"Science is a way of knowing, but it is only a single of many possible ways of knowing."
This is certainly true, but science does have a number of unique qualities, most important of which that it's the only "way of knowing" based solely on axioms common to most people who live and react to our common reality. Most other ways of knowing are dependent on a bunch of assumptions and beliefs that aren't necessarily shared by everyone, and hence they are easy to dismiss by anyone. Science can certainly be dismissed, but often not without tossing the "baby" (our common physical reality) out with the "bathwater" (i.e. scientific conclusions one might not like). Science cannot answer all questions or even all sorts of questions (it isn't, for instance, normative at all). But it does have an often envied power to answer certain questions more decisively and unavoidably than almost any other system. That's precisely what's so scary about it to people. If it were just another belief system, there wouldn't be much reason to attack and try to co-opt it.
"Yet while you speak of those religious people who are afraid of science, the children of our country are being educated by people who were taught that intelligent design has as much value as the easter bunny if the easter bunny were financed by the mafia as a way of brainwashing children."
Pretty colorful way to describe it, but in terms of it being science, I'd have to say that it's roughly accurate. ID is not scientific, and teaching it as science means misinforming kids, especially in practice (i.e. most of the proposals to teach ID really just consist of a bunch of very poorly informed criticisms of evolution).
"So why is it, again, that we don't spend a single hour a single year they're in school teaching about ontology, epistemology, and metaphysics?"
Well, first of all, that's not entirely true. Many schools do have philosophy and/or world religion courses that deal with these subjects, as well as literary classes. Second of all, those subjects are generally:
1) extremely difficult
2) have little practical use (unlike, say, math)
3) generally contain a lot of claims that are highly contentious as to whether they are saying much of anything meaningful at all
But probably more important than any of those reason are that those subjects very easily slip into debates over whose religious beliefs are correct: something people generally shy away from in public schools and consider to be much more appropriately left up to parents and those religious leaders whom the parents select to teach to kids.
"It couldn't possibly be that those invested in that one kind of knowledge have gained power in government and like the clergy in England lamented by Thomas Jefferson, they have learned to abuse their positions. Could it?"
I suppose, but I don't see much evidence of it, and there are a lot more immediate and plausible reasons for the focus. Again, one of the powers of science is that it basically deals with and sticks to physical reality: that makes it both economically relevant as well as capable of gaining broad and objective appeal across all sorts of different groups in a way that, say different religious beliefs (like, for instance, Mormon theology vs. Baptist) could not.
"Why are we paying millions of dollars in taxes to teach this nation's future leaders everything about science except its limitations?"
Virtually every science textbook I've ever read discusses the limitations and scope of science pretty explicitly and clearly. One could always complain that these presentations could be repeated more often or done better, but the claim that they are not taught seems, simply, false.
"I'll be honest, I would rather live in a nation of citizens who believe they exist for a reason, for a purpose, than live among a bunch of depressing know it alls."
I'm not sure the point of your false dilemna, but nevertheless, it's a false dilemna. Science isn't a philosophy of life anymore than home ec is. I believe I exist for a reason. Ken Miller thinks he exists for a reason. In fact, I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to find an example of ANYONE, believer or no, that doesn't think their lives have purpose and meaning. So again, this seems mostly like a straw man.
"But really, why can't we spend an hour a day for just one year telling students about what they don't know"
Again, in my experience, most presentations of empiricism very explicitly discuss this issue, in history class, in science class, and so on.
"and how so many people, loved, respected, and worshipped people believe in something more than what science describes, something as you say that is beyond the context of science?"
This is what we teach kids: in history class, civics class, social studies, etc. You know: the appropriate disciplines for those subjects.
"And the more we even accurately predict this world, the less we experience this world as interesting, as motivating, the less it keeps our attention."
I've found that the exact opposite tends to be true in science education, even if the idea that there is always more to learn, and that we will never be able to learn everything, weren't basic underlying principles of empiricism to begin with.
"I want people in this country to want to be in this world, so why not teach them a way of knowing that emphasizes the mystery recounted by so many (another way of knowing), that emphasizes the experience of wonder and awe when for just a moment they see through this world's appearance as fragmented, and see how wonderfully connected we are to one another."
Well, again: we do teach them ABOUT such ways of knowing. But if you want to teach them a particular way, i.e. a particular religion, you might think that's a great idea when its your religion being taught, but not so happy when Muslims become a majority on a school board and decide to teach kids their version of meaning.
That's why, in this country, we generally vest the decision on what to teach kids in the hands of parents and guardians and religious leaders in civil society, rather than the government. In fact, it's a little bizarre that you are advocating the idea of having the government get MORE involved of trying to tell kids what to believe.
"But you admit that science hasn't addressed where the "laws" of physics came from."
Well, yes, of course. And it may well turn out to be that it cannot ever do so, though if so, we are unlikely to ever know that for sure. Again, that's a limitation on science, and in fact, a quite GOOD one.
"You say maybe they just always were that way, maybe they couldn't be any different."
Actually, I said that in the sense that it's one possibility we can't rule out. We don't know, and we don't have any way of knowing at present, or maybe ever.
"My point is that science is so far away from knowing as David Bohm might put it: reality as it is, full picture, end of story. And if you believe David Bohm, there's no indication science will ever get to the point of knowing everything because of those pesky hidden variables."
Bohm is probably right about that. The very underlying ethic of empiricism, liberal science, is that we can never have 100% certainty, can never stop re-evaluating the evidence, can never discount the possibility of new evidence coming along.
"And even if science did go that far and was able to predict everything, the accurate way with which we would predict our lives would according to Gilbert's research cause us to be depressed."
I think you are generalizing inappropriately from Gilbert's research. Such a situation as you describe, were it even possible, would be so bizarre and unlike anything else in our experience that I doubt anyone could predict how anyone would react to it.
"And that would be no wonder, because if everything could be predicted there would be no wonder, no surprise, no experience of learning; everything would become automatic. I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound like the kind of life I'm looking for."
Maybe not... but what does that have to do with science today?
"So if they don't know everything, if with such an emphasis on science we're seeing so many problems, how can scientists make a legitimate argument that they have exclusive rights, that only their story should be told and their weaknesses should not be brought to attention?"
As I said: science is about limitations. Because it is evidence-based, it's limited to what we can provide and examine evidence for. But that also limits the relevance of certain "stories." If a bunch of claimed weaknesses and criticisms of some scientific theory aren't based on very good evidence, or even honest argument, then they don't have any relevance in science.
