Posted on 05/21/2009 6:05:26 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Some readers thought I was unfair in a previous entry explaining the difference between my perspective on evolution and that of my fellow Beliefnet blogger Dr. Francis Collins over at Science and the Sacred. Am I really not being fair? Well, let's test that hypothesis by picking out one idea from Dr. Collins's book and from his website BioLogos. It's his treatment of the idea that somehow a moral law in every heart points us to the existence of God.
Because BioLogos -- or theistic evolution, however we may designate the general approach -- surrenders so easily to naturalism, it must be willing to accommodate Darwinism's explanation of where that moral law comes from...
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.beliefnet.com ...
I wouldn’t worry about it too much. The article appears to be basing it’s assement of ToE on an apparently ill-considered quote from a psychologist.
“One person does not speak for science”, so that includes you, as one person.
“Millions of practitioners across 200 years with billions of supporting artifacts — how much more “genuine science” do you need?”
Of course that sounds like the old science by consensus and the matter of support is a matter of interpretation or has Ima already been eclipsed? Or has Lucy suddenly grown feet?
How much more genuine science? You mean like finding a tooth
and constructing a whole animal from it? Or declaring the dinosaurs were wiped out by diarrhea? Diarrhea!!!
Just think! A little Pepto-Bismo and wormwood and all those dinosaurs might’ve been saved.
“Or do you also deride physics, chemistry, astronomy and geology? They have less modern support than TToE.”
Please! That sounds like some silliness from Eugenie Scott about Darwinism applying to all of the above. Imagine EVOLUTIONARY electricity or EVOLUTIONARY oxidation and reduction!
“They have less modern support than TToE.”
I think some of the YEC folk are way off the mark at times but this statement raises my respect for them by comparison.
>>By your own statement:
“One person does not speak for science”, so that includes you, as one person.<<
I am reiterating science, not speaking for it.
>>“Millions of practitioners across 200 years with billions of supporting artifacts — how much more “genuine science” do you need?”
Of course that sounds like the old science by consensus and the matter of support is a matter of interpretation or has Ima already been eclipsed? Or has Lucy suddenly grown feet?<<
If you look at the analysis, Ima is NOT the “missing link” since there is no such thing. Real scientists understand this.
>>How much more genuine science? You mean like finding a tooth and constructing a whole animal from it? Or declaring the dinosaurs were wiped out by diarrhea? Diarrhea!!!
Just think! A little Pepto-Bismo and wormwood and all those dinosaurs might’ve been saved.<<
No, just science in general. You know there are billions of artifacts, some partial. some more complete. Your specious concept of reconstructing a dinosaur from just its teeth, while cute, isn’t realistic (although a 6 inch tooth can certainly tell you a lot about the size of the animal that had it).
>>“Or do you also deride physics, chemistry, astronomy and geology? They have less modern support than TToE.”
Please! That sounds like some silliness from Eugenie Scott about Darwinism applying to all of the above. Imagine EVOLUTIONARY electricity or EVOLUTIONARY oxidation and reduction!<<
TToE is a cross-disciplinary science. It certainly uses information from all the life sciences to come to its conclusions. The fact you don’t understand that doesn’t undermine its efficacy.
>>“They have less modern support than TToE.”
I think some of the YEC folk are way off the mark at times but this statement raises my respect for them by comparison.<<
I am not looking for your respect. If you wish to respect people who think the Universe is 6,000 years old because you can’t understand anything else, I won’t try to convince you otherwise. I am making it clear to people that FR is not a Luddite site and than many who are both Conservatives and Christians understand science.
The attempt of many to put fear into people who understand real science because they don’t like its conclusions here will not go unchallenged.
>>I wouldn’t worry about it too much. The article appears to be basing it’s assement of ToE on an apparently ill-considered quote from a psychologist.
Facts have no place on these discussions ;)
Billions of artifacts? Yes, there is, like the Burgess Shale, but they contradict Darwinism instead of support it.
sighhh.
You support evo and I've seen many evos attest to that.
And as anyone who can do math knows, 2009 - 1859 = 150 not 200.
>>You support evo and I’ve seen many evos attest to that.<<
I understand science and you have seen real scientists attest to that.
Supporting artifacts = forensics. It only goes to a level of reasonable doubt, not scientific method.
As has been demonstrated time and time again on FR, science isn't exactly the strong point of evos.
I blame the gubmint skools, and their own hardened hearts.
>>And as anyone who can do math knows, 2009 - 1859 = 150 not 200.<<
Which does nothing to undermine my statement about what a Scientific Theory is. Your “other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln” attempt is cute, in an absurd way.
>>Supporting artifacts = forensics. It only goes to a level of reasonable doubt, not scientific method.
All historical research is forensic. We have seen TToE in action many many times before our very eyes.
No, they have better and better founded support than the fossilized remains of dead creatures that leads some to a certain INTERPRETATION of the remains.
Chemistry, physics, and geology can be tested in the lab and one can run experiments to verify the results. That's way more solid evidence than the ToE has to support it. Lots of fossils are just lots of fossils. Their whole value is in providing circumstantial evidence for the support of the ToE.
>>As has been demonstrated time and time again on FR, science isn’t exactly the strong point of evos.
People who don’t understand science try to impugn people who do? It is to laugh.
We have seen variation within species, nothing more. Certainly not the kind and amount of changes that evos say had to have happened to produce the variety of life we see on the planet today.
>>Chemistry, physics, and geology can be tested in the lab and one can run experiments to verify the results. That’s way more solid evidence than the ToE has to support it. Lots of fossils are just lots of fossils. Their whole value is in providing circumstantial evidence for the support of the ToE.<<
We have seen TToE in action. And we can test geology in the lab? Wow, alert the media. I guess you have seen with your own eyes Continental Drift. And astronomy? How can you be sure that the speed of light accounts for what we see? (actually I know the answer to that but am willing to be you don’t).
A few billion fossils that tell a consistent story — just ignore them since you don’t like the story.
That ain’t science — it is polemics.
>>We have seen variation within species, nothing more. Certainly not the kind and amount of changes that evos say had to have happened to produce the variety of life we see on the planet today.
We have seen “speciation” by any possible definition. The fact you don’t know this doesn’t mean it hasn’t been observed and documented.
Good night and have a blessed evening and night.
As if gubmint-funded education in our graduate indoctrination centers makes anyone more skilled at science. Your average conservative creationist FReeper apparently knows more about common-sense-based science than typical overeducated evo goons do.
I've seen creationists, armed for online spiritual combat with only the Word of God and self-taught Creation Science dance circles around PhDs on FreeRepublic and other forums, where the moderation is actually fair and balanced, and not tilted toward the side of the evos.
Your typical PhD might know this-and-that about some anhydride chemical balance of saline electrolytes in the mating habits of the diurnal cycle of some obscure mutation of the Atlantic sea slug, but they don't know squat about the big picture, except for rampant speculation.
That's where the common sense input of FreeRepublic comes in, to stamp out the fancy-talk of the libs who are running the "science" show, and bring some objective truth into the matter. And the evidence shows, without a doubt, that the "scientists" have no clue, and that Creation prevails!
If I had a PhD from a so-called "university" who teaches this modern "science" nonsense, I'd want my money back for the fraud being filled into my head.
But enough of that now,
REST EASY AND FEAR NOT FR, YOU'RE SAFE FROM THE ATTACK OF THE LUDDITES! FD'03 IS ON THE JOB!
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.