Posted on 12/07/2005 3:31:28 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
You have an interesting pantheon, snarks. Would Alfred North Whitehead be a major prophet or just one of the twelve, so to speak (so long as you feel content to make poetic allusion suffice for critical analysis, which is all ANW is adding so far).
You might want to re-read that post about Whitehead, listening for the touch of lightheartedness...
As for the rest of what you wrote, I'm not quite sure what to make it. No doubt the fault is mine. But I don't recall any claims of infallibility by Dawkins or Darwin (or me), nor did I hear Dawkins denying the contingency of the cosmos (or affirming it, for that matter).
Despite Dawkins, evolution is still not a fact, though it has a congeries of facts to assemble with speculation and outright guess.
You write sentences I don't understand.
Best regards...
I kind of straddle this issue. Why was Science invented and exploited in the West?
The Chinese had been around for much longer, and the Middle East had some bright spots - so why European?
I think the concept of time was very important in the development of Science. The first mechanical clocks were built in 1400's IIRC, just about the time Science took off. Being able to measure time fairly accurately meant that physical things could be identified mathematically. Gallileo used his pulse as a timer, I've read.
The Greeks played a foundational role, but were long gone before Science began to flourish.
The Church played both roles. It fostered academics and learning and then quashed those it didn't like. Overall I think it was a greater impediment to progress than a positive force.
Get back to me when you do understand, then.
Hoyle's comments were made in light of the laws of physical Chemistry and the organic chemicals required for even the simplest one-celled organisms to exist. You can't get selection going until you get self-replicating systems with the potential to mutate.
Dawkins plays some games with just-so stories about clays being the carriers for these complex organics without ever addressing the underlying chemical problems.
Regarding complexity, he would do well to read Dembski's mathematical treaments of complexity and specified complexity. At least Dembski gives an empirical treatment of the subject instead of Dawkin's just-so comment of "Well, just give it enough time and it will happen, I mean, look around. We're here, so it must have happened!"
However, having read Dawkins I find that he is more an idealogue than a scientist. He's a militant, evangelistic atheist and wields evolutionary theory as a sword to slay the religious.
The rumbling of the paradigm shift continues. It will be interesting to see how loud it gets before the shift finally happens.
Is English your native tongue?
We don't know many of the details of how life began on this planet. Dawkins would acknowledge that. But that's no reason to throw up one's hands and say, "Dang, a miracle must've happened here!" And, even if you do that, you've still got the problem of explaining precisely how that miracle happened: What mechanisms did a designer employ to push atoms together to make specific kinds of molecules and then to push these molecules together to make cellular structures? What forces were employed? Why is there zero evidence of such forces being employed nowadays? Etc.
Are you trying to say that the laws of physics have some goal in mind? Are they intelligent in and of themselves?
" I don't know of any un-authored laws"
Stop anthropomorphizing natural occurrences. The 'laws' of nature are human descriptions of natural consistencies. We observe something that occurs the same way every time and can be modeled mathematically so we call them 'laws'.
Some people will do anything, including play semantic games, to make it look like there 'has to be' an intelligent designer.
Michael Denton, author of "Evolution, a Theory in Crisis, has written a new book, "Nature's Destiny," on intelligent Design. In it he says this:
"it is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes.This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school". According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving the suspension of natural law.
Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies."
Behe, the chief defence witness at Dover, has this to say about evolution:
I didn't intend to "dismiss" the fossil record--how could I "dismiss" it? In fact I mention it mostly to say that it can't tell us whether or not biochemical systems evolved by a Darwinian mechanism. My book concentrates entirely on Darwin's mechanism, and simply takes for granted common descent.
Nearly all the major players in the ID game accept common descent, even if they quibble over details of mechanism.
This is simply an appeal to emotion. You have no idea how Ruse views those he's had relationships with do you? Or are you contending that anyone who has sex with more than one person necessarily treats others as disposable by definition?
BTW that little nugget of yours' Purity of heart and wisdom goes hand in hand' is a pretty wild assertion. Want to tell me what this 'purity of heart' means, and how wisdom is not possible without it?