Putting stickers on textbooks that say "evolution is only a theory" for instance, is basically tantamount to misinforming kids about what "theory" means in science. In science, there is no "only" a theory. Theory doesn't mean conjecture in the way it does in colloquial speech. It isn't a measure of certainty at all (in math, we still call things like number theory that are 100% internally deductively proven theories, and we call completely debunked theories, like Orgone Energy, theories). So trying to "teach" that weakness of evolution is basically endorsing the teaching of goofy nonsense.
"If this was a drug company, you'd want full disclosure, right?"
Well, there is full disclosure: nothing about the science is a _secret_. In fact, just the opposite. The debate in most public schools is not over what kids are allowed to know, but what are the basics they should be _expected_ to know in order to have a good grasp of the subject. What most advocates of Intelligent Design want to add to those standards are bizarre claims like "evolution cannot create new information" which are either wrong or simply nonsensical.
"You'd think people deserve informed consent, right? So why can't we give future American consumers of information the informed consent, the warning label that exclusive use of this product (science) may lead to depression, and that it is only indicated for solving certain types of problems? Why sell science as snake oil?"
Put simply, I don't think your characterization of it is accurate. I don't think there is much evidence that science leads to depression (in fact, you getting to that claim took several very odd leaps in logic), and I don't think science classes make any secret of either the limitations or requirements for good science.
Mark, you really like to stir things up. Good for you!
:)
BTW, I agree. Science is a tool. Nothing more, nothing less. God created science and everything and everyone else in the universe.
God is Awesome! His Creation is amazing!
(I particulary like the stars!)
Right, you hit the nail on the head again, Mark. The only scientific rejection of "life begins at conception" would be to argue that life began way before conception, and it is merely the appearance of that life energy that has been transformed, but even that is too metaphysical a stretch for so many atomistic "scientists" of our day.
Part II???? I thought science was already dead. You said it right here months ago. Damn those scientists for not listening to you and ritually killing themselves over their bunson burners. How dare they continue to practice scientific thought, thereby questioning God and your will!!!
For the record, science as a worldview doesn't even exist, and never has. Rational thought and the scientific process are simply ways of studying the world. 'Science' has not said that it cannot coexist with religion, it is religion that has said it cannot coexist with science. Ex: no scientific study has ever been undertaken to disprove the existence of God. However, many many religious studies have been undertaken to disprove scientific theories, such as evolution, the creation of the universe, etc.
Materialism, secular progressivism (whatever that is), and atheism are ideologies. Science is nothing more than a methodology of thought. The only incompatibilities between science and religion are ones that religion has imposed, not vice versa.
you can't really do science unless you are firmly grounded in faith and have a general knowledge of theology.
The fact that you don't understand how completely absurd this assertion is--not that you can mix science and faith in certain ways, but that you must inject the opposite of science (religion) into science at all turns--shows just how woefully unprepared you are for a discussion such as this. But I encourage you to keep posting about it; it reveals just how dire your dearth of understanding is and generally makes you a laughingstock.
By the way, this"vast evidence of design in the universe" you constantly prattle about? Name it. Real, concrete, scientifically viable evidence. Not this "I look in the sky and see god" mumbo-jumbo you're so fond of, but actual evidence. (I know what your response is going to be. It's going to be your favorite dodge. I just want to go ahead and get it out of the way.)
Can you freeze life? In other words, are a clump of cells live if they can be frozen, then defrosted and brought to life later? Or are they just a precurser to life?
I propose a redirection of thought. Or perhaps I should say I propose a new way of looking at life.
In reproduction, life does not begin at all. It only continues.
A living baby comes only from a living fetus.
A living fetus comes only from a living embryo.
A living embryo comes only from a living fertilized egg.
And a living fertilized egg comes only from the union of a living egg and a living sperm.
These facts are absolutely beyond dispute. There is no beginning at all in this process. But there is a point at which this continum of life resolves itself into a new individual. That point is when the egg and sperm unite, which we call conception.
No sane person can dispute this irrefutable logic.
Jim Morris
I look in the sky and see god" mumbo-jumbo you're so fond of, but actual evidence.
Sees,
Why is a Creation in which you stand firmly on not "good" enough evidence? Along with all the other planets, especially the sun, SO bright, that you can't look into it, without getting blinded...And since you don't believe in God, Where is YOUR evidence of the beginning of Creation and just who is it that Created everything?
makes you a laughingstock.
No, The only laughingstock here is you, simply because you are a fool by mocking and spite of God Almighty, and after He has done put everything here on display, You are most definitely a fool in God's eyes, but at the same time you don't realize is, is that, You are making God very Sad, God loves you, and He wants you to be thankful for what you have. For without God's Mercy and sending His only Son Jesus Christ, EVERYBODY from Noah to this point and that includes you AND me, would'nt be here today, and MY What a foolish mistake it would be to turn your back on God for something as stupid as trying to say that God is "mumbo-jumbo" How STUPID to say such a remark.
Make no mistake...God is there and He hears everything you say about Him! and about others who try to live up to His will, and believe me!! If it's something to make fun of, or joke about to degrade His authority or presence, then He's NOT AT ALL happy, so you better wis up, dude.
As for myself, I choose to stick to the words: How Great Thou Art, In His Awesome Wonder, Splendor! Something I always like to hear - is the rolling thunder - and I am reminded, that is God's voice speaking, just to let us know, that He is still up there, and that He is the One still in charge of this Magnificent and beautiful world of His.
Man through his financial resources, has, in a small sector of America, gained much power and wealth, and they use it to uplift themselves, instead of using it to Glorify God... at the same token - in back of these peoples minds, are they truly happy?? Are they satisfied? Do they appreciate life with the wealth and living that they have? I would say - to a certain degree, yes.
But in reality to say they are truly,truly happy, the answer is most always, No.
Why? Becuase it is MATERIAL! Do the material things of this world, give HOPE beyond death? No, because they cannot infill the Spirit, they cannot be absorbed into the heart and mind, they make us feel good for a little while but it's the - "Can I take it with me?" that gets you, ya see? All worldly possessions will be forgotten, We came into this world with "nothing" and we will leave this world with "nothing" but if we remain true to Christ then it's a much Greater reward than any money here on earth could ever be imagined, Praise the Lord!! YOU CAN'T BUY YOUR WAY TO HEAVEN, THER'ES NO WAY!!!!!
And for people to use material evidence, That God CREATED, for the purpose of explaining in any other way, shape or form the existence of this world and how it came to be, other than God himself, are the most foolhearty people you could Ever know, bar none.
