Posted on 09/13/2008 3:24:36 PM PDT by gondramB
The Church of England went off the deep end
>>When you reach a point where you realize that the information is not sufficiently addressing the conundrum, you start work on a new machine (theory).<<
Once body of evidence is built up, a theory is normally refined unless the new evidence is very compelling, like, for instance the Michelson Morley experiment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment
mega dittoes
Thanks for the ping!
Claim CG001:
Darwin renounced evolution on his deathbed.
Source:
Enoch, H., 1916. Darwin’s final recantation. Bombay Guardian, 25 March 1916, quoted at http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0724_Darwins_Final_Recant.html
Response:
1. The story of Darwin’s recanting is not true. Shortly after Darwin’s death, Lady Hope told a gathering that she had visited Darwin on his deathbed and that he had expressed regret over evolution and had accepted Christ. However, Darwin’s daughter Henrietta, who was with him during his last days, said Lady Hope never visited during any of Darwin’s illnesses, that Darwin probably never saw her at any time, and that he never recanted any of his scientific views (Clark 1984, 199; Yates 1994).
2. The story would be irrelevant even if true. The theory of evolution rests upon reams of evidence from many different sources, not upon the authority of any person or persons.
Links:
Greig, Russell, 1996. Did Darwin recant? Creation 18(1): 36-37. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1315.asp
Yates, Simon, 1994. The Lady Hope story: A widespread falsehood. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hope.html
References:
1. Clark, Ronald W., 1984. The Survival of Charles Darwin: A biography of a man and an idea. New York: Random House.
2. Yates, Simon, 1994. (see above)
Further Reading:
Clark, Ronald W., 1984. The Survival of Charles Darwin: A biography of a man and an idea. New York: Random House.
Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG001.html
>>Truly, the scientific method does not apply to theology or philosophy. <<
No, it does not.
But to the extent the Church involves itself in earthly matter, it needs to acknowledge economics, or science or whatever the learning is that area. It is from these areas of learning where progress on earth comes from.
“For example, we all know dinasours existed, but Adam and Eve came much later, and that was the beginning of Jesus ancestory....” [excerpt]Did you get that from the Hebrew?
That was interesting, thanks!
That Altenberg conference reminds you of a bunch of religious leaders all getting together to discuss what needs changing about their custom religion.
Its not like they were dealing with facts, only aspects of what is most effective in their mission, what brings in the most money, and what position they can take that the Creationists cannot refute.
Altenberg was not about science or truth.
It was about winning.
Just my 2¢
But faith is on a different footing. The scientific method does not apply.
Indeed, if an event were observable and predictable it would not be called a miracle or supernatural and it would be fodder for the scientific method. Conversely, things which are not measurable or observable or predictable are beyond scientific inquiry.
For instance, if the faithful are praying for a loved one about to undergo surgery to remove a tumor and the surgeon finds no tumor - the faithful will praise God and move on to other things. But the surgeon would be remiss to not look for radiology or laboratory errors.
Likewise some of the faithful might believe that God created all that there is last Thursday. That belief is beyond scientific inquiry, but the scientist would be remiss not to investigate the historical record based on that belief.
Completely ass-backwards.
Another typical steve-b comment.
i.e. a sane rational comment shooting down a bit of nonsense (in this case, the preposterous notion that people who don't understand and accept science can maintain, much less improve, technology more complex than that used to weed a turnip garden).
That because they subscribed to the nonsensical notion that advanced technology could be used as a sort of rote recipe book without understanding the underlying scientific concepts.
Your meds steve; don’t forget them.
Indeed. Are evolutionary biologists going to apologize for eugenics any time soon?
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.