The humanist's blind science
By Brannon Howse
In the now-famous Scopes trial of 1925, the American Civil Liberties
Union defended the teaching of evolution in public schools. True
educational freedom, Clarence Darrow argued, requires the teaching of
both theistic and naturalistic versions of origin. Any person with a
well-rounded education should know the differing views on something as
important as the most basic question in the universe.
Now, I don't think for a split second the ACLU in 1925 was nearly so
well-intentioned as to simply want academic freedom for all. But the
case could be made that a well-educated person should understand the
arguments for and against the major theories about how we got here.
Building on the momentum started by Scopes, however, the ACLU has
fought hard to keep creationism from being taught in America's public
schools. With the aid of the National Education Association and other
liberal groups, it has been stunningly successful in the censorship of
facts and reality. Red-faced and veins bulging, these radical liberals
verbally assault conservatives that seek the true educational freedom
of teaching both Darwinian evolution and creation.
Since the ACLU and National Education Association have always been
supported by prominent humanists, we should not be shocked by their
contempt for the creationist worldview. Evolution, as outlined in the
Humanist Manifesto I, II and 2000, is a major doctrine of Secular
Humanism. Instead of believing in God as the basis for their religion,
humanists believe in nature or "natural science" – naturalism. The
reason is supposedly to avoid resting an intellectual foundation on
what secularists call "blind faith."
The Christian faith, however, is anything but blind from an
intellectual standpoint. Arguments for the God of the Bible are
well-founded. What liberal humanists have substituted for a reasonable
faith in a Creator God is, I would contend, blind science. Dr. D.G.
Lindsay agrees and describes the intellectual underpinnings of
evolution this way:
Evolution is a religion that attributes everything to "nature." It
demands a faith that is totally blind. Since the evolutionist believes
nature and its laws are the guiding force in the universe, he is
totally at odds with the Christian faith and the essential miraculous
aspect of creation. The miraculous events of the Bible deviate from
the known laws of nature, or at least from our understanding of them.
However, the evolutionist is blind to the fact that his religion,
evolution, violates every known law for its own existence, making
atheistic evolution more incredible (miraculous) than the Christian
faith.
In real life, logic applies. If we see a painting, we assume there was
a painter. If an airplane flies overhead, there's a pilot. It doesn't
matter that we don't see the painter or the pilot. Elementary logic
guarantees in our minds that they exist. If something looks like it
was designed – a building, a watch, an airplane or a cosmos – we are
safe to assume it was. Not so, however, in the world of blind science.
Naturalistic humanists believe there is no God, not because that is
the logical conclusion but because that is their preference.
Don't ever think for a minute they have the intellectual high ground.
Much to the contrary, they abandoned the heights occupied by deeply
committed Christian scientists like Galileo, Copernicus, Pasteur and
Newton long ago. The humanist has no choice but to reject God and
believe in man and naturalistic evolution because the alternative is
to say there is a Supernatural Creator and Intelligent Designer. Their
problem is that if such a Creator exists, then He is the author of the
laws of nature, and we are accountable to Him. But being accountable
to anyone other than self is not acceptable to the humanist. As a
result, humanists reject out of hand any and all evidence that
challenges their desired reality.
The liberal, then, who has faith in evolution does not do so out of
compelling intellectual honesty but because the alternative requires
accountability to God (both in this life and the next). Naturalists
look only at theories that don't contradict their presupposition.
Consider the a priori discounting of evidence advocated by the
Humanist Manifesto II:
We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a
supernatural; it is either meaningless or irrelevant to the question
of the survival and fulfillment of the human race. As non-theists, we
begin with humans not God, nature not deity.
Anything that calls into question the original presupposition (that
there is no God) is rejected, even if it means having faith in an
idea, belief or theory that is mathematically not possible and even it
if it contradicts bedrock scientific facts or the laws of physics.
Their version of science must blind itself to logical deductions in
order to draw the conclusion they prefer.
Four years after the ACLU worked the Scopes trial, Professor D.M.S.
Watson, one of the leading biologists and science writers of his day,
explained that the real goal behind evolution is to reject the
alternative – a belief in God. Watson notes, "Evolution [is] a theory
universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically
coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative,
special creation, is clearly incredible."
Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist and self-proclaimed Marxist,
reveals why the dogmatic humanist continues to accept evolution
despite its improbability and the unscientific propositions on which
it is built:
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some
of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its
extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of
the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because
we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not
that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to
accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the
contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material
causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts
that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no
matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism
is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
So why has materialism become the assumption behind science? Is it
because it provides the most rational foundation? No. Professor
Lewontin explained it quite clearly. It's because only materialism
provides the liberal humanist's preferred philosophical base.
It is really quite pathetic when you consider the mental gymnastics a
humanist must perform – and the ACLU must defend – to uphold the new
version of educational freedom that allows only one view of origins to
be taught in our public schools. Although the humanist typically mocks
as unscientific those who believe in a creator God, when the science
of their worldview is proven to be unscientific and mathematically
impossible, they ignore the facts and create preposterous theories
simply to sidestep the logical belief in an Intelligent Designer.
Which brings me to the one summary statement that explains what is
truly the foundation of Blind Science: Note its initials.
Brannon Howse is the president and founder of Worldview Weekend and
author of "One Nation Under Man: The Worldview War Between Christians
and the Secular Left," to be released Sept. 1 by Broadman & Holdman
Publishers.
.