All science is, a diagram, a blueprint, it is a dissection of each living organism, as well as the earth itself, and what it does. It shows what God done, but NOT how He done it, How it works and so-forth, and it's only through God's help that man has the technology to do these things, but so many scientists do not give any credit or thanks whatsoever to God for what they've been able to accomplish thus far, and MY what a SHAME it is. They don't give God the thanks for ANYTHING, They do it all in the name of ME,ME,ME,ME,ME...putting themselves on a pedestal to look like some magnificent god of the whole universe or something, all the while, God is just sitting up there having a good ol laugh, at the foolishness of the child like people who claim themselves the new craze of mankind or something to that effect, it's really pitiful.
Many unbelieving scientists are looking for evidence in order to believe that there is a God, Many other unbelieving scientist, Hear the Christian speak of God and want to try and prove to the Christian that there is no God, So what shall we say to them? There is only ONE way, that they will find God, and that is through a committed faith and personal relationship with God through prayer; He's already provided the evidence for ALL to see, now all it takes is Faith, That's the Joy in it all, is having that HOPE and assurance that we will all see the Master of this Great world and universe that we marvel at today, and Yes, The Magnificent and Glorious Home He has prepared for us in Heaven! Where no more worries and heartache plague us!
It's going to be GREAT!
..................................................
You did an excellent job in your explanation, Mark!
Excellent!
:)
Jeremiah
Now about the science of origins.
I am a practicing scientist, and I do not accept the pseudo-scientific nonsence called evolution.
During my university years, three things deeply impressed me about "science."
The first was when I stumbled upon an article in "The Journal of Geology." This article discussed hominoid footprints that were found in carboniferuos strata over a wide area of the United States. The article said (here I am quoting from memory, so the wording may not be exactly correct.) "If man, or man's early ape ancestor, or that early ape ancestor's early mammalian ancestor, lived as far back as in the carboniferous period; then the whole science of geology is so wrong that all the geologists will resign their jobs and take up truck driving. Hence, science rejects the tempting notion that man made these prints in the mud of the carboniferous period with his feet."
The second thing was when my embryology professor got enraged at me because I did not believe in evolution, and then confidentially told his lab assistant (who, unbeknowns to him, I was dating) that evolution was really not a very good explaination of the facts.
The third thing was when the cell physiology professor told her senior class that the theory of recapitulation was "outside the facts." This was notable because, just two years previously, she had told her first year biology students that one of the proofs of evolution was the theory of recapitulation!
So much for scientific rationality.
Jim Morris
SeesThroughIt said
"By the way, this"vast evidence of design in the universe" you constantly prattle about? Name it. Real, concrete, scientifically viable evidence."
The plainest evidence is DNA.
Computers use a simple binary code. DNA is based on a quaternary code. This allows much more information to be stored in a small space, but is much more complicated that the simple binary code we use in our computers. But even with our simplified binary code, a very small error in one line will keep pages of code from working. The more we learn about the complexity of the code carried in DNA, the more obvious it becomes that this could only be the product of intelligent design.
There is no point in discussing the complexities of DNA coding here, for almost no one could understand it. But there are other things that are so obvious and plain that they can be understood by the common man-on-the-street.
Most of the organs of most of the organisms are of such a nature that, in anything less that a completed state, they would be a liability, rather than an asset. Take, for instance, an eye that was structurally complete, but did not see. Such an organ would only be something to get hurt, causing infection and possibly death.
Evolution would weed out such a useless organ as a liability. Thus, the eye could not possibly evolve. So for almost every organ in man and in almost every plant or animal.
But the most difficult problem of all is the origin of sexual reproduction. For sexual reproduction to evolve, a fully functional male and a fully functional female would have to both appear. This male and female would have to be of the same species, and appear close enough together in time and space that they could get together and reproduce. The concept of such a thing happening through random mutations is beyond preposterous.
Both of these scientifically unquestionable observations demonstrate the necessity of intelligent design.
Jim Morris
Mr. James C. Morris,
Sir, You have a really Great website!
Anyone who spreads the gospel of Jesus Christ, commands the Greatest amount respect of any kindred on earth!
You have a Good day, Sir!
:)
Jeremiah
While it does not demonstrate intelligent design as such, there is one more unquestionable scientific fact that demonstrates creation so clearly that only wilful blindness can overlook it.
Evolutionists tell us that the fossil record shows a long chain of gradual changes as species developed and spread through the earth. This is not correct, and the facts that demonstrate the error are widely known.
The truth is that the fossil record shows a long series of stable ecosystems that appeared suddenly (that is, in terms of geological time), flourished virtually unchanged for long periods of time, and suddenly disappeared; only to be suddenly replaced with a different stable ecosystem.
If you approach any outcropping of fossil bearing rock anywhere in the world, you will see a layer, perhaps very thin and perhaps many feet thick. The fosils in the top part of that layer are exactly like the fossils in the bottom of that layer. Then comes a line that a three year old child can identify, and above that line the fossils are different. Tis is not gradual change.
Every geologist I have ever confronted with this fact has answered that there were other places where intermediate fossils could be found. But then I have pointed out that these fossil layers have been catagorized and named, and they run clear around the world. And there are NO intermediate layers. When confronted with this logic, EVERY ONE OF THEM I HAVE EVER CONFRONTED has admitted that he knew this was correct.
This is so widely known that evolutionists have recently attempted to answer this objection by inventing the theory of punctuated equilibrium. That is, that an ecosystem will rather quickly evolve until it reaches an equilibrium, at which point it stops evolving until something punctuates the equilibrium. Then, they posit, evolution again begins to progress rapidly until a new equilibrium is established, and then slows or stops.
This is nothing more than a desperate attempt to maintain an unworkable theory in the face of overwhelming evidence that it could not be correct.
Jim Morris
Sees,
Mr. Morris kindly did a much better job than I could ever do in bringing up evidences of design - so, I'll tackle the other bit: the necessity of faith and reason working together.
Your assertion that religion is the opposite of science is pretty standard fare for your side of the argument - I doubt much that you even realise that what you are saying is that science is true, and religion is false; a blanket assertion of impossible knowledge, and entirely unsupported by any set of facts you could martial for your argument.
The crux of the matter here is that you have to take your ability to have an independent thought on faith - you can, as it were, only use your reason because you have faith that you have such a thing. Either you have faith that your thoughts are your own, or you are forced in to complete materialism in which all of what you call your thoughts are actually the mere conditioned responses to outside stimuli - if you are not a complete materialist, if you are of the opinion that you can think of your own in entire disregard for what came before, then you must have faith...your faith and your reason are necessary for each other...but I go a bit further and say reason is subordinate to faith: we need to believe things far more than we need to reason about things (for instance, you don't know that there will be food shipments to your town next week - you believe there will be, and all past evidence indicates that there will be, but the prospect of you being able to buy a loaf of bread next week is something you simply have faith in...you don't need to spend your days thinking about the ways and means of obtaining food because of your faith in people providing it for you).
