| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"words of truth" |
| Date: |
26 Sep 2005 07:29:29 AM |
| Object: |
Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
http://imagoveritatis.myatts.net/comments.php?id=24_0_1_0_C
Don't Believe It
I ran into a blog that claims to be based on "reason" alone and it
turned out to be, predictably, run by an Objectivist (with a capital
"O" that means a disciple of Ayn Rand). Objectivism is a form of
atheism, though they tend to focus much more on the positive aspects of
their system rather than getting hung up on the God thing, unlike the
folks over at infidels.org. Anyway, that prompted to me to pull off the
shelf one of the many books that I have bought and put away for future
reading, (whenever that is - heh, heh) and before I knew it I was well
into it. The book is John Robbins' Without A Prayer: Ayn Rand and the
Close of Her System, available here.
Well, the book is a masterpiece, and though I don't follow every detail
of Gordon Clark's philosophy which figures heavily in Robbins'
argument, by the end of the chapter on epistemology he has reduced
Rand's system to a pile of rubble that is hopelessly beyond salvaging.
In fact, one cannot but conclude, after reading this analysis, that
Rand's system, rather than being founded upon reason, is profoundly
irrational. It surely requires a blind leap of faith to grasp. I won't
repeat the arguments here; the reader is encouraged to get the book and
see.
So, in that vein, I have been scrounging around the web to see what
else there is in the blogosphere (hey I'm getting into this new lingo!)
when I came across this piece from Tertius, who complains about
atheists who pretend that they do not have a world view, but rather
that they simply lack a belief in God. He calls this atheism lite -
well put I think - because it IS a cop out, as he shows. I have run
across this kind of thing, of course and after analyzing atheism I came
up with at least four positive philosophical assertions that
necessariliy follow from the denial of the existence of God, which are
discussed on page 10 of my conversations with atheists and which I will
quote here:
So when the atheist denies or says he does not believe in a God, he is
necessarily making a number of positive world view presuppositions
about the nature of the universe. What are some of these? At least the
following:
1) The universe is self-sufficient in its existence and operations. It
is autonomous and not dependent upon another external entity, but
functions based on the laws of nature which determine its character.
2) The principles of knowledge or interpretation of the universe are
contained within and derived from the universe itself. There is no need
for a revelation or interpretation of the universe from a vantage point
outside of the universe. Since there is no outside the universe,
according to the atheist, no such revelation could exist in any case.
Therefore, the ultimate reference point for predication and
interpretation is a principle such as logic, sense perception,
intuition, all of which must exist in the universe, and which were
derived ultimately from human reason. The human mind is autonomous and
is adequate to discover truth on its own, using its own methods. All
truth claims must pass the test of human reason. There is no higher
authority.
3) Right and wrong are relative terms that describe social norms
developed by humankind to enhance its survival and pleasure. There is
no absolute right and wrong and in the end, it is the autonomous human
mind that legislates morality.
4) There is no discernible purpose to history or in the operations and
existence of the universe. The universe is the ultimate reality and it
is impersonal and unconcerned about us or our fate. It is simply there
and appears to be what it is largely as a result of chance. The human
future is undetermined, since there is no divine plan governing it. The
meaning of life is what we make of it based on the decisions of our
autonomous wills, and there is no final meaning in the end.
Each of these four notions corresponds to an interpretation of the four
areas that define a world view: ontology (the nature of reality or
being), epistemology (the theory of how we have and justify knowledge),
ethics (the theory of the ultimate good and of moral action), and
teleology (the theory of the purpose of it all). Thus, we see that the
denial of belief in God necessarily implies a basic set of world view
assumptions (axioms or presuppositions) that form a positive
interpretation of the state of affairs.
So the atheist really has no excuse and nowhere to hide. The assertion
that atheism is just a denial is merely a smokescreen to avoid having
to mount a defense of his position. But that emperor is stark naked.
The atheist who wants any intellectual respect is both philosophically
and morally obligated to defend his beliefs as a system, and that means
defending the above assertions. And that puts his whole system up for
discussion. Once we open that door then it is only a matter of time
before the inherent irrationality of atheism reveals itself and the
atheist has to look squarely in the face that fact that his whole
system is built on a leap of faith, and a blind one at that.
.
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
26 Oct 2005 03:31:40 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 19:26:22 -0700, in alt.atheism , Goober
<go.away@nowhere.com> in <djc80g$1co$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 23:15:32 -0700, in alt.atheism , Goober
<go.away@nowhere.com> in <dj7cme$6b5$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 04:05:27 -0700, in alt.atheism , Goober
<go.away@nowhere.com> in <dj59ek$dp9$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca> wrote:
[snip]
And evolution fact as a fact.
Sure, if there are any evolutionary facts.
There are plenty. Common Descent comes to mind. Common Descent is as
much a fact as the orbit of Pluto or the hot metallic core of the
Earth.
All those are theories. Very good theories by scientific standards I'm
sure. They may *also* be facts, but to teach them as such simply
presupposes that the theories are correct.
How about you give me an example of something that is a fact then.
Most people will accept "the Earth orbits the Sun" or "the Earth
rotates on its axis" as facts. All I claim for biology is that the
facts of evolution, including common descent, have as much
epistemological validity as these facts.
The deadliest practice in any science is the undifferntiated confusion
of speculation with fact. When the derivation of doctrine is clear and
obvious, as with the anatomy of the solar system, speculation cannot so
easily become confused with fat, regardless of how it is taught.
But in Evolution and Astrophysics and Quarkian Logic - the derivations
of doctrine are obscure and often obfuscated. Much is based on faith
(billions and billions and billions ...), specialized indoctrination,
or trust in the work of other True Believers. The student cannot be
taught all the methods for deriving or proving the doctrines, and
cannot prove the subject himself. For any individual student, the
subject is a matter of faith.