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: The humanist's blind science |
23 May 2005 03:21:28 AM |
|
|
<itwill@happen.com> wrote in message
news:1116772251.85121f0c1b92292a386b822d830b18fb@teranews...
The humanist's blind science
By Brannon Howse
In the now-famous Scopes trial of 1925, the American Civil Liberties
Union defended the teaching of evolution in public schools. True
educational freedom, Clarence Darrow argued, requires the teaching of
both theistic and naturalistic versions of origin. Any person with a
well-rounded education should know the differing views on something as
important as the most basic question in the universe.
Now, I don't think for a split second the ACLU in 1925 was nearly so
well-intentioned as to simply want academic freedom for all. But the
case could be made that a well-educated person should understand the
arguments for and against the major theories about how we got here.
Building on the momentum started by Scopes, however, the ACLU has
fought hard to keep creationism from being taught in America's public
schools. With the aid of the National Education Association and other
liberal groups, it has been stunningly successful in the censorship of
facts and reality. Red-faced and veins bulging, these radical liberals
verbally assault conservatives that seek the true educational freedom
of teaching both Darwinian evolution and creation.
Since the ACLU and National Education Association have always been
supported by prominent humanists, we should not be shocked by their
contempt for the creationist worldview. Evolution, as outlined in the
Humanist Manifesto I, II and 2000, is a major doctrine of Secular
Humanism. Instead of believing in God as the basis for their religion,
humanists believe in nature or "natural science" - naturalism. The
reason is supposedly to avoid resting an intellectual foundation on
what secularists call "blind faith."
The Christian faith, however, is anything but blind from an
intellectual standpoint. Arguments for the God of the Bible are
well-founded.
Harldy, considering the complete lack of evidence.
What liberal humanists have substituted for a reasonable
faith in a Creator God is, I would contend, blind science. Dr. D.G.
Lindsay agrees and describes the intellectual underpinnings of
evolution this way:
Evolution is a religion that attributes everything to "nature." It
demands a faith that is totally blind. Since the evolutionist believes
nature and its laws are the guiding force in the universe, he is
totally at odds with the Christian faith and the essential miraculous
aspect of creation. The miraculous events of the Bible deviate from
the known laws of nature, or at least from our understanding of them.
However, the evolutionist is blind to the fact that his religion,
evolution, violates every known law for its own existence, making
atheistic evolution more incredible (miraculous) than the Christian
faith.
The guy is obviously another of those who doesn't even begon to understand
evolution. We went throug htis a couple of weeks ago, Bitchtits. It went
over your head I suppose.
<snip crap<
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: The humanist's blind science |
23 May 2005 11:59:18 PM |
|
|
tw wrote:
<itwill@happen.com> wrote in message
news:1116772251.85121f0c1b92292a386b822d830b18fb@teranews...
The humanist's blind science
By Brannon Howse
In the now-famous Scopes trial of 1925, the American Civil
Liberties
Union defended the teaching of evolution in public schools. True
educational freedom, Clarence Darrow argued, requires the teaching
of
both theistic and naturalistic versions of origin. Any person with
a
well-rounded education should know the differing views on something
as
important as the most basic question in the universe.
Now, I don't think for a split second the ACLU in 1925 was nearly
so
well-intentioned as to simply want academic freedom for all. But
the
case could be made that a well-educated person should understand
the
arguments for and against the major theories about how we got here.
Building on the momentum started by Scopes, however, the ACLU has
fought hard to keep creationism from being taught in America's
public
schools. With the aid of the National Education Association and
other
liberal groups, it has been stunningly successful in the censorship
of
facts and reality. Red-faced and veins bulging, these radical
liberals
He certainly has that right ...
verbally assault conservatives that seek the true educational
freedom
of teaching both Darwinian evolution and creation.
Since the ACLU and National Education Association have always been
supported by prominent humanists, we should not be shocked by their
contempt for the creationist worldview. Evolution, as outlined in
the
Humanist Manifesto I, II and 2000, is a major doctrine of Secular
Humanism. Instead of believing in God as the basis for their
religion,
humanists believe in nature or "natural science" - naturalism. The
reason is supposedly to avoid resting an intellectual foundation on
what secularists call "blind faith."
The Christian faith, however, is anything but blind from an
intellectual standpoint. Arguments for the God of the Bible are
well-founded.
Harldy, considering the complete lack of evidence.
I wouldn't say complete lack of evidence -- maybe not scientific
evidence, but there is evidence -- such as perfect size of the earth to
hold the perfect atmosphere for life; the earth being the perfect
distance from the sun to warm the earth to just the right temperature;
the earth's wobble on its axis to warm one hemisphere, then the other;
the moon being the right size and distance to stir the oceans; etc.
just a few signs of design -- nothing scientific about this evidence,
mind you; but signs of design are there to notice if you care to.
What liberal humanists have substituted for a reasonable
faith in a Creator God is, I would contend, blind science. Dr. D.G.
Lindsay agrees and describes the intellectual underpinnings of
evolution this way:
Evolution is a religion that attributes everything to "nature." It
demands a faith that is totally blind. Since the evolutionist
believes
nature and its laws are the guiding force in the universe, he is
totally at odds with the Christian faith and the essential
miraculous
aspect of creation. The miraculous events of the Bible deviate from
the known laws of nature, or at least from our understanding of
them.
However, the evolutionist is blind to the fact that his religion,
evolution, violates every known law for its own existence, making
atheistic evolution more incredible (miraculous) than the Christian
faith.
