Posted on 07/11/2002 9:44:50 AM PDT by ZGuy
The prominent magazine Scientific American thought it had finally discredited its nemesis—creationism—with a feature article listing ‘15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense’ (July 2002). Supposedly these were the fifteen best arguments that evolutionists could use to discredit the Bible’s account of Creation. (National Geographic TV also devoted a lengthy report to the article.)
Within 72 hours, Dr Jonathan Sarfati—a resident scientist at Answers in Genesis–Australia—had written a comprehensive, point-by-point critique of the magazine article and posted it on this Web site.
So Scientific American thought it would try to silence AiG with the threat of a lawsuit.
In an e-mail to Dr Sarfati, Scientific American accused him and AiG of infringing their copyright by reproducing the text of their article and an illustration. They said they were prepared to ‘settle the matter amicably’ provided that AiG immediately remove Dr Sarfati’s article from its Web site.
AiG’s international copyright attorney, however, informed Scientific American that their accusations are groundless and that AiG would not be removing the article. Dr Sarfati’s article had used an illustration of a bacterial flagellum, but it was drawn by an AiG artist years ago. AiG had also used the text of SA’s article, but in a way that is permissible under ‘fair use’ of copyrighted materials for public commentary. (AiG presented the text of the SA article, with Dr Sarfati’s comments interspersed in a different color, to avoid any accusations of misquoting or misrepresenting the author.)
Why the heavy-handed tactics? If AiG’s responses were not valid, why would Scientific American even care whether they remained in the public arena? One can only presume that Scientific American (and National Geographic) had the ‘wind taken out of their sails.’ Dr Sarfati convincingly showed that they offered nothing new to the debate and they displayed a glaring ignorance of creationist arguments. Their legal maneuver appears to be an act of desperation. (AiG is still awaiting SA’s response to the decision not to pull the Web rebuttal.)
Well, what would falsify creationism?
IMHO If science were to show that everything i.e. the universe, life and it’s diversity, beauty, morality, intelligence, love, etc... Were all just mechanisms of nature and served no ultimate purpose. We were spawn from nature by chance only to be swallowed by it, and that is all.
It would be ironic to discover that we developed intelligence from nature for no other reason than to make this dark discovery. (actually, for no reason what-so-ever)
What predictions does it make that, if contradicted in testing, would falsify the "theory of creationism" as it stands now?
If science could prove that we are just matter and energy – there is no higher purpose to our lives. We should live for life itself and reproduce so others can do the same.
I think you are beginning to understand!
But you ask the wrong question – again IMHO
Now, how can does science rule out naturalism if that is all it is limited too?
(ID of any kind has already been ruled out of science… It’s up to science to prove that naturalism is all there is…)
Even if you could generate new information by "natural means', that does not mean that an intelligent being is still not behind the labatory workings. It's the standard "prove or disprove that aliens didn't create the world 7 days ago and implanted false memories in all our brains" argument. That would not be a disproof of ID, because we can't know for sure if there was a supernatural being was still behind it or not.
Even if there wasn't a supernatural being behind it, ID still wouldn't be disproven. It merely demonstrates that generating new information by natural means is possible--it does not mean that there is no supernatural intelligence behind the development of the world and mankind.
Science presupposes naturalism because empirical study of the supernatural is not possible--science deals with the natural world. YEC *can* be studied from a naturalistic point of view, just demonstrate there was a worldwide flood 5000 years ago and that the earth started 7000 years ago.
A similar analogy might be in the study of the Bible. Scholars can study and analyze carefully the text, make judgements on its accuracy, and study ancient Hebrew and Greek. That is science, collecting empirical data about the Bible. However, theology and interpretation of how literally we should accept it and how we should apply it to our lives is religion.
One day, when all of those fortunate enough to get into Heaven gather, those people will exist on a supernatural plane, and therefore they will be able to extend the field of empirical analysis to the supernatural dimensions. But for now, since we only exist on this finite plane, we cannot scientifically analyze anything beyond the natural world.
That is why ID is not scientific--we cannot gather any data that will make it into a genuine, disprovable scientific theory that makes predictions without going into the supernatural realm. However, since YEC seeks to prove stark, natural facts--Noah's Flood, for example--it can make predictions, and it can be disproved. But YEC scientists, for whatever reason, are recluntant to enter the world of peer review and seem to be content in pointing out gaps and cave drawings. There is so much that YEC can do--but they will not work hard enough for it.
I'm tired, and I didn't proofread the above, so the above probably sounded more like a foreach( split(/\W+/, $FCHRISTIANRANT ) { print $_; } than a coherent reply. Good night--may not be able to reply for a few days, but God bless you, and I'll get back to any responses.
If I'm not mistaken, that stone at Baalbeck is still in the quary because it was abandoned there when they determined it was too heavy to move.
P.S. -- do you agree that species evolve every day?
It's been posted before, I've read it. I like it.
It agrees that evolution is true and Darwin was right. Species evolve to adapt to their surroundings.
Do you, likewise, agree with that?
Who says that? I really want you to supply quotes of people saying schools should teach that.
Answers in Genesis (the organization mentioned in the article) does not want religion taught in public schools. Either does the Institute for Creation Research in California. Both of these organizations want:
1. Children to be taught to test everything the teacher says instead of dogmaticly accepting it as fact.
2. Children to be exposed to all valid theories for scientific fact. I'm not talking about Creationism. I'm referring to specific things like , where does oil come from, how does the sun generate its energy? Instead of picking the theory that is the most pro-evolution and just teaching that one.
3. They want children to be given the tools and encouragement to test different theories. And to decide for themselves which theory is best?
4. They want the scientific fact taught, not a biased interpretation.
For example I read a while back, (on free republic) a story that humans had nearly died out many times in the past. That's a biased interpretation. The fact (which was mentioned in the article) was that Modern Man was lacking the(genetically)diversity that a long existance(tens of thousands of years) would have provided. Nowhere in the article did the writer provide any other evidence to suggest that mankind nearly died out many times. But it is now being taught as fact in order to protect the belief that modern man has existed for certain length of time.
Why don't we teach the fact(that genetic diversity suggests that modern man has not existed a long period of time.) And then allow the students to test different theories and determine which one best explains this fact. Instead of teaching just one position. Let us teach students the scientific method, have them test the different theorys, and decide for themselves which is best. It's quite possible that there is a scientific reason that has nothing to do with the evolution/creation debate. But we will never discover it, if our scientific education exists for the purpose of ensuring that no one ever questions evolution.
Is it wrong to question science when it put obvious limits?
What do we do when empirical data is limited and studied with no definite resolve? Always stick to the natural explanation, even when it is lacking the evidence? Science should explore all possibilities.
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.