That is the difference between the pseudo sciences of Radical
Materialism and true Science.
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Lister" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
26 Oct 2005 04:23:00 PM |
|
|
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1130358700.346300.280730@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
of speculation with fact. When the derivation of doctrine is clear
and obvious, as with the anatomy of the solar system, speculation
cannot so easily become confused with fat, regardless of how it is
taught.
But in Evolution and Astrophysics and Quarkian Logic - the derivations
of doctrine are obscure and often obfuscated. Much is based on faith
(billions and billions and billions ...), specialized indoctrination,
or trust in the work of other True Believers. The student cannot be
taught all the methods for deriving or proving the doctrines, and
cannot prove the subject himself. For any individual student, the
subject is a matter of faith.
That is the difference between the pseudo sciences of Radical
Materialism and true Science.
Just because YOU don't understand it doesn't make it any less a science,
loon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
26 Oct 2005 05:10:13 PM |
|
|
Dave Lister wrote:
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1130358700.346300.280730@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
of speculation with fact. When the derivation of doctrine is clear
and obvious, as with the anatomy of the solar system, speculation
cannot so easily become confused with fat, regardless of how it is
taught.
But in Evolution and Astrophysics and Quarkian Logic - the derivations
of doctrine are obscure and often obfuscated. Much is based on faith
(billions and billions and billions ...), specialized indoctrination,
or trust in the work of other True Believers. The student cannot be
taught all the methods for deriving or proving the doctrines, and
cannot prove the subject himself. For any individual student, the
subject is a matter of faith.
That is the difference between the pseudo sciences of Radical
Materialism and true Science.
Just because YOU don't understand it doesn't make it any less a science,
loon.
You don't understand it either, evinced by your highly emotional
response topped with name-calling. Do you think to bully me into
acceptance of your doctrines by calling me names?
Most people to whom Evolution is taught cannot understand it. To each
and every one of them, Evolution is not Science - it is just dogma
taken on faith.
If Evolution were open to free enquiry, they wouldn't surround it with
thugs and enforcers (like you) to protect it. Since Evolution is not
open to free enquiry, it is obviously not a Science.
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Lister" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
26 Oct 2005 06:24:38 PM |
|
|
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1130364613.823180.110950
@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Dave Lister wrote:
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1130358700.346300.280730@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
of speculation with fact. When the derivation of doctrine is clear
and obvious, as with the anatomy of the solar system, speculation
cannot so easily become confused with fat, regardless of how it is
taught.
But in Evolution and Astrophysics and Quarkian Logic - the derivations
of doctrine are obscure and often obfuscated. Much is based on faith
(billions and billions and billions ...), specialized indoctrination,
or trust in the work of other True Believers. The student cannot be
taught all the methods for deriving or proving the doctrines, and
cannot prove the subject himself. For any individual student, the
subject is a matter of faith.
That is the difference between the pseudo sciences of Radical
Materialism and true Science.
Just because YOU don't understand it doesn't make it any less a science,
loon.
You don't understand it either, evinced by your highly emotional
response topped with name-calling. Do you think to bully me into
acceptance of your doctrines by calling me names?
Oh, I do understand it, having two biologists as parents and asking lots of
questions, loon. I really don't care one whit if you believe it or not.
Your beliefs are not going to drive scientific research.
Most people to whom Evolution is taught cannot understand it. To each
and every one of them, Evolution is not Science - it is just dogma
taken on faith.
So is the scientific model of the solar system. Just because that is easier
to visualize than evolution doesn't mean that the average man has ever
looked into why the solar system is what it is. He accepts it on faith that
those who are supposed to know do know..as should you.
If Evolution were open to free enquiry, they wouldn't surround it with
thugs and enforcers (like you) to protect it. Since Evolution is not
open to free enquiry, it is obviously not a Science.
Evolution is open to free inquiry, loon, just don't expect to be taken very
seriously until you've put the time and effort put in by a scientist to
understand it. It isn't any less a science if 95% of the population didn't
understand it - science isn't a popularity contest. Your posting above puts
you firmly in the category of "religious cranks".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kelo Disaster" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
26 Oct 2005 08:23:19 PM |
|
|
"Dave Lister" <retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96FBA764491C8retsildivad33hotmail@68.6.19.6...
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1130364613.823180.110950
@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Dave Lister wrote:
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1130358700.346300.280730@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
of speculation with fact. When the derivation of doctrine is clear
and obvious, as with the anatomy of the solar system, speculation
cannot so easily become confused with fat, regardless of how it is
taught.
But in Evolution and Astrophysics and Quarkian Logic - the
derivations
of doctrine are obscure and often obfuscated. Much is based on faith
(billions and billions and billions ...), specialized indoctrination,
or trust in the work of other True Believers. The student cannot be
taught all the methods for deriving or proving the doctrines, and
cannot prove the subject himself. For any individual student, the
subject is a matter of faith.
That is the difference between the pseudo sciences of Radical
Materialism and true Science.
Just because YOU don't understand it doesn't make it any less a
science,
loon.
You don't understand it either, evinced by your highly emotional
response topped with name-calling. Do you think to bully me into
acceptance of your doctrines by calling me names?
Oh, I do understand it, having two biologists as parents and asking lots
of
questions, loon. I really don't care one whit if you believe it or not.
Your beliefs are not going to drive scientific research.
Most people to whom Evolution is taught cannot understand it. To each
and every one of them, Evolution is not Science - it is just dogma
taken on faith.
So is the scientific model of the solar system. Just because that is
easier
to visualize than evolution doesn't mean that the average man has ever
looked into why the solar system is what it is. He accepts it on faith
that
those who are supposed to know do know..as should you.