The guy is obviously another of those who doesn't even begon to
understand
evolution. We went throug htis a couple of weeks ago
As Aidan said, faith is not science and science is not faith. I was
very careful to make that point, in various forms, repeatedly during
the previous discussions on this topic. As the man who wrote the
article says, "the miraculous events of the Bible deviate from the
known laws of nature, or at least from our understanding of them."
My faith allows me to believe things that go beyong the limits of
science. I would not post this on a science newsgroup, but I feel very
comfortable bringing it up here whenever the subject arises.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: The humanist's blind science |
24 May 2005 02:42:47 AM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116910758.553296.78010@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
tw wrote:
<itwill@happen.com> wrote in message
news:1116772251.85121f0c1b92292a386b822d830b18fb@teranews...
The humanist's blind science
By Brannon Howse
In the now-famous Scopes trial of 1925, the American Civil
Liberties
Union defended the teaching of evolution in public schools. True
educational freedom, Clarence Darrow argued, requires the teaching
of
both theistic and naturalistic versions of origin. Any person with
a
well-rounded education should know the differing views on something
as
important as the most basic question in the universe.
Now, I don't think for a split second the ACLU in 1925 was nearly
so
well-intentioned as to simply want academic freedom for all. But
the
case could be made that a well-educated person should understand
the
arguments for and against the major theories about how we got here.
Building on the momentum started by Scopes, however, the ACLU has
fought hard to keep creationism from being taught in America's
public
schools. With the aid of the National Education Association and
other
liberal groups, it has been stunningly successful in the censorship
of
facts and reality. Red-faced and veins bulging, these radical
liberals
He certainly has that right ...
verbally assault conservatives that seek the true educational
freedom
of teaching both Darwinian evolution and creation.
Since the ACLU and National Education Association have always been
supported by prominent humanists, we should not be shocked by their
contempt for the creationist worldview. Evolution, as outlined in
the
Humanist Manifesto I, II and 2000, is a major doctrine of Secular
Humanism. Instead of believing in God as the basis for their
religion,
humanists believe in nature or "natural science" - naturalism. The
reason is supposedly to avoid resting an intellectual foundation on
what secularists call "blind faith."
The Christian faith, however, is anything but blind from an
intellectual standpoint. Arguments for the God of the Bible are
well-founded.
Harldy, considering the complete lack of evidence.
I wouldn't say complete lack of evidence -- maybe not scientific
evidence, but there is evidence
So it's on a level with evidence with us being sneezed out of the nose of a
giant space-goat, in other words.
-- such as perfect size of the earth to
hold the perfect atmosphere for life; the earth being the perfect
distance from the sun to warm the earth to just the right temperature;
the earth's wobble on its axis to warm one hemisphere, then the other;
the moon being the right size and distance to stir the oceans; etc.
just a few signs of design
To a certain mindset, perhaps. Just as flouridation is a sign that commies
want to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids..
-- nothing scientific about this evidence,
mind you; but signs of design are there to notice if you care to.
Cart before the horse, Steven. To paraphrase the late D.A. again it's like a
puddle being surprised it's the same shape as hole it's sitting in.
What liberal humanists have substituted for a reasonable
faith in a Creator God is, I would contend, blind science. Dr. D.G.
Lindsay agrees and describes the intellectual underpinnings of
evolution this way:
Evolution is a religion that attributes everything to "nature." It
demands a faith that is totally blind. Since the evolutionist
believes
nature and its laws are the guiding force in the universe, he is
totally at odds with the Christian faith and the essential
miraculous
aspect of creation. The miraculous events of the Bible deviate from
the known laws of nature, or at least from our understanding of
them.
However, the evolutionist is blind to the fact that his religion,
evolution, violates every known law for its own existence, making
atheistic evolution more incredible (miraculous) than the Christian
faith.
The guy is obviously another of those who doesn't even begon to
understand
evolution. We went throug htis a couple of weeks ago
As Aidan said, faith is not science and science is not faith.
Which, of course has nothing to do with the obvious fact that the original
post is trying to poke holes in a theory it is obviously doesn't understand.
e.g. "Evolution is a religion that attributes everything to "nature." It
demands a faith that is totally blind". Which is, of course, complete
***** on both counts as you should know by now.
I was very careful to make that point, in various forms, repeatedly during
the previous discussions on this topic.
You were also very careful to misunderstand evolution and repeat
oft-debunked, ignorant attacks on the details and bang on about "proof"
without seeming to realsise what you were talking about. Oh, and *I* was
carfeul to point out that I saw no contradiction between believing in a
creator and accepting the fact of evolution.
As the man who wrote the
article says, "the miraculous events of the Bible deviate from the
known laws of nature, or at least from our understanding of them."
Well, they'd hardly be miraculous otherwise. As a rather better man said
"Things that you're liable, to read in the Bible, it ain't necessarily so".
My faith allows me to believe things that go beyong the limits of
science. I would not post this on a science newsgroup, but I feel very
comfortable bringing it up here whenever the subject arises.
Sincerely, good for you. As long as you aren't repeating falsehoods and
debunked "flaws" in evolution from the REAL Krazy Kreationist Kamp.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: The humanist's blind science |
24 May 2005 06:07:13 AM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116910758.553296.78010@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
the ACLU has
fought hard to keep creationism from being taught in America's
public
schools. With the aid of the National Education Association and
other
liberal groups, it has been stunningly successful in the censorship
of
facts and reality. Red-faced and veins bulging, these radical
liberals verbally assault conservatives that seek the true educational
freedom
of teaching both Darwinian evolution and creation.
He certainly has that right ...