If you were to go in to a scientific pursuit determined to only act upon the cold, hard facts, you wouldn't get much done - to be Einstein, you have to take a lot of things on faith...things you cannot describe and can't explain, but must be because your observations indicate they are happening, even though you don't know why or how. Those who have separated their reason from faith are mostly cobweb spinners - the sort of people who construct ever more absurd explanations for things because they don't want to say, "assume God", and then work things out from that premise.
"The more we learn about the complexity of the code carried in DNA, the more obvious it becomes that this could only be the product of intelligent design." by: James C. Morris
Excellent example! I wholeheartedly agree. Great posts!
You certainly made a fool of all of your critics who thought you were talking about the other kind of science.
Science is a particular method based on empiricism: it does not require any particular religious belief to apply that method. So I'm not sure where the idea that it must necessarily be religious comes from. Certianly, many scientists are religious and indeed feel that their religious faith is part of what drives them to do science, which they see as a way of exploring creation. That's a perfectly valid view for a believer as to why they do science. but it isn't itself a necessary part of science.
It is not a scientific fact that life begins at conception: the idea that personhood begins at that point is simply one subjective interpretation. Life is a vague and hazy term, scientifically: there is no obvious demarcation between things being alive and not-alive, neither in taxonomy, medicine, and certainly not in reproduction. All sexual reproduction is, in fact, a specialized subset of asexual reproduction.
Morris' arguments are all fairly well known creationist arguments that all have perfectly sensible responses: they all share the same basic lack of understanding as to what evolution is and suggests and then build silly straw man arguments. For instance, no biologist has EVER suggested that such a complex organ as the eye evolved either all in one step, or went through a long period of non-functionality before all the "necessary parts" were in place for it to see. All such explanations are based, in reality, on gradual changes not only to the eye itself, but to what eyes are needed for. Likewise, Morris' account of the evolution of sex bares little relation to how actual biologists discuss it. You can if you please, still discount the explanations and plausibility of the accounts science actually debates: however, you must concede that Morris' accounts are, in fact, objectively dishonest in their portrayal of how science deals with these subjects and what it would look for in terms of an evolutionary explanation.
Arguments like "DNA looks complicated: how could it have evolved" basically rely on one's willingness to simple stop right there and ask no further questions.
Morris' account of geology and PE are likewise simply wrong. If you are actually interested in why the debate over actually PE arose, how it was ultimately resolved, and what bearing it has on fossil evidence, you would do well to read the works of actual paleontologists and biologists on the controversy. Upon doing so, you'll quickly realize that the dispute was in fact over a much smaller scope of disagreement than Morris paints it as, and further that neither side believes that there are no transitions in the fossil record, as Morris claims. The fossil record is, in fact, perfectly consistent with how evolution works (descent with modification), if not, in fact, even more rich with evidence for evolution than anyone in Darwin's day ever dreamed. Of course, the fossil record is only one of the many converging lines of evidence demonstrating the same very particular pattern: the very one evolution suggests.
In short, Morris' account of evolution and geology basically alleges a vast conspiracy of silence amongst thousands and thousands of scientists around the globe (many of whom are practicing Christians) to cover up arguments that would be blindly obvious flaws in evolution... if they were really as Morris describes them. Morris alleges false witness of each and every one of them. That's a pretty amazing charge: which is more likely: that Morris' vast conspiracy is true, or that he's simply misinforming people about what the evidence is actually like?
Finally, as to faith and evidence, it's quite true that the basic axioms of thought and reality are unprovable. That's why they are axioms. But it's not true that this means that anyone taking them for granted in a discussion about our shared reality makes them like faith. If we did not all agree to leave aside the question of whether or not all reality is merely an illusion and we just brains in jars being fed things like the Matrix, then we could not have any sort of productive discussion about reality anyway. Even by discussing this subject here on a messageboard, you have ALREADY CONCEEDED this issue: you are treating the world in such a way that presumes our shared reality to be real, regardless of why. It is therefore simply a moot point. I need make no claim that it is True, in some ontological sense, on faith. In fact, I don't.
Furthermore, reasoned inference is not faith in the sense of religious beliefs. It would be inaccurate to say that I have "faith" in food being delivered to my town in the sense of religious faith that something unseen is real: that would be the fallacy of equivocation, changing the meaning of the word faith willy nilly mid-argument.
I certainly act as if I expect it to based on past experience with how the world works, but it is not required that I believe it with all my heart, or even believe that it could never be otherwise. In fact, I fully recognize that there is the possibility that it could not. However, it has proven pragamatic not to worry about that possibility, since it has proven so rare in the past, and the strategy of not expending worry about it has worked fine for me so far. If food stops showing up regularly, then I'll have to re-evaluate and change that strategy. But again: none of that requires me claiming to have knowledge that I do not have. That's really what the difference in methodologies is all about. Empiricism is about being honest about what we know, what we don't know, and more importantly HOW we know and what that means and what the limits and context of knowledge are. Empiricism is of a limited and restricted scope: it cannot, in fact, answer every question. It cannot self-justify and makes no claim to. It is, however, a functional and indeed wildly successful method within the context of our shared reality to a degree that it seems like faith-based ideologies sometimes get jealous and resentful of it, and seek to try to undermine or claim credit for. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.
If science says religion can't account for reality because it can't be proven by the tools of science, and religion says science can't account for all reality because there are things for which there are no scientific explanations, that being the reality of the unseen, then just exactly how does that makes science any more honest than religion? Guess what, from where we're standing, science has not found a scientific explanation for the reality of the unseen, for where the laws of gravity, thermodynamics, etc came from. Now if science becomes able to do that, come back and talk to us, but approaching that doesn't make it true when in fact it's a lie that they're even close. I'm sure Jeremiah would be happy to post you a passage from Job describing how religious people are not to make any claim on absolute truth except that which derives from the fact that there is an unseen force.
"If science says religion can't account for reality because it can't be proven by the tools of science"
Science doesn't make such grand statements. Science is limited in scope, and it has specific rules that are based on the idea of evidence. Religious beliefs that are untestable are outside that scope. Whether or not this or that religious belief can ultimately account for "reality" isn't a scientific question. Indeed, accounting for "reality" isn't really a scientific question either. Science is an inquiry that takes place within a given reality.
"and religion says science can't account for all reality because there are things for which there are no scientific explanations, that being the reality of the unseen, then just exactly how does that makes science any more honest than religion?"
