Replies

What I find really impressive is the time and energy expended by people like you and he and his long list of authors, for the purpose of falsifying a document which is the main foundation and support of the entire Western cultural tradition and all its developed cultural features, including science. It seems to me if it were patently false, you guys wouldn't be wasting your time on it.

Non-sequitur. If there was evidence for a global flood about 4350 years ago science would have found it by now.

You complain that scientists expend such an effort falsifying the "main foundation and support of the entire Western cultural tradition."

The effort of science is to learn what happens in the natural world. If a particular religious belief is contradicted, so be it. Scientists should not be expected to falsify their results, or to censor them, just to accord with someone's religious beliefs, should they?

Posts such as Ichneumon's and mine deal with the science of things, and point out the errors made by folks seeking to reinforce their religious beliefs by distorting, ignoring, or otherwise abusing science.

In other words, believe what you want. But when you make a claim that can be verified or refuted by science, don't take umbrage when some scientists examine that claim.

The effort of science is to learn what happens in the natural world. If a particular religious belief is contradicted, so be it. Scientists should not be expected to falsify their results, or to censor them, just to accord with someone's religious beliefs, should they?

You completely missed my point. But I'll answer your question anyway: No.

The whole idea that there is a natural world that is knowable by reason because it is an ordered, rational, law-biding whole is fundamentally a religious idea. What has become modern science got its start in the monasteries of the late Middle Ages, because religious men believed in this idea, and moreoever believed that to study and understand the creation was pleasing in the sight of God.

[[Posts such as Ichneumon’s and mine deal with the science of things, ... by distorting,]]

Mmmm. like distorting hte fact that there is no evidnece to show macroevolution? Distortions like placing fragments of skulls next to others and claiming- without any strong corroborating evidnece to do os, that trhe two are related, distorting the fact that biologically, macroevolution is impossible- htose kinds of distortions?

[[ignoring,]]

Ignoring htings like the biological impossiblities? Ignoring htings like the difference between micro aND macro, and tryign to assert the two are equal? Ignoring hte mathematical impossiblities? Ignoring the counter-evidences which show hte problems with macroevolution? Ignoring hte evidences of a possible world wide flood?

[[or otherwise abusing science.]]

Abusing science like blinding others to counterevidences? Suppressing those evidneces in schools?

[[and point out the errors made by folks seeking to reinforce their religious beliefs]]

Gee wiz- ya got us there.