Seeing as this chap wishes Creationism to be taught as "facts and reality"
it's not surprising that rational people, no matter there political stripe
are getting exasperated. I hardly think such an attitude is restricted to
"radical liberals". Funny how the creationists aren't pushing for the
teaching e.g. Hindu or Inuit creation myths as part of that "true
educational freedom".. I wonder why? Should Astrology or Flying Saucer
Studies also be taught if we are to have "true educational freedom"?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Aidan" |
|
| Title: Re: The humanist's blind science |
22 May 2005 08:09:24 PM |
|
|
<itwill@happen.com> wrote in message
news:1116772251.85121f0c1b92292a386b822d830b18fb@teranews...
The humanist's blind science
By Brannon Howse
In the now-famous Scopes trial of 1925, the American Civil Liberties
Union defended the teaching of evolution in public schools. True
educational freedom, Clarence Darrow argued, requires the teaching of
both theistic and naturalistic versions of origin. Any person with a
well-rounded education should know the differing views on something as
important as the most basic question in the universe.
Now, I don't think for a split second the ACLU in 1925 was nearly so
well-intentioned as to simply want academic freedom for all. But the
case could be made that a well-educated person should understand the
arguments for and against the major theories about how we got here.
Building on the momentum started by Scopes, however, the ACLU has
fought hard to keep creationism from being taught in America's public
schools. With the aid of the National Education Association and other
liberal groups, it has been stunningly successful in the censorship of
facts and reality.
Where is the basis for intellgent design in "facts and reality"?
Intelligent design (creationism) is nothing more than a hypothetical idea -
a hypothesis. It has no facts to back it up, and no real (scientific)
observation can validate the theory. Darwinian Evolution on the other hand
has both facts and reality to back it up (given a single species separated
by geographical bounds, over time the separated populations diverge into
separate specices. eg: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~foxg/nerodia.html).
Intelligent design = faith
faith = belief despite lack of evidence
Evolution = science
science = knowledge gained through experience
And don't come back with that tired old "oh, but evolution is only a
theory"... if you would like to pull that card, I'll be asking you how that
logic applies to Einstein's THEORY of Relativity, and why it being "only a
theory" somehow makes it less valid.
.
|
|
|
| User: "rightwing" |
|
| Title: Re: The humanist's blind science |
23 May 2005 08:46:12 AM |
|
|
science = knowledge gained through experience
This is a false statement..
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: The humanist's blind science |
23 May 2005 09:06:53 AM |
|
|
"rightwing" <rightwing@nse.com> wrote in message
news:O8lke.3841$pi1.20330@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
science = knowledge gained through experience
This is a false statement..
How so? A scientist *thinks* they knows how something works, so they
construct a testable hypothesis. The experience of testing that hypothesis
allows them to gain the knowledge that the hypothesis was (in)correct.
Of course, it doesn't ALWAYS work like taht, but that doesn't make Aidan's
statement incorrect.
.
|
|
|
| User: "rightwing" |
|
| Title: Re: The humanist's blind science |
23 May 2005 12:00:21 PM |
|
|
I consider myself to be scientific, yet I believe in things that are
non-scientific. If anyone tells me that they believe *only* in things that
go through rigorous scientific analysis, I would say that they are *NUTS*.
If anyone is *inconsistent* in their belief system (which most people are),
then thy have no right to tell others what to believe.
Most people are incognizant of the number of things that they accept just on
faith (beliefs). Science is just one aspect of reality. It will *never* be
the complete truth. Science will *NEVER* have anything definitive anything
to say about *perception* (or any of the *BIG* questions).
Comparing science to religion is like comparing apples to oranges.
Scientific theory is a map that describes reality. If it's a good map, it
will suit the purpose. But, it is only a map and *NOT* reality itself. For
every scientific theory that "does the job", I suspect there are an infinite
set of other theories that can work also.
I believe in many things as a result my life experiences. My beliefs are an
attempt to validate and explain my*experiences*. Many of my beliefs would
not pass rigorous scientific testing. Therefore, science *cannot* be
knowledge gained through experience.
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:d6so1t$ga8$1@news.al.sw.ericsson.se...
"rightwing" <rightwing@nse.com> wrote in message
news:O8lke.3841$pi1.20330@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
science = knowledge gained through experience
This is a false statement..
How so? A scientist *thinks* they knows how something works, so they
construct a testable hypothesis. The experience of testing that hypothesis
allows them to gain the knowledge that the hypothesis was (in)correct.
Of course, it doesn't ALWAYS work like taht, but that doesn't make Aidan's
statement incorrect.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: The humanist's blind science |
24 May 2005 02:57:08 AM |
|
|
"rightwing" <rightwing@nse.com> wrote in message
news:Q_nke.3867$pi1.20547@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
<snip>
I believe in many things as a result my life experiences. My beliefs are
an
attempt to validate and explain my*experiences*.
They key word here is "believe". There is a difference between "belief" and
knowledge.
Many of my beliefs would
not pass rigorous scientific testing.
...and thus they remain beliefs rather than knowledge..
Therefore, science *cannot* be
knowledge gained through experience.
Faulty logic.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: The humanist's blind science |
23 May 2005 04:20:25 PM |
|
|
rightwing wrote:
I consider myself to be scientific, yet I believe in things that are
non-scientific. If anyone tells me that they believe *only* in things that
go through rigorous scientific analysis, I would say that they are *NUTS*.
If anyone is *inconsistent* in their belief system (which most people are),
then thy have no right to tell others what to believe.
