play - not in trying to explain the act of creation itself, but in understanding how natural laws then took us from Point A (creation) to Point B (now), and explaining contemporary evidence within this reference frame.
I am one of those people who limits the term 'science' to understanding how the natural world works in terms of regular, repetitive processes (natural laws); this is distinct from 'history' which is the study of unique events that occur within a space-time framework. That is, 'what temperature does water boil at' is a scientific question, 'did Bob boil water last Thursday' is a historical one, that cannot be verified with experiments at a later date.
(Caveat: Although science cannot prove a historical hypothesis, only showing that it is _possible_, it can in principle show that a given historical hypothesis is _impossible_ if it is shown to involve a violation of natural law, assuming the historical hypothesis only involves natural causes.)
I'll shut up now before I really get going... ;-)
I, as an atheist and one who accepts evolution, would not argue with that - for I could not. I'd have absolutely NO problem with that contention, as it is admitting that God and His creation transcends natural law and tehrefore, science. If all creationists could admit that, and not bludgeon us with silly articles purporting to BE scientific, I think we could all move on fruitfully.
Since God is greater than science, then how do you go on so, bitterly clinging to the notion that observations of His creation scientifically are "silly" and can't even BE scientific?
Read my tagline. What's silly is to demand little children be indoctrinated in secular humanism religion and sue anyone that gets in the way.
You seem obsessed with litigation. If it’s any consolation, I too hate our overabundance of lawyers and litigation - across all arenas. That’s the real problem with healthcare and many other things in America.
You and I both know that both creationists and scientists have resorted to litigation, probably equally. No one here ever bothers arguing with you on your obsession with that stuff.
I go “on” just fine, thank you, firmly rooted in reality. I’m a happy family man who experiences love and joy as much as the next guy. By the tone of your posts, perhaps you could use some more joy in your life.
Just a thought.
Not one single person who ever sprang that stupid question on me ever let me answer, either.
The Universal Question has been answered by the computer Deep Thought. It was pondered for so long that by the time it was answered the care takers forgot the question.
Deep Thought’s answer was forty-two. Some argued that 40-2 is actually 38 but there are heretics. The ultimate answer is forty-two.
You seem obsessed with litigation. If it’s any consolation, I too hate our overabundance of lawyers and litigation - across all arenas. That’s the real problem with healthcare and many other things in America.
You and I both know that both creationists and scientists have resorted to litigation, probably equally. No one here ever bothers arguing with you on your obsession with that stuff.
I go “on” just fine, thank you, firmly rooted in reality. I’m a happy family man who experiences love and joy as much as the next guy. By the tone of your posts, perhaps you could use some more joy in your life.
Just a thought.
Ummm, well yes, more and more normal people across the board are having to answer to the insane liberal onslaught...thus the groups like ThomasMore.org, aclj.org and so on are finally responding, before the country is completely lost.
Of course it’s not just evolution, but as normal folks know, the Michael Newdows won’t let normal folks rest when it comes to incredible liberal misery and “loss of joy” when it comes to Under God in the pledge...IGWT on our money...or if normal people merely say Merry Christmas in stores, on the streets or ohter public places.
Miserable liberals have even resorted to demanding crosses be removed from town logos, and even public cemeteries of all places (Mt. Soledad).
If liberals hijack the legal system to indoctrinate and shove their ideology on everyone else, it is what it is. But that was their doings, not normal people!
What you now all of a sudden see is a response to it, in one form or another: responsive litigation, tea parties, you name it!
Then to somehow pretend...”ahhhhhh well....errr...ummmm... creationists/normal people sue just as much as liberals (up tight in one way or another with God, or the U.S. or conservatives or whatever; and often in every conceivable way...and beyond!)
Well... I think you’ve pretty well exposed your own position at least as good as anyone can do or could have done.
As for most liberals like yourself not arguing with me on “my obsession over this stuff”...
Uhhh, normal peole understand the obsession lies with the liberals that hijack the legal system to force their brand of science, law, politics, religion, et al on normal people...and I merely expose it and/or remind people of this fact.
No, you’re right, sore-headed liberals don’t usually confront me on confronting them,
or in your words: “ever bothers arguing with you on your obsession with that stuff”...
usually because they know it merely leads to further exposure of their multiple God hang-ups, litigious behavior and projections to cover-up their insecurities...and tactics.
Like the one you’re using here...insecure liberals uptight with God, attacking our Judeo-Christian heritage and then bashing the people you attack for being uptight or in need of joy in their lives!
And here you come right along re-enforcing the age old adage “liberals have no shame” to keep eveything humming right along like clockwork!
Just out of curioisty...is there a private competition amongst the closet FR liberals in the sir-project-alot sweepstakes...or are you libs completely dependent (on me in this instance) for that as well?
It seems very silly to suggest normal people are the angry bunch with no joy when it’s loons like you demanding God be removed from His own creation via lawsuits, be it science, education in general, town logos...ad infinatum.
If you think you’re remotely, let alone firmly footed in reality, you need to desperately jump to the front of the line in realizing the services of an extractionist!
I don’t even read your entire diatribes as they make no sense and present enough red herrings to fill a barrel.
You are a paranoid delusional woe-is-me crybaby who must annoy the ever living crap out of your neighbors and co-workers. (Notice I didn’t say friends, as I’m confident you have none.)
You rail ceaselessly about the liberals you see in every corner and closet (and all over FR, of all places!)
You whine more than any liberal I’ve ever had the displeasure of knowing and you constantly cry about how the world is out to get you. You’re the kind of conservative that lost the last election for us.
Do you ever do anything proactive for conservative causes? Or do you just sit around whining about liberals? Do you ever actually confront liberals and have discussions as to why they are woefully misguided? Do you go to tea parties? Do you donate to any worthy causes?
Shut up, stop your crying, and leave me alone.
I’m sure you’ll be pleased to know I’m never going to bother addressing your sorry embarrassing ass again on FR.
The Evolution of Mind, Hardwicke
The Relation of God to Nature, Le Conte
God as a Gaseous Vertebrate, Haeckel
Science and Christianity, Haeckel
Evolutionists demand that you throw your religion in the garbage and adopt one of three world-views: Deism, Atheism, or Monism. Pick one.
I say old man, jolly good!
Your surrender is accepted.
Again.
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.