As I have already explained, science says what it says about factual matters within its scope. Nothing about science suggests that one cannot be religious. Of course, scientific findings might well challenge factual claims made by some religions about reality, history, etc. I think that's why many religious people, especially on the more extreme end of things, find science to be a threat.
"Guess what, from where we're standing, science has not found a scientific explanation for the reality of the unseen"
Science needs to explain what we can demonstrate exists and interacts with this reality. I'm not sure why it or anything else would need to explain the unseen. I can posit countless things unseen, and no one can say much of anything about them beyond speculation.
"for where the laws of gravity, thermodynamics, etc came from."
We don't yet know if they came from anywhere, or if they could be any different than they are. In short, science really doesn't have a lot to say on this question, and that's a good thing. Science is about being honest about the limits of what we have the evidence to know and not know.
"Now if science becomes able to do that, come back and talk to us, but approaching that doesn't make it true when in fact it's a lie that they're even close."
This sentence doesn't seem to be intelligible: what are you talking about?
"I'm sure Jeremiah would be happy to post you a passage from Job describing how religious people are not to make any claim on absolute truth except that which derives from the fact that there is an unseen force."
If there is an unseen force, then you need to provide evidence for it before you can run around calling it a fact, from a scientific point of view. If you just want to believe that it's a fact, well, hey no one is stopping you. More power to you.
Plunge,
Here is some worhty advice, advice that most definitely, if put to practice?, will not go in vain!
Job 38 & 39
""Then the Lord answered Job out of the strom. He said:
Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge? Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me.
Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?
Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? ON what were its footings set, or who laids its cornerstone-while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy? Who shut up the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb, when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness, when I fixed limits for it and set its doors and bars in place, when I said, 'This far you may come and no farther; here is where your proud waves halt'?
Have you ever given orders to the morning, or shown the dawn its place, that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it? The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; its features stand out like those of a garment. The wicked are denied their light, and their unpraised arm is broken. Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea or walked in the recesses of the deep? Have the gates of death been shown to you? Have you seen the gates of the shadow of death? Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth? Tell me, if you know all this?
What is the way to the abode of light? And where does darkness reside? Can you take them to their places? Do you know the paths to their dwellings? Surely you know, for you were already born! You have lives so many years!
Have you entered the storehouses of the snow or seen the storehouses of the hail, which I reserve for times of trouble, for days of war and battle?
What is the way to the place where the lightening is dispersed, or the place where the east winds are scattered over the earth? Who cuts a channel for the torrents of rain, and a path for the thunderstorm, to water a land where no man lives, a desert with no one in it, to satisfy a desolate wasteland and make it sprout with grass?
Does the rain have a father? WHo fathers the drops of dew? From whose womb comes the ice?
Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens when the waters become hard as stone, when the surface of the deep is frozen?
Can you bind the beautiful* Pleiades?
Can you loose the cords of Orion?
Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons or lead out the Bear with its cubs? Do you know the laws of the heavens? Can you set up [God's] dominion over the earth?
Can you raise your voice to the clouds and cover yourself with a flood of water?
Do you send the lightning bolts on their way? Do they report to you, 'Here we are'?
Who endowed the heart with wisdom or gave understanding to the mind? Who has the wisdom to count the clouds? Who can tip over the water jars of the heavens when the dust becomes hard and the clods of earth stick together?
Do you hunt the prey for the lioness and satisy the hunger of the lions when they crouch in their dens or lie in wait in a thicket? Who provides food for the raven when its young cry out to God and wander about for lack of food?
Do you know when the mountain goats give birth? Do you watch when the do bears her fawn?
Do you count the months till they bear?
Do you know the time they give birth?
They crouch down and bring forth their young; their labor pains are ended.
Their young thrive and grow strong in the wilds; they leave and do not return. Who let the wild donkey go free? Who untied his ropes?
I gave him the wasteland as his home, the salt flats as his habitat, He laughs at the commotion in the town; he does not hear a driver's shout.
He ranges the hills for his pasture and searches for any green thing.
Will the wild ox consent to serve you?
Will he stay by your manger at night?
Can you hold him to the furrow with a harness?
Will he till the valley behind you?
Will you rely on him for his great strength?
Will you leave your heavy work to him?
Can you trust him to bring in your grain and gather it to your threshing floor?
The wings of the Ostrich flap joyfully, but they cannot compare with the pinions of the stork. She lays her eggs on the ground and lets them warm in the sand, unmindful that a foot may crush them, that some wild animal may trample them. She treats her young harshly, as if they were no hers; she cares not that her labor was in vain, for God did not endow her with wisdom or give her a share of good sense. Yet when she spreads her feathers to run, she laughs at horse and rider.
Do you give the horse his strength or clothe his neck with a flowing mane?
Do you make him leap like a locust, striking terror with his proud snorting? He paws fiercely, rejoicing in his strength, and charges into the fray. He laughs at fear, afraid of nothing; he does not shy away from the sword. The quiver rattles against his side, along with the flashing spear and lance. In frenzied excitement he eats up the ground; he cannot stand still when the trumpet sounds. At the blast of the trumpet he snorts, 'Aha!'
He catches the scent of battle from afar, the shout of commanders and the battle cry.
Does the hawk take flight by your wisdom and spread his wings toward the south?
Does the eagle soar at your command and build his nest on high? He dwells on a cliff and stays there at night; a rocky crag is his stronghold. From there he seeks out his food; his eyes detect it from afar. His young ones feast on blood, and where the slain are, there is he.""
40 verse 2
""Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him? Let him who accuses God answer him!""
Mr. Plunge, Now explain why faith is such a crazy idea!
You can be sure Mr. Plunge - God will command an answer for your distrust in Him, rest assured!!!
Jeremiah
Jeremiah, I'm afraid you seem to have completely missed most of what I said, though given that most your posts seem to be quick copy/pastes, that's not surprising. :)
I'm not talking about what anyone believes: I'm talking about what science is and says. What one believes is of course, up to their own convictions and they are indeed answerable for it, but that's neither here nor there when we're talking about disciplines of evidence.
I don't think I ever said that faith was a crazy idea (though I'm not sure how a story about someone making threats about how they must believe this or that is a good argument for faith), so I'm not sure what you think you are responding to.
Plunge,
I know exactly what you are trying to say, and don't think I don't!
You disclaim an 'unseen force', that unseen force being YOUR Creator, Almighty God!
There is also Mr. Plunge a Satan, which is the second unseen force.
Both forces are what dictate in which your thoughts and actions are directed.
The unseen forces inside a person that make the claim "there is no God" are the Satanic forces!