You can "believe" whatever you like, but in order to be considered a
scientific theory or fact, it must be repeatable and observable.
Most people are incognizant of the number of things that they accept just on
faith (beliefs). Science is just one aspect of reality. It will *never* be
the complete truth. Science will *NEVER* have anything definitive anything
to say about *perception* (or any of the *BIG* questions).
You mean, like dogs can't see color because they don't have the
necessary cells in their eyes to interpret color? What exactly do you
mean by "perception"?
Comparing science to religion is like comparing apples to oranges.
Yes, this is correct.
Scientific theory is a map that describes reality. If it's a good map, it
will suit the purpose. But, it is only a map and *NOT* reality itself. For
every scientific theory that "does the job", I suspect there are an infinite
set of other theories that can work also.
"Suspect"? Sounds more like wishful thinking on your part.
I believe in many things as a result my life experiences. My beliefs are an
attempt to validate and explain my*experiences*. Many of my beliefs would
not pass rigorous scientific testing. Therefore, science *cannot* be
knowledge gained through experience.
Ah, so you're focusing on parsing out the words in another meaning,
rather than what was intended.
Woods
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:d6so1t$ga8$1@news.al.sw.ericsson.se...
"rightwing" <rightwing@nse.com> wrote in message
news:O8lke.3841$pi1.20330@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
science = knowledge gained through experience
This is a false statement..
How so? A scientist *thinks* they knows how something works, so they
construct a testable hypothesis. The experience of testing that hypothesis
allows them to gain the knowledge that the hypothesis was (in)correct.
Of course, it doesn't ALWAYS work like taht, but that doesn't make Aidan's
statement incorrect.
.
|
|
|
| User: "rightwing" |
|
| Title: Re: The humanist's blind science |
23 May 2005 04:48:06 PM |
|
|
"Suspect"? Sounds more like wishful thinking on your part.
I think in terms of what is possible. I like to extend my imagination.
I do not pretend to *know * things which I do not!
That's the problem with people these days, they pretend that they know this
and that... but the truth is that they *know* ***** all about everything. If
you can tell me this is not true, then I would say that you don't know how
to extend your imagination beyond the little box others have created for
you.
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:tOrke.17485$i42.8388@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
rightwing wrote:
I consider myself to be scientific, yet I believe in things that are
non-scientific. If anyone tells me that they believe *only* in things
that go through rigorous scientific analysis, I would say that they are
*NUTS*. If anyone is *inconsistent* in their belief system (which most
people are), then thy have no right to tell others what to believe.
You can "believe" whatever you like, but in order to be considered a
scientific theory or fact, it must be repeatable and observable.
Most people are incognizant of the number of things that they accept just
on faith (beliefs). Science is just one aspect of reality. It will
*never* be the complete truth. Science will *NEVER* have anything
definitive anything to say about *perception* (or any of the *BIG*
questions).
You mean, like dogs can't see color because they don't have the necessary
cells in their eyes to interpret color? What exactly do you mean by
"perception"?
Comparing science to religion is like comparing apples to oranges.
Yes, this is correct.
Scientific theory is a map that describes reality. If it's a good map, it
will suit the purpose. But, it is only a map and *NOT* reality itself.
For every scientific theory that "does the job", I suspect there are an
infinite set of other theories that can work also.
"Suspect"? Sounds more like wishful thinking on your part.
I believe in many things as a result my life experiences. My beliefs are
an attempt to validate and explain my*experiences*. Many of my beliefs
would not pass rigorous scientific testing. Therefore, science *cannot*
be knowledge gained through experience.
Ah, so you're focusing on parsing out the words in another meaning, rather
than what was intended.
Woods
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:d6so1t$ga8$1@news.al.sw.ericsson.se...
"rightwing" <rightwing@nse.com> wrote in message
news:O8lke.3841$pi1.20330@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
science = knowledge gained through experience
This is a false statement..
How so? A scientist *thinks* they knows how something works, so they
construct a testable hypothesis. The experience of testing that
hypothesis
allows them to gain the knowledge that the hypothesis was (in)correct.
Of course, it doesn't ALWAYS work like taht, but that doesn't make
Aidan's
statement incorrect.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: The humanist's blind science |
24 May 2005 02:59:18 AM |
|
|
"rightwing" <rightwing@nse.com> wrote in message
news:Bcske.3922$pi1.20504@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
"Suspect"? Sounds more like wishful thinking on your part.
I think in terms of what is possible. I like to extend my imagination.
I do not pretend to *know * things which I do not!
That's the problem with people these days, they pretend that they know
this
and that... but the truth is that they *know* ***** all about everything.
If you understood sicence and the scientific method, you'd know that a lot
of stuff can be know, if you'r eprepared to spend a bit of time
understanding the proofs/evdidence.
If you can tell me this is not true, then I would say that you don't know
how
to extend your imagination beyond the little box others have created for
you.
Yawwwn. THe cry of the loon - "I'm more open minded than you because I
believe in crazy stuff".- Yeah, right.
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:tOrke.17485$i42.8388@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
rightwing wrote:
I consider myself to be scientific, yet I believe in things that are
non-scientific. If anyone tells me that they believe *only* in things
that go through rigorous scientific analysis, I would say that they are
*NUTS*. If anyone is *inconsistent* in their belief system (which most
people are), then thy have no right to tell others what to believe.
You can "believe" whatever you like, but in order to be considered a
scientific theory or fact, it must be repeatable and observable.
Most people are incognizant of the number of things that they accept
just
on faith (beliefs). Science is just one aspect of reality. It will
*never* be the complete truth. Science will *NEVER* have anything
definitive anything to say about *perception* (or any of the *BIG*
questions).