And then what? They could develop a missile system to attack scientists?
"Galileo's mistake was in demanding that the Church endorse his theory. At that point, their theories were unprovable scientifically." He demanded the Church endorse his theory? When? His *problem* was the Church's initiation of force on anybody who deviated from their positions.
[Copernicus'] great work, "De Revolutionibus orblure coelestium", was published at the earnest solicitation of two distinguished churchmen, Cardinal Schömberg and Tiedemann Giese, Bishop of Culm. It was dedicated by permission to Pope Paul III in order, as Copernicus explained, that it might be thus protected from the attacks which it was sure to encounter on the part of the "mathematicians" (i.e. philosophers) for its apparent contradiction of the evidence of our senses, and even of common sense. He added that he made no account of objections which might be brought by ignorant wiseacres on Scriptural grounds. Indeed, for nearly three quarters of a century no such difficulties were raised on the Catholic side, although Luther and Melanchthon condemned the work of Copernicus in unmeasured terms. Neither Paul III, nor any of the nine popes who followed him, nor the Roman Congregations raised any alarm, and, as has been seen, Galileo himself in 1597, speaking of the risks he might run by an advocacy of Copernicanism, mentioned ridicule only and said nothing of persecution. Even when he had made his famous discoveries, no change occurred in this respect. On the contrary, coming to Rome in 1611, he was received in triumph; all the world, clerical and lay, flocked to see him, and, setting up his telescope in the Quirinal Garden belonging to Cardinal Bandim, he exhibited the sunspots and other objects to an admiring throng.He was tried for heresy...
Because he claimed that Scripture erred.
At the same time, it must not be forgotten that, while there was as yet no sufficient proof of the Copernican system, no objection was made to its being taught as an hypothesis which explained all phenomena in a simpler manner than the Ptolemaic, and might for all practical purposes be adopted by astronomers. What was objected to was the assertion that Copernicanism was in fact true, "which appears to contradict Scripture". It is clear, moreover, that the authors of the judgment themselves did not consider it to be absolutely final and irreversible, for Cardinal Bellarmine, the most influential member of the Sacred College, writing to Foscarini, after urging that he and Galileo should be content to show that their system explains all celestial phenomena -- an unexceptional proposition, and one sufficient for all practical purposes -- but should not categorically assert what seemed to contradict the Bible, thus continued:When it wasn't trying scientists for heresy for saying things it didn't like. BTW, it was the pagan Greeks who gave birth to science.I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does not revolve round the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it will be necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the passages of Scripture which appear to be contrary, and we should rather say that we have misunderstood these than pronounce that to be false which is demonstrated.
Why didn't their science didn't develop into a self-sustaining enterprise? Why did science only develop into a self-sustaining enterprise in the Christian, i.e., Catholic West?
It means that it's okay to have sex with lots of people, so long as you don't enjoy it.
Well, it wasn't "purity of body", so you tell me...
Our understanding of physical laws changes constantly. Our understanding is scarcely recognizable from one century to the next.
What science agrees on is that the underlying phenomena do not change.
Aside from that, science is not incompatible with Christianity, however those scientists did not insert their religious views into their science.
Is this really the "argument" you were attempting to make?
With a high degree of probability, yes. Moral lepers generally make poor intellectuals. "Intellectuals" and "Architects of the Culture of Death" provide abundant evidence in support of this commonsensical notion.
But let's look at Mr. Ruse's statement.
Yet after a lifetime of studying Americans -- I have gone to school with them, I have argued with them, I have had sex with them, and now I live with them -- I am still puzzled.By this statement, I can only conclude that Mr. Ruse has extremely low morals and extremely poor judgement. Simply stated, he gives every indication of being a scumbag.
" And then what? They could develop a missile system to attack scientists?"
Are you that deficient in scientific history that you don't know why people were interested in knowing the movements of the planets and stars?
He was tried for heresy...
You make it sound as if 'a priori' is in all cases bad. Sometimes 'assumptions', such as the noninterference of the supernatural, must be made to enable certainty of conclusion. Generally assumptions like that are based on the consistency of nature and are more accurately called 'conclusions'.
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.