The unseen forces which enter a person and bring Love, Joy, Peace and understanding is through God Almgighty our Creator!
When you step in light of all this you are to acknowledge that you are the one in control of the unseen forces that are within you!
You either allow God in, to give you that Joy, Peace and Happiness that shows to others and you then are a beacon to them for a better outlook on life!
OR...You can allow Satan to rule your life, in which will distort and destroy the very nature of your self-being, and destroy the lives of those around you, dragging them into that dreaded fire too! a terrible tragedy for those that do not accept Jesus Christ as their personal Savior!
SO now, I HOPE you get where I am coming from!
Make no mistake...God is the answer for EVERYTHING! God is the key to success!
Jeremiah
"I know exactly what you are trying to say, and don't think I don't!"
Er, then why do your responses have almost nothing to do with what I said, or responding to it? You could have posted the same quote in response to my discussing fish population levels, and it would have made just as little sense.
"You disclaim an 'unseen force', that unseen force being YOUR Creator, Almighty God!"
I suppose it might have been clearer if I had said "any given" unseen force, but as I made pretty clear, I'm talking about what you can say with science and what you can't. In science, if you have a pet unseen force you are trying to get everyone to acknowledge, then either you need evidence of it, or you might as well give up the science game.
"SO now, I HOPE you get where I am coming from!"
Of course I do: you're prosletyzing, which you'd be doing utterly regardless of anything I say. Believe me, I've heard it before, and you making a bunch of claims over and over really isn't either interesting or relevant to this debate. It doesn't even take any thought or effort on your part, mores the pity.
I suppose it might have been clearer if I had said "any given" unseen force, but as I made pretty clear, I'm talking about what you can say with science and what you can't. In science, if you have a pet unseen force you are trying to get everyone to acknowledge, then either you need evidence of it, or you might as well give up the science game.
Hey, As I said, and will continue to say, God is the basis for EVERYTHING, He is the one fact behind ALL facts, Everything you say is only possible through God himself! HE'S THE ANSWER, DON"CHA SEE!?
He is the 'beginning' (or otherwise anything you say and do would not be possible) - and the 'end' or which translates to the - Alpha and the Omega!
There was no-one before Him and there will be no-one after Him, in Control that is, He's the Master!
Sheew..my fingers are getting tired! I hope you are getting the point...Because God cares for your soul.
Have you ever thought about hell? How much is a man's life worth to lose it to the devil? For ETERNITY!
Ever think about ETERNITY? It's a long, long, long, long, long time, Don'cha see?
Jeremiah
One more thing, this:
"you're prosletyzing"
Well, If that's the case then why am I RIGHT and you're still WRONG!
Hey, Listen, If you want to believe there is "no God" then fine, go right ahead, but that is such a sad mistake on your part, and I mean that sympathetically; I really do, I pity you.
I'll be praying for you!
Jeremiah
"Well, If that's the case then why am I RIGHT and you're still WRONG!"
What you are is apparently incapable of reading, understanding, and responding to arguments.
At this point, you not only have posted several things that have next to nothing to do with what I said, but you've even asked me why I said something I never said in the first place. That's pretty silly.
I do not believe "there is no God" btw. That's just something else you invented in the confines of the imaginary discussion you are having with no one in particular.
Plunge,
I am going to tell you this and this is going to be the last comment and the last time I am telling you!
Reality, as we know it right now, is not the true reality, No, the TRUE reality is when our journey is complete from this world into the next, ok, follow me?
Paul said: "Faith, is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things unseen"
So,When you reach that point, Which would you rather have FAITH or no faith?, Because then, everything is Real, because there will be NO MORE TIME, ONLY ETERNITY, and that, is REALITY, my friend!
So nothing here on earth matters, Science - It is meaningless, a chasing after the wind, it does'nt hurt to learn, but we mus'nt forsake our souls for somthing so foolish as chasing the wind.
YOU SOUL IS THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS!
Jeremiah
Jeremiah,
I humbly thank you for taking the time to post that. Why does it give me chills every time I read it? Serving such a force quickens the spirit.
Plunge,
I think the key phrase you use is what counts as evidence. An interesting paradox about BF Skinner, the psychological behaviorist, is that he only wanted to research and talk about what could be observed and replicated. He encouraged people to be wary of theories, just as he was wary of intrapsychic phenomenon, what people could talk about experiencing but couldn't be actually observed. Of course his idea that only what can be observed and replicated scientifically counts as evidence is itself a theory.
And that is what many at this blog want science to own up to. Science is a way of knowing, but it is only a single of many possible ways of knowing. Yet while you speak of those religious people who are afraid of science, the children of our country are being educated by people who were taught that intelligent design has as much value as the easter bunny if the easter bunny were financed by the mafia as a way of brainwashing children.
We teach science to children if they plan on going to college for about an hour a day every day they're at school for at least ten years, even if they don't go to college. So, the scientific method in one form or another gets thrown at them at least ten times. And we teach children math for another hour each of those days, and of course math also works on similar assumptions to science, that the world is atomistic and the ways to manipulate the quantitative way of looking at the fragments of observable reality is helpful.
So why is it, again, that we don't spend a single hour a single year they're in school teaching about ontology, epistemology, and metaphysics? It couldn't possibly be that those invested in that one kind of knowledge have gained power in government and like the clergy in England lamented by Thomas Jefferson, they have learned to abuse their positions. Could it? How many faculty members are there in math and science departments, plus how many teachers teach math and science? My guess would be well over 10,000, right? How much money does the NEA give to the Democratic party? There couldn't possibly be another culture of corruption, right?
Why are we paying millions of dollars in taxes to teach this nation's future leaders everything about science except its limitations? Again, the issue of significance comes into play. Religion and spirituality provide an idea that there is control in this world; as Daniel Gilbert makes the case in Stumbling on Happiness, it is this idea that events in our world are under control that separates depressed people who accurately estimate their abilities (very scientific, right?) from those who are optimistic and happy. This is what we see in higher levels of education being associated with weekly church attendance. This is what we see in those who do better on standardized tests being less likely to believe in religion, and lacking that significance opening themselves up for what Jeremiah would describe as Satan, ideas that life isn't fun, isn't worth living, no point to going on. I'll be honest, I would rather live in a nation of citizens who believe they exist for a reaon, for a purpose, than live among a bunch of depressing know it alls.
But really, why can't we spend an hour a day for just one year telling students about what they don't know, and how so many people, loved, respected, and worshipped people believe in something more than what science describes, something as you say that is beyond the context of science? The current education system is nothing short of political indoctrination, and we have more people interested in their cell phones than in watching where they're going on the road because to them it's not significant they make it there, and that others they may meet on the road make it there, alive.
