Space aliens!
Posted on 06/13/2009 1:07:46 PM PDT by neverdem
Do you live in the USA?
Heard of the NEA?
ACLU?
Are you familiar with the various books out there about the culture wars by David Limbaugh, etc. etc. etc.?
Space aliens!
I wonder why the smart guy only created life on the planet that's been friendly to organic chemistry for a few billion years. Even we lowly humans have created machines that function in the places without life.
And that's possible no matter which philosophical worldview one holds.
One can be a geneticist and understand the mechanics of coding and manipulation whether one believes that genes are similar due to common descent or common design.
While the *how* of how something got to where it is can be interesting, it isn't always essential to being able to work with it as it is now.
The scientific method, as poorly as it is occasionally implemented, drives the researcher towards conducting themselves in an objective fashion. As you said, a faith based belief system drives towards subjectivity. I would place Creationism in that category, which places it at odds with scientific method.
No more than any other philosophical system, since all incorporate faith to the extent that they believe that it is true and through it truth can be found. I would hazard a guess that the objectivity of a belief system is of less consequence than the ability of each individual observer to be objective. Again, Dawkins comes to mind. Creationism certainly has it's share of biased supporters, but evos have Dawkins and his compatriots dragging at their heels.
Our contention is that the non-religious premise with which some approach scientific investigation is not any more objective that a religious one.
Evos lose any legitimate claim to objectivity when they assert that Scripture is wrong when there appears to be a conflict between what their interpretation of science is and what Scripture has to say. They don’t KNOW that they’re right, they’re just presuming that their interpretation of the evidence is right because it matches with their world view, and that’s not objective.
At one point, back in the early 1900’s, the Steady State theory of the universe was the predominant theory concerning origins. The only ones who had reason to believe that the universe had a beginning were those who took the Bible on faith, that what God said in Genesis was true. It contradicted current scientific consensus. Even when Einsteins relativity equations indicated a beginning to the universe, instead of adjusting the theory to fit the equation, he added a *cosmological constant* to adjust the equations to fit the theory. It wasn’t until Hubble’s observations on red shift conclusively demonstrated that Einstein’s equations were right and there was no way to hold to the steady state theory any longer, that Einstein removed the cosmological constant and admitted that he made a *mistake*.
The creationists were vindicated. The belief that the universe had a beginning based on trusting what God was not scientific but it was not wrong either.
If the goal it to gain knowledge, why is it considered not valid to have God, who created it all, tell us how He did it, vs trying to deduce it on our own? Why is trying to gain knowledge that has far more potential to be wrong through trial and error methods considered to be a more legitimate means?
That's a pretty fair summary. Scientists who are out to *prove* that God doesn't exist, do NOT have any claim to objectivity.
Challenging someone who makes statements about God's (lack of ) existence using science to support themselves, is more a matter of exposing those who are trying to hijack science to further their agenda and exposing THEIR lack of alleged objectivity.
He didn't. But if we get into angels, I know where that's going to lead.
Besides, while machines are far simpler and far more durable for conditions that would be hostile to organic life, they are not indestructible. Machines are far more susceptible to damage in humid conditions than organic life is.
Each have their strengths and weaknesses.
Of course. I think, at least personally, that they have been given a fair hearing. It is a difficult thing to get done in the scientific community though, when one or both sides revert to "groupsulk" (and there's the crux of why I feel the proper forum for a Creationist's argument is not in the scientific community). While your point regarding lack of objectivity in the scientific community is a worthy criticism, I do not agree that the groups are equally subjective (or similarly objective). I still believe it's fairly obvious where the more objective treatment of reality occurs, and it is not with the Creationists. But why would anyone expect that to be surprising?
In the future, I don't believe that the Creationists will continue, as you say, to get a fair hearing within the scientific establishment. Their operational systems and belief structures are so different that it's just not going to happen. Neither would the scientific community get an objective hearing within the Creationist community based on the creationist's advocacy position. They're simply cats and dogs (don't care which is which). They are, by nature, incompatable. As it is, both get really annoyed with each other when they interface. Yes, even to the point of getting nasty. I thought it odd that many Creationist posts end in “snarkiness” when addressing an “evo”, so I should have suspected that there was bad blood on both sides from the past (but I never took it personally as I figured the closing backhanded “slaps” were merely reflexive. Antisocially reflexive, but not personal). My children get sent to the bathroom for this sort of degenerate discourse, by the way. Most adults have learned to avoid such unpleasantness, and there are plenty of adults on both sides of the debate, that will avoid or reject such tactics.