You mean, like dogs can't see color because they don't have the
necessary
cells in their eyes to interpret color? What exactly do you mean by
"perception"?
Comparing science to religion is like comparing apples to oranges.
Yes, this is correct.
Scientific theory is a map that describes reality. If it's a good map,
it
will suit the purpose. But, it is only a map and *NOT* reality itself.
For every scientific theory that "does the job", I suspect there are an
infinite set of other theories that can work also.
"Suspect"? Sounds more like wishful thinking on your part.
I believe in many things as a result my life experiences. My beliefs
are
an attempt to validate and explain my*experiences*. Many of my
beliefs
would not pass rigorous scientific testing. Therefore, science *cannot*
be knowledge gained through experience.
Ah, so you're focusing on parsing out the words in another meaning,
rather
than what was intended.
Woods
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:d6so1t$ga8$1@news.al.sw.ericsson.se...
"rightwing" <rightwing@nse.com> wrote in message
news:O8lke.3841$pi1.20330@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
science = knowledge gained through experience
This is a false statement..
How so? A scientist *thinks* they knows how something works, so they
construct a testable hypothesis. The experience of testing that
hypothesis
allows them to gain the knowledge that the hypothesis was (in)correct.
Of course, it doesn't ALWAYS work like taht, but that doesn't make
Aidan's
statement incorrect.
.
|
|
|
| User: "rightwing" |
|
| Title: Re: The humanist's blind science |
24 May 2005 10:31:07 AM |
|
|
Yawwwn. THe cry of the loon - "I'm more open minded than you because I
believe in crazy stuff".- Yeah, right.
There's a huge difference between pondering, and speculating to *believing*.
I have never indicated anywhere that I believe in anything. I do believe
that if you believe something that the Universe will somehow provide
evidence to validate your belief. Like I said, I do not pretend to know
things which I don't. I just consider it a possibility.
Think of this, in one million years from now, if there are any intelligent
creatures roaming the Earth, they may ponder the idea of evolution and see a
great leap in during our time period (1 million years ago).
Was this leap because of evolution? NO! It was because humans were
tinkering with genes and leaped the process in a different direction. What
mankind has accomplished in the past couple hundred or thousand years is not
even a drop in the bucket compared to the time life has existed on the earth
(and an even greater time frame for the entire Universe)
Think of this also, what will entertainment be like in 1000 years? Maybe
your entire life is just a super DVD that an intelligent species is playing
for entertainment. (Like the movie the Matrix) It may sound absurd. But the
truth is, you will never be able to know. Things are not always as they
seem. You can tell me that you know, but I know you don't. There's no
possible way that you can. Not everything is knowable.
I don't find that idea so absurd. Humans like to think that we are the
greatest and best but it is only egocentric thinking. Even now technology is
becoming so miniature that in 100 years (if it continues on the same course)
there will be little traces of it. The truth is, no one really knows for
sure how many intelligent beings have roamed this planet. Human's have a
hard time understanding each other. They even doubt the intelligence of each
other. They like to pretend, but are we really more intelligent than ants,
or bees? Of course if we define the rules of intelligence for ourselves, we
would say so. But the truth is that no one really knows what intelligence
really means or how to discern it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: The humanist's blind science |
23 May 2005 05:03:15 PM |
|
|
rightwing wrote:
"Suspect"? Sounds more like wishful thinking on your part.
I think in terms of what is possible. I like to extend my imagination.
I do not pretend to *know * things which I do not!
That's the problem with people these days, they pretend that they know this
and that... but the truth is that they *know* ***** all about everything. If
you can tell me this is not true, then I would say that you don't know how
to extend your imagination beyond the little box others have created for
you.
Before you start trying to think outside the box, you should at the very
least know what's in the box.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "rightwing" |
|
| Title: Re: The humanist's blind science |
23 May 2005 05:42:12 PM |
|
|
Before you start trying to think outside the box, you should at the very
least know what's in the box.
Woods
Then that would make me just like *everyone* else.
*IT'S* all just in your mind.
It's *ALL* just in your mind.
It's all *JUST* in your mind.
It's all just *IN* your mind.
It's all just in *YOUR* mind.
It's all just in your *MIND*
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aidan" |
|
| Title: Re: The humanist's blind science |
23 May 2005 05:59:50 PM |
|
|
"rightwing" <rightwing@nse.com> wrote in message
news:j%ske.3924$pi1.20730@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
Before you start trying to think outside the box, you should at the very
least know what's in the box.
Woods
Then that would make me just like *everyone* else.
You are unique, just like everyone else.
*IT'S* all just in your mind.
It's *ALL* just in your mind.
It's all *JUST* in your mind.
It's all just *IN* your mind.
It's all just in *YOUR* mind.
It's all just in your *MIND*
Are yoiu lightwing's evil twin?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: The humanist's blind science |
23 May 2005 09:01:37 PM |
|
|
rightwing wrote:
Before you start trying to think outside the box, you should at the very
least know what's in the box.
Woods
Then that would make me just like *everyone* else.
Not at all - if you don't know what's in the box, you most certainly
cannot distinguish between what is and is not in the box. If you think
you understand something without ever having looked in the box, you are
deluding yourself in thinking you know anything about what's in the box.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "rightwing" |
|
| Title: Re: The humanist's blind science |
23 May 2005 09:50:04 PM |
|
|
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed."