More than that, a more recent learning theorist than Skinner argues that it is surprise that is learning. If there's no surprise, there's no learning. And the more we even accurately predict this world, the less we experience this world as interesting, as motivating, the less it keeps our attention. I want people in this country to want to be in this world, so why not teach them a way of knowing that emphasizes the mystery recounted by so many (another way of knowing), that emphasizes the experience of wonder and awe when for just a moment they see through this world's appearance as fragmented, and see how wonderfully connected we are to one another.
You have trouble with my:
"Now if science becomes able to do that, come back and talk to us, but approaching that doesn't make it true when in fact it's a lie that they're even close."
But you admit that science hasn't addressed where the "laws" of physics came from. You say maybe they just always were that way, maybe they couldn't be any different. My point is that science is so far away from knowing as David Bohm might put it: reality as it is, full picture, end of story. And if you believe David Bohm, there's no indication science will ever get to the point of knowing everything because of those pesky hidden variables. And even if science did go that far and was able to predict everything, the accurate way with which we would predict our lives would according to Gilbert's research cause us to be depressed. And that would be no wonder, because if everything could be predicted there would be no wonder, no surprise, no experience of learning; everything would become automatic. I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound like the kind of life I'm looking for.
So if they don't know everything, if with such an emphasis on science we're seeing so many problems, how can scientists make a legitimate argument that they have exclusive rights, that only their story should be told and their weaknesses should not be brought to attention? If this was a drug company, you'd want full disclosure, right? You'd think people deserve informed consent, right? So why can't we give future American consumers of information the informed consent, the warning label that exclusive use of this product (science) may lead to depression, and that it is only indicated for solving certain types of problems? Why sell science as snake oil? If it wouldn't make the ABA rich, the NEA should be sued.
You're more than welcome, Morris!
It is Awe-inspiring to me too! in knowing that, We serve a God, with Power, beyond comprehension!
And that, Nothing is impossible with God, and that, Nothing in all Creation, can seperate us from the Love of God!
I appreciate your comments, Morris!
God bless you!!
Jeremiah
"Science is a way of knowing, but it is only a single of many possible ways of knowing."
This is certainly true, but science does have a number of unique qualities, most important of which that it's the only "way of knowing" based solely on axioms common to most people who live and react to our common reality. Most other ways of knowing are dependent on a bunch of assumptions and beliefs that aren't necessarily shared by everyone, and hence they are easy to dismiss by anyone. Science can certainly be dismissed, but often not without tossing the "baby" (our common physical reality) out with the "bathwater" (i.e. scientific conclusions one might not like). Science cannot answer all questions or even all sorts of questions (it isn't, for instance, normative at all). But it does have an often envied power to answer certain questions more decisively and unavoidably than almost any other system. That's precisely what's so scary about it to people. If it were just another belief system, there wouldn't be much reason to attack and try to co-opt it.
"Yet while you speak of those religious people who are afraid of science, the children of our country are being educated by people who were taught that intelligent design has as much value as the easter bunny if the easter bunny were financed by the mafia as a way of brainwashing children."
Pretty colorful way to describe it, but in terms of it being science, I'd have to say that it's roughly accurate. ID is not scientific, and teaching it as science means misinforming kids, especially in practice (i.e. most of the proposals to teach ID really just consist of a bunch of very poorly informed criticisms of evolution).
"So why is it, again, that we don't spend a single hour a single year they're in school teaching about ontology, epistemology, and metaphysics?"
Well, first of all, that's not entirely true. Many schools do have philosophy and/or world religion courses that deal with these subjects, as well as literary classes. Second of all, those subjects are generally:
1) extremely difficult
2) have little practical use (unlike, say, math)
3) generally contain a lot of claims that are highly contentious as to whether they are saying much of anything meaningful at all
But probably more important than any of those reason are that those subjects very easily slip into debates over whose religious beliefs are correct: something people generally shy away from in public schools and consider to be much more appropriately left up to parents and those religious leaders whom the parents select to teach to kids.
"It couldn't possibly be that those invested in that one kind of knowledge have gained power in government and like the clergy in England lamented by Thomas Jefferson, they have learned to abuse their positions. Could it?"
I suppose, but I don't see much evidence of it, and there are a lot more immediate and plausible reasons for the focus. Again, one of the powers of science is that it basically deals with and sticks to physical reality: that makes it both economically relevant as well as capable of gaining broad and objective appeal across all sorts of different groups in a way that, say different religious beliefs (like, for instance, Mormon theology vs. Baptist) could not.
"Why are we paying millions of dollars in taxes to teach this nation's future leaders everything about science except its limitations?"
Virtually every science textbook I've ever read discusses the limitations and scope of science pretty explicitly and clearly. One could always complain that these presentations could be repeated more often or done better, but the claim that they are not taught seems, simply, false.
"I'll be honest, I would rather live in a nation of citizens who believe they exist for a reason, for a purpose, than live among a bunch of depressing know it alls."
I'm not sure the point of your false dilemna, but nevertheless, it's a false dilemna. Science isn't a philosophy of life anymore than home ec is. I believe I exist for a reason. Ken Miller thinks he exists for a reason. In fact, I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to find an example of ANYONE, believer or no, that doesn't think their lives have purpose and meaning. So again, this seems mostly like a straw man.
"But really, why can't we spend an hour a day for just one year telling students about what they don't know"
Again, in my experience, most presentations of empiricism very explicitly discuss this issue, in history class, in science class, and so on.
"and how so many people, loved, respected, and worshipped people believe in something more than what science describes, something as you say that is beyond the context of science?"
This is what we teach kids: in history class, civics class, social studies, etc. You know: the appropriate disciplines for those subjects.
"And the more we even accurately predict this world, the less we experience this world as interesting, as motivating, the less it keeps our attention."
I've found that the exact opposite tends to be true in science education, even if the idea that there is always more to learn, and that we will never be able to learn everything, weren't basic underlying principles of empiricism to begin with.
"I want people in this country to want to be in this world, so why not teach them a way of knowing that emphasizes the mystery recounted by so many (another way of knowing), that emphasizes the experience of wonder and awe when for just a moment they see through this world's appearance as fragmented, and see how wonderfully connected we are to one another."
Well, again: we do teach them ABOUT such ways of knowing. But if you want to teach them a particular way, i.e. a particular religion, you might think that's a great idea when its your religion being taught, but not so happy when Muslims become a majority on a school board and decide to teach kids their version of meaning.
That's why, in this country, we generally vest the decision on what to teach kids in the hands of parents and guardians and religious leaders in civil society, rather than the government. In fact, it's a little bizarre that you are advocating the idea of having the government get MORE involved of trying to tell kids what to believe.
