Posted on 01/03/2006 12:12:37 PM PST by PatrickHenry
Bad bet. My plumber doesn't even have to address the issue. He's got plumbing down to a science, and that's what I pay him for. I don't expect him to tell me the earth is 4.5 billion years old and my ancestors were apes either before he fixes the problem. But I guarantee you this: If there were no such thing as intelligent design I would have neither a plumber nor pipes that needed repair.
And another thing, wiseass: If I were to question my plumber at length as to what he ultimately considered to be the cause of the clog in my pipes, you just might lose your bet. I don't think he would be running for "Origin of Species" for an answer. Do you? Unless, of course, it happened to be a rare species of corn dog.
Sure, sure. Look, I don't expect to get anything out of you, but you should probably begin thinking about another plan of attack - this one's played out. As I think just about anyone with half a brain can see.
We'll pick up the slack!
One of the experts from the faith issue stated someting to the effect, and since I can no longer find the citation, I'm doing it from memory which may be imperfect: We don't believe that x is true and further cannot allow it to become true among the masses for it would have far reaching implications regarding our values and culture.
That statement has troubled me for some time. We can't allow something that is true to become true?
Again, I wish I knew where and when I read it so I could reference it.
"I am asking how you and/or science are qualified to make such an assertion. If science is not competent to make statements regarding God, then how can it with competence state that God is outside of its purview?"
Because, as YOU have already said, there is no way to make a weighted choice between the statements *Everything can be explainable by God* and *Everything can be explainable without God*. If you can't make a weighted choice, you can't say one is a better choice than the other. You are stuck. That is where science is; it's stuck because there simply is no way to decide if God does or doesn't exist. As YOU have already agreed.
"You misrepresent, or misunderstand what I've said."
No, you misrepresent and misunderstand what YOU have said.
"I accept two types of science as having validity, neither of which operate under falsifiable assumptions. Furthermore I made clear that it is incumbent upon every observer to make a choice based upon those two, and gave the options."
But you said there was NO WAY TO CHOOSE between the two that wasn't better than the other. The proper stance is then agnosticism regarding this question. Theism and atheism are never scientific stances. Not yet anyway; if more info is produced to allow one to make a weighted choice, this may change.
The choice resides with each observer. Some make their choice blindly and do not allow their point of view to be challenged while insisting their point of view is the only one supported by the United States Constitution. Others weigh the evidence as it comes at them and then choose which general understanding is more explanatory. Some people are even capable of seeing things from more than one point of view. Can you believe it?! Since neither approach to science is falsifiable, we'll have to make do with either approach or some admixture of the two. Just as there is more than one way to interpret and explain the motions of the planets, there is more than one way to engage science.
The statements of science are not atheistic or theistic. They are agnostic concerning the existence of a God. Statements by scientists that are theistic or atheistic are NOT scientific statements. God is not examinable by science. It's a theological/philosophical statement, not a scientific one.
We're not just talking about "the statements of science." We're talking about the assumptions under which science is engaged. "God is not within the purview of science" is not a scientific statement, but an assumption under which certain people prefer to begin their interpretation and explanation of the evidence.
As long as science is untertaken by human beings it will be subjective to one degree or another.
Are you not using something other than the evidence to assert that "God is not within the purview of science?" You do not know the whole of science or its potential. To say such a thing is ignorant at best.
I believe in objective reality. I also know that humans cannot be completely objective no matter how hard they try. Part of the nature of being human is to be subjective. But the presence of organized matter behaving according to predictable laws is not a subjective judgement on my part. By and large it defines objective reality. But how "objective" is a phylogenetic tree that subjectively assumes relationships in morphology constitute relationships in objective history?
This thread is totally wucked up by: (1) a truly malicious troll; and (2) the foolishness of others in responding to him. It's madness to hang around to watch as things get progressively worse. I'm outta here. You guys can continue to chat with the sicko all you like.
Sure there is. And it is a weighted, subjective choice. My choice, and the choice of millions of reasonable people, is to infer from the presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws that it is best explained by intelligent design. What is the other "option?"
It isn't as though you've engaged the debate. Appreciate the notice that you'll slink out of it once again with your tail between your legs in ad hominem mode. "Truly malicious" indeed. Is that any way to abuse the Enlgish language?
This is exactly what science does. Haven't you been paying attention?
You might give some thought to your phrase "predictable laws."
truly malicious placemarker
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.