If Evolution were open to free enquiry, they wouldn't surround it with
thugs and enforcers (like you) to protect it. Since Evolution is not
open to free enquiry, it is obviously not a Science.
Evolution is open to free inquiry, loon, just don't expect to be taken
very
seriously until you've put the time and effort put in by a scientist to
understand it. It isn't any less a science if 95% of the population didn't
understand it - science isn't a popularity contest. Your posting above
puts
you firmly in the category of "religious cranks".
On top of all your other problems I see you're a chanter.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Goober" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
27 Oct 2005 08:22:16 AM |
|
|
Dave Lister wrote:
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1130364613.823180.110950
@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Dave Lister wrote:
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1130358700.346300.280730@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
of speculation with fact. When the derivation of doctrine is clear
and obvious, as with the anatomy of the solar system, speculation
cannot so easily become confused with fat, regardless of how it is
taught.
But in Evolution and Astrophysics and Quarkian Logic - the derivations
of doctrine are obscure and often obfuscated. Much is based on faith
(billions and billions and billions ...), specialized indoctrination,
or trust in the work of other True Believers. The student cannot be
taught all the methods for deriving or proving the doctrines, and
cannot prove the subject himself. For any individual student, the
subject is a matter of faith.
That is the difference between the pseudo sciences of Radical
Materialism and true Science.
Just because YOU don't understand it doesn't make it any less a science,
loon.
You don't understand it either, evinced by your highly emotional
response topped with name-calling. Do you think to bully me into
acceptance of your doctrines by calling me names?
Oh, I do understand it, having two biologists as parents and asking lots of
questions, loon. I really don't care one whit if you believe it or not.
Your beliefs are not going to drive scientific research.
Most people to whom Evolution is taught cannot understand it. To each
and every one of them, Evolution is not Science - it is just dogma
taken on faith.
So is the scientific model of the solar system. Just because that is easier
to visualize than evolution doesn't mean that the average man has ever
looked into why the solar system is what it is. He accepts it on faith that
those who are supposed to know do know..as should you.
If Evolution were open to free enquiry, they wouldn't surround it with
thugs and enforcers (like you) to protect it. Since Evolution is not
open to free enquiry, it is obviously not a Science.
Evolution is open to free inquiry, loon, just don't expect to be taken very
seriously until you've put the time and effort put in by a scientist to
understand it. It isn't any less a science if 95% of the population didn't
understand it - science isn't a popularity contest. Your posting above puts
you firmly in the category of "religious cranks".
Name-calling, personal life histories, and hyperbole aside. There is a
salient point here. *Most* people who accept scientific claims do not
understand those claims and/or accept those claims essentially on faith.
The do not acquire those believes through conducting experiments, etc.
That just accept them. They accept them, because the treat the
uttterances of scientists as having significant epistemic authority.
The attitude towards espistemic authority by the general populace is
really little different from that which many have towards religious
authorities. This is a central reason why I favour exposing children to
a variety of explanations, not simply to the scientific ones; so that a
critical and enquiring mind may be better fostered.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joshua Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
27 Oct 2005 11:07:56 AM |
|
|
Goober <go.away@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:djqka5$el4$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca:
Dave Lister wrote:
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1130364613.823180.110950 @g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Dave Lister wrote:
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1130358700.346300.280730@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
of speculation with fact. When the derivation of doctrine is clear
and obvious, as with the anatomy of the solar system, speculation
cannot so easily become confused with fat, regardless of how it is
taught.
But in Evolution and Astrophysics and Quarkian Logic - the
derivations of doctrine are obscure and often obfuscated. Much is
based on faith (billions and billions and billions ...),
specialized indoctrination, or trust in the work of other True
Believers. The student cannot be taught all the methods for
deriving or proving the doctrines, and cannot prove the subject
himself. For any individual student, the subject is a matter of
faith.
That is the difference between the pseudo sciences of Radical
Materialism and true Science.
Just because YOU don't understand it doesn't make it any less a
science, loon.
You don't understand it either, evinced by your highly emotional
response topped with name-calling. Do you think to bully me into
acceptance of your doctrines by calling me names?
Oh, I do understand it, having two biologists as parents and asking
lots of questions, loon. I really don't care one whit if you believe
it or not. Your beliefs are not going to drive scientific research.
Most people to whom Evolution is taught cannot understand it. To
each and every one of them, Evolution is not Science - it is just
dogma taken on faith.
So is the scientific model of the solar system. Just because that is
easier to visualize than evolution doesn't mean that the average man
has ever looked into why the solar system is what it is. He accepts
it on faith that those who are supposed to know do know..as should
you.
If Evolution were open to free enquiry, they wouldn't surround it
with thugs and enforcers (like you) to protect it. Since Evolution
is not open to free enquiry, it is obviously not a Science.
Evolution is open to free inquiry, loon, just don't expect to be
taken very seriously until you've put the time and effort put in by a
scientist to understand it. It isn't any less a science if 95% of the
population didn't understand it - science isn't a popularity contest.
Your posting above puts you firmly in the category of "religious
cranks".
Name-calling, personal life histories, and hyperbole aside. There is a
salient point here. *Most* people who accept scientific claims do not
understand those claims and/or accept those claims essentially on
faith.
The do not acquire those believes through conducting experiments,
etc.
That just accept them. They accept them, because the treat the
uttterances of scientists as having significant epistemic authority.
As they should.
The attitude towards espistemic authority by the general populace is
really little different from that which many have towards religious
authorities.
There are a major differences: anyone in the general populace can become
an authority simply by putting in a lot of hard work, and science is
open to (intelligent and informed) questioning and change.