Again, this is another indication of why a Creationist's realm is not properly in the scientific community. Oh, I suppose it's ok if you like intellectual food fights, but the disruptive results are hardly a proper method of witnessing for Christ.
So what if this “interface” between the “evos” and the creationists is unworkable due to disfunctionalism. It's silly to be perpetually annoying where one is unwelcome. What other avenues of discourse are effectively available to the creationist movement. Obviously, one could retire behind their own church doors, but I think they are now too confrontational to remain there. I'm not sure that a lot of churches would want that sort of behavior, but I'm sure they're nicer to members of their own tribe.
What's left to them in the secular world? Politics perhaps? Certainly the recent electoral events in the US make it unlikely for any inroads to be made in that venue in the near future, though Europe seems to have tacked politically to the right recently. Perhaps there's an opening there, but western europe is one the most secularized regions on the face of the Earth (no one goes to church there).
I think a discussion as to where creationists could make the greatest inroads for their cause is in order (if it hasn't been started already). It doesn't have to be here or in public, but if it hasn't been done already, it's probably a good time to start. Of course, they can take their case anywhere they want, but it would seem only logical to place the emphasis in avenues where the greatest promise is located, else their rejection in the scientific community is going to leave them feeling disaffected. It appears to me, that the present scientific community is not one of the most welcoming venues for their cause (but that's just me).
“Scientists who are out to *prove* that God doesn’t exist, do NOT have any claim to objectivity.”
I’d say that this is true, though I don’t know any of these folks, nor did I ever meet one while in academia. What sort of percentage are we talking about here? If it’s only a few, then it may be a problem that is overperceived. If the majority of scientists go around trying to prove that God doesn’t exist, it would definitely color their objectivity which would tend to support your general contention that neither science or creationism can be trusted to be objective (at least I think that’s one of your positions). Do you have actual numbers on this? If so, it would be interesting thought fodder.
Just asking. You’re not required to have statistics. It’s just a better case if you do.
It's not a matter of creationists/Christians being too confrontational, but it is a matter of objecting to things such as the school system being hijacked for their (liberals in particular) purposes.
If the liberals/atheists/evos are going to force the issue in the public realm, then Christians are going to react and fight back, in the same realm.
Oh, I suppose it's ok if you like intellectual food fights, but the disruptive results are hardly a proper method of witnessing for Christ.
True, but neither is it worthy of anyone who considers themselves as objective and intellectually superior to others. It is not becoming of them either.
Just out of curiosity, have you ever perused Darwin Central?
“Just out of curiosity, have you ever perused Darwin Central?”
No, but I will on your recommendation. :-)
“It’s not a matter of creationists/Christians being too confrontational, but it is a matter of objecting to things such as the school system being hijacked for their (liberals in particular) purposes.”
Sure, but is that an effective application of the Creationist movement? I separate them from the Christian movement because the Christians are all over the map. Living in Wichita in the 80’s and 90’s I saw the schism between imported national anti-abortion groups and the majority of the local Christian community. Remember, Tiller was killed in a Wichita church while acting as an usher. True. The Christian community is not a monolithic entity, and they definitely do not think alike.
It would be nice if you could get them all moving in one direction, but I fear that it would be like herding cats in practice. Personally, I think the Creationist subgroup of the Christian community, would be far more tractable than the Christian community at large.
“True, but neither is it worthy of anyone who considers themselves as objective and intellectually superior to others. It is not becoming of them either.”
No argument with that, but one can’t use antisocial behavior on one side, to justify it on the other. How are you going to maintain the high ground? You guys are supposed to be the good guys. Well, I would think that the Creationists would like to have that reputation.
Your turn.
Well as I said, not for the most part. As I pointed out, for the most part, I think Christians in general are frankly tired of liberals hijacking science, our culture in general, journalism, politics, and above all the lexicon.
