Replies

If you don't "believe" in science, it means you think either that your senses are lying to you, that logic is meaningless, or that god is playing tricks on us all by sprinkling the world with false evidence, such as the fossil record. A twisted sense of humor, I guess.

Both Creationists, who deny Darwin, and Darwinians, who oppose creationists, are fundamentalists.

But unless one studied the Philosophy of science, you can't tell why both their arguments are based on unproven suppositions.

You have to go back to the arguments of the 12th century, when Aristolian arguments replaced the mysticism of the Platonic system.

Christian philosophers then insisted that logic and the ability to study the world was a gift given by God to men, and that a scientist doing such studies was in effect praising God by making us more aware of his creation.

So seeing the structure of evolution, or seeing the vastness of the universe, will not weaken the faith of someone who knows the immensity of God.

The fossil record tells us that millions of years and millions of creatures existed. It praises God in his diversity as lifegiver. Logic and science allows men made in the image of God to study this and devise theories.

Only those either ignorant of the philosophy of science or those who are fundamentalists in the religion of Scientism argue like this gentleman. But his argument is based on the unproven assumption that science is true. This is not the same as saying that the scientific method is an accurate way of investigating nature. It is assuming that scientists, like the religious leaders of old, are both infallible and have the ability to rule the rest of us. It also assumes that knowledge from experience outside of the scientific method (for example,intuition) have no place in the world. But philosophically, science does not deny intuition and other ways of knowing the world outside the scientific method. Only Scientists insist on this unproven statement.

They have of course an easy target in Creationists and others who are ignorant. which is why the rest of us tend to stay out of this ridiculous argument in the first place.

In Startrek, there is a scene where Kirk reminds Spock that something "is not logical but it is true". Truth is usually logical, but those who base "TRUTH" on incomplete data and deny what they do not perceive may be missing something.(Spock ignores psychology and emotions, for example, and those following the religion of Scientism may be ignoring the possibility that our machines are not sensitive enough to perceive God ).

It also assumes that knowledge from experience outside of the scientific method (for example,intuition) have no place in the world. But philosophically, science does not deny intuition and other ways of knowing the world outside the scientific method.

Any source of knowledge that predicts a real world outcome is testable by "science." For instance, if prayers can change outcomes, that power can be statistically determined.

From what I can tell of all scientific studies, if God is involved with the day to day workings of the universe -- his fingerprint is indistinquishable from that of random events that exist within the range normally ascribed to nature.

So your assertion that there are alternate routes to knowledge about the real world is questionable -- since all testable routes end up having materialistic explanations.

But I'll ask, do you have an example of an alternate route to knowledge that came to us through intuition or divine revelation and not through scientific discovery?

Both Creationists, who deny Darwin, and Darwinians, who oppose creationists, are fundamentalists. But unless one studied the Philosophy of science, you can't tell why both their arguments are based on unproven suppositions.

Good answer. I especially liked this part, too:

It is assuming that scientists, like the religious leaders of old, are both infallible and have the ability to rule the rest of us.

Who will rule us? Truth be told, this is what it's all about. Power to shape our laws, our culture, and even the moral fiber of the world, this is what the fundamentalist evolutionists are after. In other words, they want a world of their own creation.