Religion is somewhat open to the former, almost never to the later.
This is a central reason why I favour exposing children
to a variety of explanations, not simply to the scientific ones; so
that a critical and enquiring mind may be better fostered.
Have at it. These non-scientific explantion are taught all the time in
churches, where they belong. We'll leave science in the science classes,
where it belongs.
--
----
Paraphrasing Bill Maher, Bush has lost, under his five year watch, two
skyscrapers,part of the Pentagon, four airliners, thousands of American
lives, a huge economic surplus, the trust of the American people, a
Space Shuttle, and now an ENTIRE MAJOR CITY.
But Republicans say, "Bush can not be blamed" or "It's Clinton's
fault."
What will be the next disaster for which Bush can't be blamed?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
27 Oct 2005 09:04:05 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 06:22:16 -0700, in alt.atheism , Goober
<go.away@nowhere.com> in <djqka5$el4$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca> wrote:
[snip]
Name-calling, personal life histories, and hyperbole aside. There is a
salient point here. *Most* people who accept scientific claims do not
understand those claims and/or accept those claims essentially on faith.
So, when your doctor says you have strep throat, do you demand that
they explain to you how the microscope they use works?
The do not acquire those believes through conducting experiments, etc.
That just accept them. They accept them, because the treat the
uttterances of scientists as having significant epistemic authority.
No, they accept them because science has shown itself a generally
reliable approach. I accept the weather reports not because I have
spent 8 years studying meteorology but because they tend to get it
right when I go outside. I bet you that most people don't have a clue
what "epistemic authority" means.
The attitude towards espistemic authority by the general populace is
really little different from that which many have towards religious
authorities. This is a central reason why I favour exposing children to
a variety of explanations, not simply to the scientific ones; so that a
critical and enquiring mind may be better fostered.
I have a better idea, how about spending more time explaining why we
use science in its domain. That way they will understand more of the
process that they will end up using to understand the world we
observe.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Erb" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
27 Oct 2005 07:18:55 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:jan1m1tonl0br170484vi8ho64u00qhubf@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 06:22:16 -0700, in alt.atheism , Goober
<go.away@nowhere.com> in <djqka5$el4$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca> wrote:
The attitude towards espistemic authority by the general populace is
really little different from that which many have towards religious
authorities. This is a central reason why I favour exposing children to
a variety of explanations, not simply to the scientific ones; so that a
critical and enquiring mind may be better fostered.
I have a better idea, how about spending more time explaining why we
use science in its domain. That way they will understand more of the
process that they will end up using to understand the world we
observe.
In my experience, the more science one studies and understands, the more
likely one will accept scientific explanations, and the more skeptical one
will be of explanations outside science, be they religious or astrological,
or whatever.
But I think the scientific approach is the critical approach, and that is
what makes it superior and right to teach. Science is by definition
self-critical, all theories can be questioned, all facts can be questioned
and alternate theories proposed. What should not be taught in schools are
uncritical belief systems that claim truth but do not have a method of
assessing or critiquing their truth claims. Such views can be studied in
their own right (e.g., in a philosophy or religion class), but certainly
should not be granted equal status with science. I
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
27 Oct 2005 10:03:35 AM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 06:22:16 -0700, in alt.atheism , Goober
<go.away@nowhere.com> in <djqka5$el4$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca> wrote:
[snip]
Name-calling, personal life histories, and hyperbole aside. There is a
salient point here. *Most* people who accept scientific claims do not
understand those claims and/or accept those claims essentially on faith.
So, when your doctor says you have strep throat, do you demand that
they explain to you how the microscope they use works?
If you were taking a science course, you should. If you have come to
the doctor as a practitioner of medicine, you would be rude to ask him
to operate as a private tutor.
On the other hand, you should ask the doctor to explain his diagnosis
in terms you understand, and get all the information you need to
understand his diagnosis. If your doctor does not want to take the
time, find another doctor.
That is a standard service expected of any health professional.
The do not acquire those believes through conducting experiments, etc.
That just accept them. They accept them, because the treat the
uttterances of scientists as having significant epistemic authority.
No, they accept them because science has shown itself a generally
reliable approach.
Wrong answer. Children accept those doctrines because they are
punished with poor grades and public humiliation if they give the
"wrong" answers on exams.
Adults accept scientific doctrines from a life-long habit, in the same
way that Catholic adults accept the authority of the Pope, and Jewish
adults accept the authority of rabbis.
I accept the weather reports not because I have
spent 8 years studying meteorology but because they tend to get it
right when I go outside.
The weather reports are about 50% wrong in many areas of the country.
If you still believe the weather frogs "tend to get it right," your
case is worse than we thought: you are hypnotized.
I bet you that most people don't have a clue
what "epistemic authority" means.
The definition of a word is trivial knowledge. If that is the basis of
your intellectual pride, your castle is built on sand.
The attitude towards espistemic authority by the general populace is
really little different from that which many have towards religious
authorities. This is a central reason why I favour exposing children to
a variety of explanations, not simply to the scientific ones; so that a
critical and enquiring mind may be better fostered.
I have a better idea, how about spending more time explaining why we
use science in its domain. That way they will understand more of the
process that they will end up using to understand the world we
observe.
In what's domain?
Either something got lost in an edit, or you yourself have no idea what
you are on about.
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Lister" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
27 Oct 2005 11:12:06 AM |
|
|
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1130425415.260643.169630@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
That just accept them. They accept them, because the treat the
uttterances of scientists as having significant epistemic authority.
No, they accept them because science has shown itself a generally
reliable approach.
Wrong answer. Children accept those doctrines because they are
punished with poor grades and public humiliation if they give the
"wrong" answers on exams.