Like I said before, this is more a conflict of ideologies.
People are certainly entitled to believe in God or not. That’s not the issue. I think what most Christians take umbrage at is the destruction of our culture and society using something like science to erode confidence in the Judeo-Christian belief system which really is the foundation of our country and government.
When we see something like belief in God being driven from the public schools and the resultant deterioration of morals, we are going to speak up. When we see science being used as the weapon of choice in that battle, we are going to speak up.
I think that for the most part, creationists aren’t anti-science as anti-misuse of science. Scientists would garner a lot more respect and credibility from Christians and creationists if they stood up to the liberals who are hijacking science to further their agenda. And it isn’t just the evolution thing in the public schools, it’s other things like anthropogenic global warming.
“Christians and creationists are not going to allow Dawkins et al, to continue their attack without countering it. Now, evos may disagree with the interpretation of the creationists findings, just as creationists disagree with the non-believers findings.”
Humph! (with emphasis). Dawkins is no more representative of the scientific community, than Tiller was of the medical community. There is always the danger of becoming too insulated from the reality surrounding us and missing environmental cues that have strong bearing on our survival. In the cockpit, we called this “situational awareness”. By boresighting on a single problem, or minor subset of the same, we may ignore looming problems that can threaten our very survival. I am guilty of this myself, as I live in one of the few solidly conservative counties in Colorado (a conservative ghetto, if you will). This is my political and social reality, to the point that I have difficulty being able to accept what is occurring a short distance away in Denver. Talk about lacking objectivity! I plead guilty in this case.
Once the failing is realized, it is easier to deal with. I said easier, not easy. Though we’re all individuals, we’re also herd animals, to some extent. We tend to think the groupthink of the herd we hang with, to the point that the herd’s reality becomes our own. Not THE reality, but the world as our group perceives it to be.
This aspect of our nature can be dangerous and, when coupled with boresighting on a specific problem or, in this case, individual, our perception of reality is affected. To ignore the nature of the scientific community at large, in favor of a minor subset (Dawkins and his minions), blinds us to the fact the scientific community is not an intellectual monolith anymore than the Christian Church is a cohesive organization.
The scientific community is not all about Dawkins, and the Christian Church is not all about one mortal like Orsteen, or one subset of the church like the Creationists. The world is far more diverse than our little brains are comfortable (I didn’t say capable) in accepting, and I guard against viewing the world through too narrow a set of blinders. It is easier to view the world in such a narrow fashion, but it is not wise to base my perceptions and resultant behavior on it.
I’m sure that I’m not alone in these tendencies. Just an observation.
“Christians in general are frankly tired of liberals hijacking science”
As they should be, and the Christians are not alone. There are plenty of other groups that are beginning to push back as well, and it’s not limited to those with religious affilliations. Do not make the mistake of concluding that “science”, as a group, is going along with this either. In the case of global warming theology, there are plenty within the scientific community that believe that the “science” of global warming is BS (though in truth, the “politics” of global warming would be more descriptive). You don’t hear a lot from academia in this regard, because the politicians have stuffed their mouths with gold. Don’t make the mistake that the scientific community buys into the politician’s global warming agenda. There are some academic sock puppets that are very well paid by the DC politicians in exchange for some street cred, and that’s who gets covered by the media.
Academia, while one of the largest scientific groups, is not strongly populated by scientific practitioners. Once, a scientist gets out from under academia, and it’s funding system, a harsh lesson in reality is usually administered. The rules are completely different outside of academia, and there’s still plenty of hard science that’s done, though its emphasis is more practical in nature. That is the sphere where you find consistently solid opposition to the warming theologists.
Do a bit of Googling and you’ll find a fair number of seminars on debunking the “warmers”, that are attended by real scientists. It might not hurt to throw some support behind these folks right now, because the public support for the environmentalists is beginning to slide away. The reason for this is economically driven, but an opening is an opening.
But it is not scientists, or the scientific community that is pushing this agenda. It's the DC politicians, that are funding specific scientist (with access to media platforms) in exchange for politician “street cred”. Unless, a scientist is getting a big government grant they don't care a fig about what the warmers say. The government can't throw money at all the academicians, so the academic warmers are a minority. A noisy minority with their politically approved media pipelines, but a minority and no more.
