Posted on 06/27/2008 2:04:21 PM PDT by EveningStar
Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal has signed a stealth creationist bill into law, and American educational standards take a huge step backward: Science law could set tone for Jindal.
The creationist front group called the Discovery Institute is quietly crowing, and maintaining the fiction that the bill is not religiously-based.
(Excerpt) Read more at littlegreenfootballs.com ...
Bad science and bad theology.
OK - you got me on that one. Entropy decreased -- but I said that the 'order increased'. You're right, 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'.
Yeah, I'm definitely laying off the Quantum stuff. I actually enjoyed the two courses I took on Quantum Mechanics -- but that was an eon ago (the equivalence of 'billions and billions of years' as far as my gray matter is concerned), and it would definitely make my brain hurt. But with respect to simple chemical reactions - e.g., the formation of the chemical bond between two amino acids requires energy - I have to believe that the 2nd Law still works. That is, 'nature' would have a tendency to 'pop' the bonds (and release the energy), rather than absorb energy to build more bonds .... But if your reference was to sub-atomic particle reactions... I would not be surprised if the 2nd Law didn't apply (just the general law of weirdness and probabilities)...
No, it increases...
Got it
...If you value your sanity and don't like Tylenol, stay away from math PhDs and quantum physicists.
Hah! I can't disagree with you on that point.
Nonetheless, we have to express these equations and processes in words - lest they become no more useful than 'Suduko' puzzles. Mentally stimulating, but pretty useless...You are obviously no dummy, so if your math PhD friends can't explain what these equations/processes mean in English, I'd begin to think that they've crossed the other side into 'useless theory' land (Maybe I'm 'poisoned' because I've spent the last 30 years working in 'High Tech' engineering and if someone can't translate their theory into words they get a public stoning ... In retrospect, I probably should've switched my major to quantum physics)
Man, now you're making me research since I was just going on memory. .... Apparently it starts at the molecular level in systems below a couple picograms.
I'd begin to think that they've crossed the other side into 'useless theory' land
It's these crazy theorists who lay the groundwork for eventual application by guys like you. Twenty years ago ideas of quantum computers and encryption were pretty wacky, and now engineers are starting to work on them.
The problem with English, or any language, is that it isn't precise, it's vague with nuances, etc. Math lets these people communicate in a precise language. You just have to learn the language to be able to understand, but unfortunately that takes years and a lot of smarts. I've met enough dumb history and English PhDs, but I've yet to meet a dumb math PhD.
What I am talking about is adhering to methodological naturalism, because metaphysical naturalism doesn't make sense (claiming that which your system can't detect doesn't exist, argument from ignorance).
Science also has no business defining "truth." The guilty here exist on both sides. On one hand you have people such as Dawkins trying to say science gives truth, and on the other hand you have religious people who think science threatens their religion as an alternate truth. Such people are creating a problem where one doesn't really need to exist.
But you don't adhere to methodological naturalism. You drift from methodological naturalism (which is fine BTW) over into philosophical naturalism, which doesn't make any more sense than metaphysical naturalism. Philosophical naturalism is just the other side of the same coin with metaphysical naturalism. You also try to use methodological naturalism to defend your drift over into philosophical naturalism which doesn't make any sense either.
That 'argument from ignorance' is exactly what philosophical naturalism uses when convenient and ignores when convenient. That is why it is a philosophy.
The position you defend makes no more sense than the position you reject. That's why your choice is philosophical, not empirical. Shame that you don't understand that.
LOL!
You da man!
Which makes 'the church' nothing but an echo of the prevailing opinion of men. IOW, nothing at all.
"Better than those anti-science folks who refuse to budge in what they think no matter the evidence."
You are confused. The evidence is all the same. There is no evidence that proves anything either way. It is all in the interpretation of the evidence and that is a function of 'a priori' assumptions. Those who philosophically assume naturalism 'a priori' have 'natural' theories.
I think that not understanding that point is the root of your problem.
Where? I've never said the supernatural cannot exist. I've only said that science should ignore the supernatural, that it should not claim religious or philosophical "truth." I do believe that is pretty much methodological naturalism.
Why do you wish to live in darkness?
You cannot even claim a scientific basis for your rantings; you deny the sound analysis of our greatest physicists and astronomers to cling to your transparent hiding place. To satisfy your false universe, Max Born must be a liar and a dupe to your imagined deception by Einstein and thirring? Is Fred Hoyle also in on the conspiracy?
Quit wasting our time and FR’s bandwidth.
The "brute force" approach to religionism.
Of which data to you speak? No data have ever emerged that are in disagreement with any part of God's word. The disagreement is in the deluded mind of the false messinger.
BTW, the Bible is not a 'religious' text; Religion is the devious work of sin driven men, and the Bible is the word of God: truly inerrant.
That'd make an interesting discussion in the Religion forum.
You are confusing philosophical naturalism with metaphysical naturalism. They are not the same thing. That's what I wish you would understand.
Abiogenesis is philosophical naturalism, evolution is philosophical naturalism, big bang is philosophical naturalism, even heliocentrism is philosophical naturalism.
You don't really understand how much in science is philosophical naturalism.
All you have are quotes you don't really understand that says either system is perfectly fine AS A COORDINATE SYSTEM.
Yes, moving the entire city 60 mph towards a motionless truck works fine as a coordinate system. But it doesn’t explain how a force could move the entire city 60 mph while simultaneously leaving the truck motionless.
You cannot back up your model with a Biblical citation.
You cannot back up your model with a fundamental force like gravity.
You cannot back up your model with mathematics.
You cannot back up your model, and nobody can, even with Epicycles within epicycles (the tendency of orbits to conform to epicycles never having been observed) and that is why the heliocentric model was abandoned by thinking people many hundreds of years ago based upon Tycho Brahe's observations and the Copernicus model. Later this heliocentric model received extensive confirmation by Newtonian physics, the theory of universal gravitational attraction, and observations about the relative mass and distances of celestial bodies. It all makes perfect mathematical sense and is internally consistent and all it needs to work is gravity and mass.
Meanwhile your ignorance and arrogance are breathtaking. But I don't want you to quit what you are doing. I think you are an excellent example of what abandoning Science will lead to. By all means, carry on!
I understand perfectly! Anything in Science that Gourmet Dan disagrees with is based upon philosophical naturalism (according to him); seeings as how Gourmet Dan is a geocentrist that would be the majority of Science.
So you are denouncing Einstein, Thirring, Born, and Hoyle?
LOL! Thanks for proving my point.
You are the one denouncing anyone who isn't a geocentrist as ignorant; nevermind it has been the majority of thinking people over the last few hundred years.
Still no backing for your model, just a quote that you evidently do not understand about how it is equally valid (not more valid) as a COORDINATE SYSTEM. Not as an actual model of motion based upon gravitational attraction of mass.
Please explain then. I always thought they were basically the same thing, as opposed to methodological naturalism.
Abiogenesis is philosophical naturalism, evolution is philosophical naturalism, big bang is philosophical naturalism, even heliocentrism is philosophical naturalism.
The type of naturalism is mainly in the attitude. Do you make a statement about the existence of the supernatural? That's philosophical/metaphysical. Do you simply ignore the supernatural possibility and make no claim to its existence or non-existence? That's methodological. People such as Dawkins will make the philosophical/metaphysical claim on top of the methodological work that is being done in these areas.
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.