As they should. Science class is for learning science, not whatever pseudo-
science is currently in vogue.
Adults accept scientific doctrines from a life-long habit, in the same
way that Catholic adults accept the authority of the Pope, and Jewish
adults accept the authority of rabbis.
Many do, many don't. It depends on how much work one is willing to expend
on it.
I accept the weather reports not because I have
spent 8 years studying meteorology but because they tend to get it
right when I go outside.
The weather reports are about 50% wrong in many areas of the country.
If you still believe the weather frogs "tend to get it right," your
case is worse than we thought: you are hypnotized.
You evaded his point, loon. If the weather people tell me a hurricane is
coming my way, I'd better get ready, even if all I see are blue skies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
29 Oct 2005 05:59:12 AM |
|
|
Dave Lister <retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Terry Cross <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in
The weather reports are about 50% wrong in many areas of the country.
If you still believe the weather frogs "tend to get it right," your
case is worse than we thought: you are hypnotized.
You evaded his point, loon. If the weather people tell me a hurricane is
coming my way, I'd better get ready, even if all I see are blue skies.
And if a religious loon says Jesus is coming back any day now, they
will be laughed at, since they've been saying it for 2000 years and
each and every prediction has failed. 0% success rate. It's the
complete opposite of science.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
27 Oct 2005 12:00:27 PM |
|
|
Dave Lister wrote:
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1130425415.260643.169630@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
That just accept them. They accept them, because the treat the
uttterances of scientists as having significant epistemic authority.
No, they accept them because science has shown itself a generally
reliable approach.
Wrong answer. Children accept those doctrines because they are
punished with poor grades and public humiliation if they give the
"wrong" answers on exams.
As they should. Science class is for learning science, not whatever pseudo-
science is currently in vogue.
So you DO understand my objections to teaching Evolution in public
school.
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joshua Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
27 Oct 2005 12:12:40 PM |
|
|
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1130432427.202572.114670@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Dave Lister wrote:
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1130425415.260643.169630@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
That just accept them. They accept them, because the treat the
uttterances of scientists as having significant epistemic
authority.
No, they accept them because science has shown itself a generally
reliable approach.
Wrong answer. Children accept those doctrines because they are
punished with poor grades and public humiliation if they give the
"wrong" answers on exams.
As they should. Science class is for learning science, not whatever
pseudo- science is currently in vogue.
So you DO understand my objections to teaching Evolution in public
school.
Evolution is science, however much you and the white trash set bleat about
it.
--
----
Paraphrasing Bill Maher, Bush has lost, under his five year watch, two
skyscrapers,part of the Pentagon, four airliners, thousands of American
lives, a huge economic surplus, the trust of the American people, a Space
Shuttle, and now an ENTIRE MAJOR CITY.
But Republicans say, "Bush can not be blamed" or "It's Clinton's fault."
What will be the next disaster for which Bush can't be blamed?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Erb" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
27 Oct 2005 07:26:54 PM |
|
|
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130432427.202572.114670@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Dave Lister wrote:
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1130425415.260643.169630@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
That just accept them. They accept them, because the treat the
uttterances of scientists as having significant epistemic authority.
No, they accept them because science has shown itself a generally
reliable approach.
Wrong answer. Children accept those doctrines because they are
punished with poor grades and public humiliation if they give the
"wrong" answers on exams.
As they should. Science class is for learning science, not whatever
pseudo-
science is currently in vogue.
So you DO understand my objections to teaching Evolution in public
school.
Anyone who objects to science in the public schools, such as teaching
evolution, is an ignorant fool whose views deserve to be ridiculed and
rejected.
As an educator, I'm doing all I can to eliminate such ignorant ideas from
our society. Onward to the future!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
27 Oct 2005 12:18:16 PM |
|
|
On 27 Oct 2005 10:00:27 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Terry Cross"
<tcross77@hotmail.com> in
<1130432427.202572.114670@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Dave Lister wrote:
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1130425415.260643.169630@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
That just accept them. They accept them, because the treat the
uttterances of scientists as having significant epistemic authority.
No, they accept them because science has shown itself a generally
reliable approach.
Wrong answer. Children accept those doctrines because they are
punished with poor grades and public humiliation if they give the
"wrong" answers on exams.
As they should. Science class is for learning science, not whatever pseudo-
science is currently in vogue.
So you DO understand my objections to teaching Evolution in public
school.
Yes, you want to teach pseudo-science.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
27 Oct 2005 12:32:22 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 27 Oct 2005 10:00:27 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Terry Cross"
<tcross77@hotmail.com> in
<1130432427.202572.114670@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Dave Lister wrote:
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1130425415.260643.169630@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
That just accept them. They accept them, because the treat the
uttterances of scientists as having significant epistemic authority.
No, they accept them because science has shown itself a generally
reliable approach.
Wrong answer. Children accept those doctrines because they are
punished with poor grades and public humiliation if they give the
"wrong" answers on exams.
As they should. Science class is for learning science, not whatever pseudo-
science is currently in vogue.
So you DO understand my objections to teaching Evolution in public
school.
Yes, you want to teach pseudo-science.
Personally? Heck no. There is no requirement to teach any myth of
Origins, including the myth of Evolution. It is ALL religion, and none
is good science.
Keep the pseudo-science of Evolution out of the schools. Teach
children to read a write (that would be an improvement!) and they can
study all the pseudo science they have appetite for on their own time.
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Lister" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
27 Oct 2005 12:38:46 PM |
|
|
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1130434342.930453.314910@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 27 Oct 2005 10:00:27 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Terry Cross"
<tcross77@hotmail.com> in
<1130432427.202572.114670@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Dave Lister wrote:
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1130425415.260643.169630@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
That just accept them. They accept them, because the treat the
uttterances of scientists as having significant epistemic
authority.