Albert Einstein
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:5Wvke.16382$tM3.8052@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
rightwing wrote:
Before you start trying to think outside the box, you should at the very
least know what's in the box.
Woods
Then that would make me just like *everyone* else.
Not at all - if you don't know what's in the box, you most certainly
cannot distinguish between what is and is not in the box. If you think
you understand something without ever having looked in the box, you are
deluding yourself in thinking you know anything about what's in the box.
Woods
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "rightwing" |
|
| Title: Re: The humanist's blind science |
23 May 2005 09:37:23 PM |
|
|
You are the one making those assumtions. You cannot tell me what I've
studied and what I haven't or what knowledge I have, or don't. The
*absolute* truth is that *YOU DON'T KNOW*!!!
I reverse the argument, if you don't know what's outside the box, you cannot
know what's in the box, because whatever is there must have come from the
*outside*.
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:5Wvke.16382$tM3.8052@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
rightwing wrote:
Before you start trying to think outside the box, you should at the very
least know what's in the box.
Woods
Then that would make me just like *everyone* else.
Not at all - if you don't know what's in the box, you most certainly
cannot distinguish between what is and is not in the box. If you think
you understand something without ever having looked in the box, you are
deluding yourself in thinking you know anything about what's in the box.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aidan" |
|
| Title: Re: The humanist's blind science |
23 May 2005 10:38:43 PM |
|
|
"rightwing" <rightwing@nse.com> wrote in message
news:Orwke.3943$pi1.20856@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
You are the one making those assumtions. You cannot tell me what I've
studied and what I haven't or what knowledge I have, or don't. The
*absolute* truth is that *YOU DON'T KNOW*!!!
Oh, but you know better than the everyone, including the dictionary?
I reverse the argument, if you don't know what's outside the box, you
cannot know what's in the box, because whatever is there must have come
from the *outside*.
The truth is, *THERE IS NO BOX*. It's an abstract construct in your mind,
nothing more. With your experience in Astrology, your expectations are what
sets the bar for a success or failure. What you consider to be a failed
astrological reading, someone else may consider accurate and valid.
What's my point? My point is that your 'box' is different to what someone
else sees as the 'box'. You may think you're operating outside the 'box',
yet other people may consider your thinking to exist at the centre of the
'box'... Like you said, it's all just in your mind.
But, by attempting to impose a 'box' on the mind set of someone (like you
just did with woods), you claim to know 'this and that' about them, when the
truth is, you know ***** all about the person... it's all just in you mind...
though, don't let that stop you from riding the high horse...
.
|
|
|
| User: "rightwing" |
|
| Title: Re: The humanist's blind science |
23 May 2005 10:51:15 PM |
|
|
So true. It's all just in my mind!!!
"Aidan" <nospam.aweraw@linknet.com.au> wrote in message
news:newscache$ub7zgi$qxi$1@titan.linknet.com.au...
"rightwing" <rightwing@nse.com> wrote in message
news:Orwke.3943$pi1.20856@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
You are the one making those assumtions. You cannot tell me what I've
studied and what I haven't or what knowledge I have, or don't. The
*absolute* truth is that *YOU DON'T KNOW*!!!
Oh, but you know better than the everyone, including the dictionary?
I reverse the argument, if you don't know what's outside the box, you
cannot know what's in the box, because whatever is there must have come
from the *outside*.
The truth is, *THERE IS NO BOX*. It's an abstract construct in your mind,
nothing more. With your experience in Astrology, your expectations are
what sets the bar for a success or failure. What you consider to be a
failed astrological reading, someone else may consider accurate and valid.
What's my point? My point is that your 'box' is different to what someone
else sees as the 'box'. You may think you're operating outside the 'box',
yet other people may consider your thinking to exist at the centre of the
'box'... Like you said, it's all just in your mind.
But, by attempting to impose a 'box' on the mind set of someone (like you
just did with woods), you claim to know 'this and that' about them, when
the truth is, you know ***** all about the person... it's all just in you
mind...
though, don't let that stop you from riding the high horse...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Aidan" |
|
| Title: Re: The humanist's blind science |
23 May 2005 05:39:54 PM |
|
|
rightwing wrote:
science = knowledge gained through experience
This is a false statement..
That's funny... it's one of the dictionary definitions of science.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=science
*sci·ence*
/n./
1.
1. The observation, identification, description, experimental
investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a
suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science
of purchasing.
4. *Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.*
5. Science Christian Science.
.
|
|
|
| User: "rightwing" |
|
| Title: Re: The humanist's blind science |
23 May 2005 05:56:10 PM |
|
|
That's funny... it's one of the dictionary definitions of science.
I rely on logic and common sense, not dictionary definitions.
For instance:
It is my *experience* that Astrology works. (TRUE)
Many people have the *experince* that Astrology works (TRUE)
Since I have knowledge gained through this *experience*, then that would
make Astrology Scientific. **I'm sure you would agree that Astrology is
*not* scientific **
"Aidan" <nospam.aidan@linknet.com.au> wrote in messag
e news:newscache$rhtygi$qri$1@titan.linknet.com.au...
rightwing wrote:
science = knowledge gained through experience
This is a false statement..
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=science
*sci·ence*
/n./
1.
1. The observation, identification, description, experimental
investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a
suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science
of purchasing.
4. *Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.*
5. Science Christian Science.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: The humanist's blind science |
23 May 2005 06:47:23 PM |
|
|
"rightwing" <rightwing@nse.com> Spat the Words
That's funny... it's one of the dictionary definitions of science.
I rely on logic and common sense, not dictionary definitions.