Consider the scientific practitioners as a potentially solid ally in your quest. That's where a lot of the opposition to global warming is emanating from. Google their seminars. These guys are real scientists. You could do worse than to make friends with them. They are attacking the “warmers” in ways that the Creationists cannot, from within. When coupled with the current economic imperatives, the environmentalist's position is slipping, and as I've said previously, an opening is an opening. You just have to be ready and seize it to your best advantage when it presents itself. Does it really matter who gets credit for "kneecapping" the environmentalists, as long as the job gets done?
[[But if you are truly objective, do you set aside your faith based premises when you analyze scientific research results?]]
Why would I do that? As I expalined to you- My faith was made whole at the moment of salvation- it was complete. My salvation is not dependent on anyhtign but faith- however, that does NOT mean that everythign I examine in life must throw objective annalysis out hte window- throw my hands in the air- declare “We can’t know anythign outside of faith” and just take everyhtign on faith- that is a rediculous assertion to make.
[[The Creationist’s position REQUIRES a premise that inevitably drives you to a specific conclusion. It is not objective by any means.]]
It most certainly is when it ocms ot hte actual evidneces- it is hte position of Macroevolutionism however that goes WAY beyond hte actual evidence and proposes unreasonable scenarios that violate scientific principles-
[[So you have no difficulty with a “loosened” explanation of Creation, as long as it is still initiated by God? Or do you defend a literal six day time frame for Creation?]]
Again- the OBJECTIVE evidences back the bible up- there is NO need to manipulate anyhtign in order to do so- Dating methods that go beyond aroudn 5000 or so however have NO objective testable evidence to back it up and MUST therefore be based on pure assumptions in order to date things past 5000 or so years- again stepping OUTSIDE the realm of objective evidences, and devlign into unknowns outside of science.
[[There are basic conflicts between the fossil record and a fundamentalist approach to scientific criticism]]
Mmm no there aren’t- you may not agree, but to not agree- you MUST put your faith in people’s ASSUMPTIONS- The fossil record shows discontinuity, NOT continuity. In order to come away with beleif in common descent, you MUST base your conclusion on assumptions that have no actual evidence to supoport it.
[[Perplexing. The question was not offered to insult you, though you may take it as such if you wish. I’m just asking the question. I can’t control whether you choose to misinterpret the motive.]]
Lol- yes- the little miss innocent routine after issuing nuanced insults- Gee- haven’t seen that tactic before.
[[Is it possible, or do you know, of any Creationists that are agnostics?]]
There are ID proponents I know of that are agnostic- don’t know if they are creationists or not
[[How can you publicly deny faith, and hold religious beliefs simultaneously?]]
Who’s denying faith? You arer the one asserting everythign must be an either or situation- and it clearly is not- as I showed in my examples- which evidently you didn’t bother reading- the case was clearly made that faith and knowledge can and should go hand in hand, and one does NOT diminish the other one iota- but those desiring to trap creationists keep insisting if Creationists pursue knowledge and evidences, then they must be ‘weak in the faith’ and htis accusation is simply assurd
[[Helpful hint: Being unable to discuss reasonable questions, without resorting to the mantle of a victim, does not win friends in a public forum.]]
Mmmm- Yes, poor misunderstood you- lol- who’s playing victim here? I’ve seen acts liek yours many times- nuanced insults- insinuations that creationists can’t comprehend science because they ‘must’ take everythign on faith- on and on it goes- whatever- play your victim routine “Who Me? Why I never insulted anyone, I was just asking an ‘honest’ quesiton is all- honest boss”- whatever.
[[but there are those that can discuss issues without flying off the handle and mischaracterizing the questioner.]]
Yeah- Guess I aitn as good a highbrow insinuator as you- guess I’m more blunt and open about how I word things- my bad. Guess I should learn to insinuate htings and make peopel htink they are lucky to have had me do so eh? Reread your last post to metmom again- IF you honestly don’t see how your post was insulting- then you must simply work on your phraseology a bit more because it was spot on predictable compared to lesser antiChristian forums- a littlem ore sophisticated perhaps- but still blatantly obvious.
Thank you for sharing your insights, dear tpanther!
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!
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.