No, they accept them because science has shown itself a
generally reliable approach.
Wrong answer. Children accept those doctrines because they are
punished with poor grades and public humiliation if they give
the "wrong" answers on exams.
As they should. Science class is for learning science, not
whatever pseudo- science is currently in vogue.
So you DO understand my objections to teaching Evolution in public
school.
Yes, you want to teach pseudo-science.
Personally? Heck no. There is no requirement to teach any myth of
Origins, including the myth of Evolution. It is ALL religion, and
none is good science.
Evolution is a fact, loon.
Keep the pseudo-science of Evolution out of the schools. Teach
children to read a write(sic) (that would be an improvement!) and they
can
study all the pseudo science they have appetite for on their own time.
"Read a write", loon? You clearly missed the school bus.
<snicker>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
29 Oct 2005 06:03:04 AM |
|
|
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Keep the pseudo-science of Evolution out of the schools.
Keep sex ed out of the schools too, right?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Lister" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
29 Oct 2005 12:03:01 PM |
|
|
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in
news:mhl6m1p89r6ueup7ui32537c99ieht79ag@4ax.com:
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Keep the pseudo-science of Evolution out of the schools.
Keep sex ed out of the schools too, right?
Oh, sure, we wouldn't want those kids to know the facts. Better that they
just experiment without protection and get sick or make babies early.
<snicker>
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
27 Oct 2005 12:42:30 PM |
|
|
On 27 Oct 2005 10:32:22 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Terry Cross"
<tcross77@hotmail.com> in
<1130434342.930453.314910@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 27 Oct 2005 10:00:27 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Terry Cross"
<tcross77@hotmail.com> in
<1130432427.202572.114670@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Dave Lister wrote:
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1130425415.260643.169630@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
That just accept them. They accept them, because the treat the
uttterances of scientists as having significant epistemic authority.
No, they accept them because science has shown itself a generally
reliable approach.
Wrong answer. Children accept those doctrines because they are
punished with poor grades and public humiliation if they give the
"wrong" answers on exams.
As they should. Science class is for learning science, not whatever pseudo-
science is currently in vogue.
So you DO understand my objections to teaching Evolution in public
school.
Yes, you want to teach pseudo-science.
Personally? Heck no. There is no requirement to teach any myth of
Origins, including the myth of Evolution. It is ALL religion, and none
is good science.
Keep the pseudo-science of Evolution out of the schools. Teach
children to read a write (that would be an improvement!) and they can
study all the pseudo science they have appetite for on their own time.
I can use evolution to predict life found on an island near a
mainland. How is making testable (and tested) predictions not valid
science?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
27 Oct 2005 01:01:02 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 27 Oct 2005 10:32:22 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Terry Cross"
<tcross77@hotmail.com> in
<1130434342.930453.314910@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 27 Oct 2005 10:00:27 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Terry Cross"
<tcross77@hotmail.com> in
<1130432427.202572.114670@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Dave Lister wrote:
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1130425415.260643.169630@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
That just accept them. They accept them, because the treat the
uttterances of scientists as having significant epistemic authority.
No, they accept them because science has shown itself a generally
reliable approach.
Wrong answer. Children accept those doctrines because they are
punished with poor grades and public humiliation if they give the
"wrong" answers on exams.
As they should. Science class is for learning science, not whatever pseudo-
science is currently in vogue.
So you DO understand my objections to teaching Evolution in public
school.
Yes, you want to teach pseudo-science.
Personally? Heck no. There is no requirement to teach any myth of
Origins, including the myth of Evolution. It is ALL religion, and none
is good science.
Keep the pseudo-science of Evolution out of the schools. Teach
children to read a write (that would be an improvement!) and they can
study all the pseudo science they have appetite for on their own time.
I can use evolution to predict life found on an island near a
mainland.
No, you cannot. Even in the most general terms, your "predictions" are
mere guesswork.
-- Unless of course you refer to "an island near a mainland." Most
such islands have the same flora and fauna as the mainland - if they
have the same climate. Experience will tell you that.
How is making testable (and tested) predictions not valid
science?
Because it does not take a Scientist to make the prediction. Any
experience sailor can make a reasonable guess about the life to be
found on an island. Just like you, sometimes he will be wrong.
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Erb" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
27 Oct 2005 07:29:43 PM |
|
|
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130436062.209668.48980@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Matt Silberstein wrote:
How is making testable (and tested) predictions not valid
science?
Because it does not take a Scientist to make the prediction. Any
experience sailor can make a reasonable guess about the life to be
found on an island. Just like you, sometimes he will be wrong.
Anyone who uses the scientific method is doing science. You don't have to
be a scientist to understand how to observe, hypothesize, and test. You
just have to be rationale, open to evidence that might contradict your
theory, and willing to amend and sometimes reject theories when the evidence
warrants.
That is why science is so much more powerful than religion, it is
self-critical and does not accept something as truth on the basis of a claim
to authority. That is why it has been defeating religious mythology for
centuries. Religious belief survives only if it does not try to contradict
science.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
27 Oct 2005 01:43:03 PM |
|
|
On 27 Oct 2005 11:01:02 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Terry Cross"
<tcross77@hotmail.com> in
<1130436062.209668.48980@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 27 Oct 2005 10:32:22 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Terry Cross"
<tcross77@hotmail.com> in
<1130434342.930453.314910@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 27 Oct 2005 10:00:27 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Terry Cross"
<tcross77@hotmail.com> in
<1130432427.202572.114670@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Dave Lister wrote:
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1130425415.260643.169630@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
That just accept them. They accept them, because the treat the
uttterances of scientists as having significant epistemic authority.