For instance:
It is my *experience* that Astrology works. (TRUE)
Many people have the *experince* that Astrology works (TRUE)
Since I have knowledge gained through this *experience*, then that would
make Astrology Scientific. **I'm sure you would agree that Astrology is
*not* scientific **
Is that 'experience' repeatable by anyone, and have the same
(or predictable) results ? It's been my experience that astrology
is a hoax. For a scientific theory to survive it must be
experimentable with predictable results.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: The humanist's blind science |
24 May 2005 03:13:05 AM |
|
|
"rightwing" <rightwing@nse.com> wrote in message
news:pctke.3928$pi1.20531@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
That's funny... it's one of the dictionary definitions of science.
I rely on logic and common sense, not dictionary definitions.
I see. Here's a little though experiment for you - which travels faster
through air? A smooth sphere or a dimpled sphere?
For instance:
It is my *experience* that Astrology works. (TRUE)
Is it also your experience that the crowing rooster is what makes the sun
come up in the morning? Common sense, after all
Many people have the *experince* that Astrology works (TRUE)
Depends on your definition of "works" - i fyou mean it gives them comfort ro
makes them consider aspects fo their lives you may be right, If you think it
divines their future, all evidence says you are wrong..
Since I have knowledge gained through this *experience*, then that would
make Astrology Scientific.
It's fairly obvious that Aidan didn't mean every stupid little thing you
thought up in during your life experience was sicence. If you could TEST
that astrology "works" in a reproduceable manner you'd have a point /and
astrology woudl be accepted as science)
**I'm sure you would agree that Astrology is
*not* scientific **
"Aidan" <nospam.aidan@linknet.com.au> wrote in messag
e news:newscache$rhtygi$qri$1@titan.linknet.com.au...
rightwing wrote:
science = knowledge gained through experience
This is a false statement..
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=science
*sci·ence*
/n./
1.
1. The observation, identification, description, experimental
investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a
suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science
of purchasing.
4. *Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.*
5. Science Christian Science.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Aidan" |
|
| Title: Re: The humanist's blind science |
23 May 2005 06:43:34 PM |
|
|
"rightwing" <rightwing@nse.com> wrote in message
news:pctke.3928$pi1.20531@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
That's funny... it's one of the dictionary definitions of science.
I rely on logic and common sense,
What, you think the people who write dictionary entries use their sense of
humour to come up with suitable definitions? If not 'logic and common
sense', what skills do you think they employ to get the job done?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: The humanist's blind science |
22 May 2005 09:53:11 AM |
|
|
wrote:
The humanist's blind science
By Brannon Howse
In the now-famous Scopes trial of 1925, the American Civil Liberties
Union defended the teaching of evolution in public schools. True
educational freedom, Clarence Darrow argued, requires the teaching of
both theistic and naturalistic versions of origin. Any person with a
well-rounded education should know the differing views on something as
important as the most basic question in the universe.
Now, I don't think for a split second the ACLU in 1925 was nearly so
well-intentioned as to simply want academic freedom for all. But the
case could be made that a well-educated person should understand the
arguments for and against the major theories about how we got here.
Building on the momentum started by Scopes, however, the ACLU has
fought hard to keep creationism from being taught in America's public
schools. With the aid of the National Education Association and other
liberal groups, it has been stunningly successful in the censorship of
facts and reality. Red-faced and veins bulging, these radical liberals
verbally assault conservatives that seek the true educational freedom
of teaching both Darwinian evolution and creation.
Since the ACLU and National Education Association have always been
supported by prominent humanists, we should not be shocked by their
contempt for the creationist worldview. Evolution, as outlined in the
Humanist Manifesto I, II and 2000, is a major doctrine of Secular
Humanism. Instead of believing in God as the basis for their religion,
humanists believe in nature or "natural science" – naturalism. The
reason is supposedly to avoid resting an intellectual foundation on
what secularists call "blind faith."
The Christian faith, however, is anything but blind from an
intellectual standpoint. Arguments for the God of the Bible are
well-founded.
<snip>
The public school system is not the place to teach religious beliefs
about anything.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "dreamwalker" |
|
| Title: Re: The humanist's blind science |
23 May 2005 05:30:16 PM |
|
|
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message news:r11ke.10250>
The public school system is not the place to teach religious beliefs about anything.
Woods
What exactly does the public school system teach?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: The humanist's blind science |
23 May 2005 08:58:34 PM |
|
|
dreamwalker wrote:
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message news:r11ke.10250>
The public school system is not the place to teach religious beliefs about anything.
Woods
What exactly does the public school system teach?
(distorted) history/social studies, science, mathematics, English
(poorly), (limited) art, (limited) music ... that sort of thing. Due to
the Separation of Church and State, the public schools, as an arm of the
State, are forbidden from teaching any religious beliefs as "fact"
(although, they can certainly teach about what various religions believe
in the context of comparative religions or as such beliefs have impacted
past events in history).
Woods
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cardinal Chunder" |
|
| Title: Re: The humanist's blind science |
23 May 2005 07:05:56 AM |
|
|
wrote:
The humanist's blind science
By Brannon Howse
Using someone else's grotesque ignorance to defend your own grotesque
ignorance is an interesting tactic.
It's too bad that it does nothing to wave away the mountains of evidence
that support evolution as a fact and theory.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The humanist's blind science |
23 May 2005 04:38:41 PM |
|
|
Fact: There is nothing like a DUMB Fundie to even think he has a handle
on his/her existence let alone serious questions as to origins etc.
LB
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
