No, go back and re-read the original exchange.
Your complaint was that "Obamatrons do not rise above the pyramid's 4th level...", to which I responded, "Fortunately, that never happens on Free Republic, right?"
For the obvious reason that we don't get a lot of "Obamatrons" posting here, and the rest of us generally try our best to be civil, even under the most trying circumstances.
Point is: your complaint seems a little out of touch with what's actually happening here.
YHAOS: "Creating sidetracks to send me galloping down. Old naval tactic; when out-gunned make much smoke; great billowing clouds."
Not at all, just thought it important to be certain we understand certain word definitions.
For something to be "scientific" it must meet certain criteria, especially: natural explanations for natural processes.
When a scientist speaks of his/her religious or metaphysical opinions, those are not, by definition, "scientific".
YHAOS quoting Aquinas: "Since therefore falsehood alone is contrary to truth, it is impossible for the truth of faith to be contrary to principles known by natural reason."
Thanks for that excellent quote.
It makes my point that a study of alleged conflicts between religion and science should begin with Aquinas, since he believed the two are in harmony and compliment each other.
So far as I know, Aquinas never addressed the question: what if science appears to tell us something in conflict with the Bible?
But that is the question since at least the Renaissance and Galileo.
YHAOS: "Science, I think, is always an effort to explain 'reality' without reference to a Creator (even by scientists who, after some fashion or another, believe in a Creator), creating a kind of certainty that generates, in turn, a very comforting security (which I must assume is the generating motive behind the effort)."
Yes, from the time of Aquinas, "science" (aka "natural-science" & "natural-philosophy") is precisely that effort to search out natural explanations for natural processes.
Any other explanations are not, by definition, "scientific".
And indeed, it has nothing whatever to do with certitude, just the opposite.
Nothing in science is ontologically certain.
No theory (outside mathematics) is ever "proved".
Every hypothesis is "confirmed" only by failures to disprove it.
Every theory is only accepted as "confirmed" until some future test succeeds in disproving it.
So science is the opposite of certainty.
Science is all about "question everything", and the questioning on one subject only ends when people grow tired and move on to something else.
YHAOS: "But I also note that they and Scientists, particularly of an Atheist persuasion, misrepresent themselves as speaking authoritatively, not personally.
It is to this that I object."
Of course, you need all the same skepticism you'd bring to a used car lot in listening to their sales pitches.
And by that, I don't mean to insult used car salesmen!
YHAOS: "It’s not as though it‘s only in the past year that Liberals have been pirating Science, especially Evolution (Darwinism).
It began with Marx 165 years ago..."
Of course, since science is generally morally "neutral", anybody can pirate it, and many have.
And I couldn't say who's done more harm with it -- the international socialists, the national socialists, the democrat socialists or now the Muslim terror socialists.
Unfortunately, scientists like anyone else know who signs their pay-checks, and take care to protect them.
Since many are paid by government, we might not be so surprised at their politics.
And in the particular case of, say, "global warming" we can see how political influence corrupted a scientific process.
But so far as I can tell, that is not true of anything to do with evolution theory.
YHAOS: "...being an avid reader of FR posts, you must be keenly aware that many posts of glaring Scientific heresy have appeared on FR threads."
"glaring Scientific heresy" refers to what, exactly?
YHAOS: "I insist the opinions are not scientific facts and you choose to attack me rather than Dawkins."
You are mistaken if you think I defend anything about Dawkins except his right to express opinions on whatever he wishes.
If people like YHAOS misinterpret those opinions as somehow authoritatively scientific, then I'm here to tell you: you'll need a raincoat and galoshes to wade out in that... ah, mess.
Actually, I suspect we do get some “Obamatrons”, but always as false flaggers posting some outrageous nonsense, just to make the rest of us look bad.
Present company excluded, of course. :-D
Against whom do you propose to “defend” Dawkins’ right to express opinions? Dawkins’ right to express opinions has not been an issue with me. Again, we witness smoke making (great billowing clouds). This old naval tactic is very popular with politicians whenever they encounter any topic with which they lack the stomach to deal, which is as sure an indication as can be found, that issue is entirely about political domination, and has nothing to do with protecting the precious sanctity of scientific purity.
“For the obvious reason that we don't get a lot of "Obamatrons" posting here”
Oh, so you do agree with me that most posts pretending to represent Science, or to defend Darwinism, are pointless and in violation of Science principles.
“When a scientist speaks of his/her religious or metaphysical opinions, those are not, by definition, "scientific".”
The crux of the matter, and one I’ve held from the beginning, and the point you’ve attempted right along to obfuscate with much smoke making . . . great billowing clouds.
Now you say that you don’t have occasion, poor fellow, to deliver your opinion to Dawkins and his many acolytes, because you just don’t run in their circle, and post only in FR. There’s nothing to prevent you from correcting his fans on FR who assail his FR critics by directing everyone’s attention to the myriad Science heresies he commits when he directs his poisonous tongue to Judeo-Christians. So why don’t you? The strongest sentiments against Dawkins &co you’ve delivered, of which I am aware, have been here in this present thread in your agreement with me.
“Aquinas never addressed the question: what if science appears to tell us something in conflict with the Bible?”
What?! The quotes I provided from T. Aquinas, Of God and His Creatures, Book I, Chap. 7, address that very point. That should be obvious, but I suppose the philosophy and religion of Aquinas cannot be read and understood if it is treated as though it is a lab report form a peer-reviewed scientific paper.
“Science has nothing whatever to do with certitude”
You don’t need to convince me. Indeed, you do admit (as you should) that many are paid by the Regime and that we should not be surprised at their politics. And, of course, I am not surprised; merely disgusted at how easily they prostitute themselves, and how lightly they regard liberty and the salvation of their souls.
My reference to Marx stems, of course, from the fact that he was a historian, economist, sociologist, journalist, and philosopher (nonsense - he was the Mid-Eighteenth Century version of a community agitator), and was joyful to declare that the Theory of Evolution proved with scientific “certainty” that God never existed. And that is yet today the stance assumed by all Marxist acolytes (both public and closet). To all Socialist devotees and 0bamatrons (who seldom, if ever, even have a scientific or philosophic thought in their empty heads), the nonexistence of God is the one certain thing in an otherwise uncertain Universe; and it is Science that proves it. If this all this sounds rather psychotic, then understand it is nothing more than a view into the chaos of a Liberal’s mind, which is something akin to a view into an used baby diaper.
Since you seem to understand that my main objection is to Scientists of an Atheist persuasion, primarily if not entirely, who misrepresent themselves as speaking authoritatively, not personally, that Science proves God does not exist, why do you tell me all these things you apparently know I know?
“glaring Scientific heresy" refers to what, exactly?”
Heavens to Murgatroid! Of what have I been speaking almost incessantly on this thread if not the dishonesty of Scientists (and others) who present their opinions authoritatively, as though they are making factual statements about Science?
“so far as I can tell, that is not true of anything to do with evolution theory.”
Really?! From Marx to the present, it has ben the mantra of all Liberals/Socialists/0bamatrons, that it is Science generally, and The Theory of Evolution particularly, which “proves” that Capitalism and the Judeo-Christian God are both dead.