No, they accept them because science has shown itself a generally
reliable approach.
Wrong answer. Children accept those doctrines because they are
punished with poor grades and public humiliation if they give the
"wrong" answers on exams.
As they should. Science class is for learning science, not whatever pseudo-
science is currently in vogue.
So you DO understand my objections to teaching Evolution in public
school.
Yes, you want to teach pseudo-science.
Personally? Heck no. There is no requirement to teach any myth of
Origins, including the myth of Evolution. It is ALL religion, and none
is good science.
Keep the pseudo-science of Evolution out of the schools. Teach
children to read a write (that would be an improvement!) and they can
study all the pseudo science they have appetite for on their own time.
I can use evolution to predict life found on an island near a
mainland.
No, you cannot.
I can't? I sure thought that I could and have.
Even in the most general terms, your "predictions" are
mere guesswork.
How about you tell us how to distinguish between predictions and
guesswork.
-- Unless of course you refer to "an island near a mainland." Most
such islands have the same flora and fauna as the mainland - if they
have the same climate.
Actually, they don't have the same life, they have distinctly
different but similar life. The differences are quite predictable.
Experience will tell you that.
Of course experience tells us that. That is how scientists work, they
take observations and build predictive models. *Science*, not
Intelligent Design, not creationism, not blind guessing, uses
experience to make predictions.
How is making testable (and tested) predictions not valid
science?
Because it does not take a Scientist to make the prediction. Any
experience sailor can make a reasonable guess about the life to be
found on an island. Just like you, sometimes he will be wrong.
And how is that sailor not doing science on some level? People can
tell that rocks fall down, a scientist help us figure out how fast
they fall. A scientist figure out what kinds of differences we would
find when we look at islands and explained the processes that would
lead to those changes.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Erb" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
27 Oct 2005 07:15:11 PM |
|
|
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130425415.260643.169630@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Wrong answer. Children accept those doctrines because they are
punished with poor grades and public humiliation if they give the
"wrong" answers on exams.
Adults accept scientific doctrines from a life-long habit, in the same
way that Catholic adults accept the authority of the Pope, and Jewish
adults accept the authority of rabbis.
You are fundamentally wrong there. The reason why people who understand
science are far more likely to be persuaded by it, is the fact it is
logical, powerful and self-critical. That means that all scientific claims
are subject to questioning and testing. It is not like a religion that
simply makes a claim and then accepts it as true because a book somewhere
said it was true.
Science is, simply, superior. It is superior because of its self-critical
aspects. Now, one can hold on to religious faith if one wants, but only a
very ignorant person will cling to myths like the creation story (which any
person knowledgable about theology knows is just two separate myths put
together likely when Israel unified) when such things obviously have no
basis in reality. Human kind is moving away from belief in myths and
uncritical acceptance of claims by those who simply say they are
authorities, to self-critical claims that all can examine, test, and
communicate results in a peer reviewed open process.
That is why those who understand science believe it more; those ignorant of
science are more likely to be misled by myth and fantasy.
I accept the weather reports not because I have
spent 8 years studying meteorology but because they tend to get it
right when I go outside.
The weather reports are about 50% wrong in many areas of the country.
If you still believe the weather frogs "tend to get it right," your
case is worse than we thought: you are hypnotized.
Actually weather reports give a pretty accurate picture of what is likely,
and note probabilities. They do tend it get it right, especially in the
short term (out three days or more gets more difficult due to all the
different variables.)
I bet you that most people don't have a clue
what "epistemic authority" means.
The definition of a word is trivial knowledge. If that is the basis of
your intellectual pride, your castle is built on sand.
You sound defensive and boastful. Your castle is built on sand, and since
you aren't listening to the weather reports, you're ignoring the hurricane
coming your way.
The attitude towards espistemic authority by the general populace is
really little different from that which many have towards religious
authorities. This is a central reason why I favour exposing children to
a variety of explanations, not simply to the scientific ones; so that a
critical and enquiring mind may be better fostered.
I have a better idea, how about spending more time explaining why we
use science in its domain. That way they will understand more of the
process that they will end up using to understand the world we
observe.
In what's domain?
What is it about "its" that you don't understand?
Either something got lost in an edit, or you yourself have no idea what
you are on about.
You simply are hiding behind cheap insults to avoid confronting reality.
Your way of thinking is anachronistic and based on ignorance. You can hide
your head in the sand, and cling to your myths. I just shake my head and
think "there but for the grace of I, go I."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
27 Oct 2005 10:50:13 AM |
|
|
On 27 Oct 2005 08:03:35 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Terry Cross"
<tcross77@hotmail.com> in
<1130425415.260643.169630@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 06:22:16 -0700, in alt.atheism , Goober
<go.away@nowhere.com> in <djqka5$el4$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca> wrote:
[snip]
Name-calling, personal life histories, and hyperbole aside. There is a
salient point here. *Most* people who accept scientific claims do not
understand those claims and/or accept those claims essentially on faith.
So, when your doctor says you have strep throat, do you demand that
they explain to you how the microscope they use works?
If you were taking a science course, you should.
I would not expect to be told I had a strep throat in a science
course. Nor was that the context here. I agree that in a science
course you should expect to get explanations.
If you have come to
the doctor as a practitioner of medicine, you would be rude to ask him
to operate as a private tutor.
Right, you just accept the scientific claim. Which was my point.
On the other hand, you should ask the doctor to explain his diagnosis
in terms you understand, and get all the information you need to
understand his diagnosis. If your doctor does not want to take the
time, find another doctor.
Agreed. But he does not need to explain the epistemological basis for
his diagnosis. He does not need to tell you about the methodology, you
accept the authority of the process and just discuss the specifics of
the evidence and conclusions.
That is a standard service expected of any health professional.
The do not acquire those believes through conducting experiments, etc.
That just accept them. They accept them, because the treat the
uttterances of scientists as having significant epistemic authority.
No, they accept them because science has shown itself a generally
reliable approach.
Wrong answer. Children accept those doctrines because they are
punished with poor grades and public humiliation if they give the
"wrong" answers on exams.
Too bad. That is a poorly done school. But if science did not work
then we would live in a very different world.
Adults accept scientific doctrines from a life-long habit, in the same
way that Catholic adults accept the authority of the Pope, and Jewish
adults accept the authority of rabbis.
Protestants, of course, don't have that problem. Right?
I accept the weather reports not because I have
spent 8 years studying meteorology but because they tend to get it
right when I go outside.
The weather reports are about 50% wrong in many areas of the country.
What is the standard of "wrong" you are using? And where do you get
that number? Assuming you did not just make it up was it developed
using the scientific method and, if so, why do you accept that?
If you still believe the weather frogs "tend to get it right," your
case is worse than we thought: you are hypnotized.
Yeah, they were a whole 20 miles or so off regarding where Katrina
would make landfall. And they were probably a dozen miles off for
where Wilma would hit Florida while it was still over Mexico. This is
not a particularly good time to attack meteorologists, they have saved
thousands of lives in the last few weeks.
I bet you that most people don't have a clue
what "epistemic authority" means.
The definition of a word is trivial knowledge. If that is the basis of
your intellectual pride, your castle is built on sand.
Did you look track of the post? I ask because you response here seems
to have nothing to do with the topic.
The attitude towards espistemic authority by the general populace is
really little different from that which many have towards religious
authorities. This is a central reason why I favour exposing children to
a variety of explanations, not simply to the scientific ones; so that a
critical and enquiring mind may be better fostered.
I have a better idea, how about spending more time explaining why we
use science in its domain. That way they will understand more of the
process that they will end up using to understand the world we
observe.
In what's domain?
Predicting observations of the world.
Either something got lost in an edit, or you yourself have no idea what
you are on about.
Or, perhaps, you don't.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mani Deli" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
26 Oct 2005 10:13:23 PM |
|
|
On 26 Oct 2005 15:10:13 -0700, "Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com>
wrote:
If Evolution were open to free enquiry, they wouldn't surround it with
thugs and enforcers (like you) to protect it. Since Evolution is not
open to free enquiry, it is obviously not a Science.
Yeah for you its baloney, fine. Why argue about science with someone
like this? Just get him to tell us about ID, gods and religion.
"science, while it diminishes our cosmic pretensions, enormously
increases our terrestrial comfort. That is why, in spite of the horror
of the theologians, science has on the whole been tolerated."
..Bertrand Russell
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mani Deli" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
27 Oct 2005 06:52:12 PM |
|
|
On 26 Oct 2005 15:10:13 -0700, "Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com>
wrote:
If Evolution were open to free enquiry, they wouldn't surround it with
thugs and enforcers (like you) to protect it. Since Evolution is not
open to free enquiry, it is obviously not a Science.
Yeah for you its baloney, fine. Why argue about science with someone
like this? Just get him to tell us about ID, gods and religion.
"science, while it diminishes our cosmic pretensions, enormously
increases our terrestrial comfort. That is why, in spite of the horror
of the theologians, science has on the whole been tolerated."
..Bertrand Russell
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
26 Oct 2005 03:47:37 PM |
|
|
On 26 Oct 2005 13:31:40 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Terry Cross"
<tcross77@hotmail.com> in
<1130358700.346300.280730@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 19:26:22 -0700, in alt.atheism , Goober
<go.away@nowhere.com> in <djc80g$1co$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 23:15:32 -0700, in alt.atheism , Goober
<go.away@nowhere.com> in <dj7cme$6b5$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 04:05:27 -0700, in alt.atheism , Goober
<go.away@nowhere.com> in <dj59ek$dp9$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca> wrote:
[snip]
And evolution fact as a fact.
Sure, if there are any evolutionary facts.
There are plenty. Common Descent comes to mind. Common Descent is as
much a fact as the orbit of Pluto or the hot metallic core of the
Earth.
All those are theories. Very good theories by scientific standards I'm
sure. They may *also* be facts, but to teach them as such simply
presupposes that the theories are correct.
How about you give me an example of something that is a fact then.
Most people will accept "the Earth orbits the Sun" or "the Earth
rotates on its axis" as facts. All I claim for biology is that the
facts of evolution, including common descent, have as much
epistemological validity as these facts.
The deadliest practice in any science is the undifferntiated confusion
of speculation with fact. When the derivation of doctrine is clear and
obvious, as with the anatomy of the solar system, speculation cannot so
easily become confused with fat, regardless of how it is taught.
But in Evolution and Astrophysics and Quarkian Logic - the derivations
of doctrine are obscure and often obfuscated.
That you don't understand the material does not make it obfuscated. No
one guaranteed us that the world would be easily comprehensible.
Much is based on faith
(billions and billions and billions ...), specialized indoctrination,
or trust in the work of other True Believers.
As it true for all science.
The student cannot be
taught all the methods for deriving or proving the doctrines, and
cannot prove the subject himself. For any individual student, the
subject is a matter of faith.
That is the difference between the pseudo sciences of Radical
Materialism and true Science.
Please tell me how "Pluto orbits the Sun" is "True Science" and "All
life on Earth descends from a common ancestral population" is "Radical
Materialism". Please tell me how "The Earth has a hot metallic core"
is "True Science" and "populations evolve via descent with
modification" is "Radical Materialism".
--
Matt | | |