"But you admit that science hasn't addressed where the "laws" of physics came from."
Well, yes, of course. And it may well turn out to be that it cannot ever do so, though if so, we are unlikely to ever know that for sure. Again, that's a limitation on science, and in fact, a quite GOOD one.
"You say maybe they just always were that way, maybe they couldn't be any different."
Actually, I said that in the sense that it's one possibility we can't rule out. We don't know, and we don't have any way of knowing at present, or maybe ever.
"My point is that science is so far away from knowing as David Bohm might put it: reality as it is, full picture, end of story. And if you believe David Bohm, there's no indication science will ever get to the point of knowing everything because of those pesky hidden variables."
Bohm is probably right about that. The very underlying ethic of empiricism, liberal science, is that we can never have 100% certainty, can never stop re-evaluating the evidence, can never discount the possibility of new evidence coming along.
"And even if science did go that far and was able to predict everything, the accurate way with which we would predict our lives would according to Gilbert's research cause us to be depressed."
I think you are generalizing inappropriately from Gilbert's research. Such a situation as you describe, were it even possible, would be so bizarre and unlike anything else in our experience that I doubt anyone could predict how anyone would react to it.
"And that would be no wonder, because if everything could be predicted there would be no wonder, no surprise, no experience of learning; everything would become automatic. I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound like the kind of life I'm looking for."
Maybe not... but what does that have to do with science today?
"So if they don't know everything, if with such an emphasis on science we're seeing so many problems, how can scientists make a legitimate argument that they have exclusive rights, that only their story should be told and their weaknesses should not be brought to attention?"
As I said: science is about limitations. Because it is evidence-based, it's limited to what we can provide and examine evidence for. But that also limits the relevance of certain "stories." If a bunch of claimed weaknesses and criticisms of some scientific theory aren't based on very good evidence, or even honest argument, then they don't have any relevance in science.
Putting stickers on textbooks that say "evolution is only a theory" for instance, is basically tantamount to misinforming kids about what "theory" means in science. In science, there is no "only" a theory. Theory doesn't mean conjecture in the way it does in colloquial speech. It isn't a measure of certainty at all (in math, we still call things like number theory that are 100% internally deductively proven theories, and we call completely debunked theories, like Orgone Energy, theories). So trying to "teach" that weakness of evolution is basically endorsing the teaching of goofy nonsense.
"If this was a drug company, you'd want full disclosure, right?"
Well, there is full disclosure: nothing about the science is a _secret_. In fact, just the opposite. The debate in most public schools is not over what kids are allowed to know, but what are the basics they should be _expected_ to know in order to have a good grasp of the subject. What most advocates of Intelligent Design want to add to those standards are bizarre claims like "evolution cannot create new information" which are either wrong or simply nonsensical.
"You'd think people deserve informed consent, right? So why can't we give future American consumers of information the informed consent, the warning label that exclusive use of this product (science) may lead to depression, and that it is only indicated for solving certain types of problems? Why sell science as snake oil?"
Put simply, I don't think your characterization of it is accurate. I don't think there is much evidence that science leads to depression (in fact, you getting to that claim took several very odd leaps in logic), and I don't think science classes make any secret of either the limitations or requirements for good science.
"I am going to tell you this and this is going to be the last comment and the last time I am telling you!"
Technically, to tell me anything, you'd have to actually read and respond to my comments, instead of posting bizarre non-sequiturs.
"Reality, as we know it right now, is not the true reality, No, the TRUE reality is when our journey is complete from this world into the next, ok, follow me?"
Of course: again, I understand your position. It just isn't relevant to this discussion. I've said nothing about what "TRUE" reality is. That's not what I'm talking about, and that's not even something science has any interest or relevance to.
"So, When you reach that point, Which would you rather have FAITH or no faith?"
This question isn't relevant to the discussion. I'm not saying that one shouldn't have faith at all. You haven't heard a word I've said, apparently.
"So nothing here on earth matters"
So you'd like me to become a nihilist?
"Science - It is meaningless, a chasing after the wind, it does'nt hurt to learn, but we mus'nt forsake our souls for somthing so foolish as chasing the wind."
Ok... so what?
"YOU SOUL IS THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS!"
Ok... I'm glad you've found a place where you can say this over and over. Are you this fun at parties? When someone asks about where the dip is, do you rush into the room, knock over the bowl of chips and scream "THE DIP IS IRRELEVANT THE SOUL IS THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS!" ???
So you'd like me to become a nihilist?
NO! But, In a sense you already are, right? advocating the slaughter of unborn children, who have the inability to speak out against their horrible execution!
You say this has nothing to do with the discussion:
"Reality, as we know it right now, is not the true reality, No, the TRUE reality is when our journey is complete from this world into the next, ok, follow me?"
Then why this:
"It is, however, a functional and indeed wildly successful method within the context of our shared reality to a degree that it seems like faith-based ideologies sometimes get jealous and resentful of it, and seek to try to undermine or claim credit for. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way."
Science is in no way shape or form a "shared reality" because, science, is not the true reality, believe me! God did not intend for man to know everything, God said: "I will confuse the knowledge of man" So, If science wishes to have a basis for REALITY it MUST by all accounts, acknowledge and give credit to Almighty God for it's findings.
Scientist try to undermine and thwart the plan of Almighty God, Unfortunately, It does'nt work that way - Is the way shouls have said it!!
As for Charles Darwin - poor, pitiful fellow "God rest his soul".
When someone asks about where the dip is, do you rush into the room, knock over the bowl of chips and scream "THE DIP IS IRRELEVANT THE SOUL IS THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS!" ???
Ok then - What do you do when you go to a party, HOO-RAY FOR THE SCIENTISTS, THEY'RE THE GREATEST, WITHOUT THEM WE WOULD'NT BE ANY CHIP DIP??
When you fail to realize that God is the one who provided the food that you eat every single day, Yet, you are'nt thankful for any of it, You are'nt thankful for ANYTHING! You say in the back of your selfish little mind - All in the name of ME, BIG ME!
What would you do, when and if God would decide to send a drought or plague or something that destroys all the crops that you eat, people scrambling for every morsel their feeble bodies could snatch?? Would you be thankful then????
Something you need to really think about!!!!!!!!
Ok... so what?
What do you mean...So what? It's your situation not mine, I'm just directing you in the path that will lead you to happiness.
One thing is for sure though! You are'nt goint to shove God out of our schools for the lies that you so persistently push!!!!!!
And Hey! If you wish to chase after the wind? BE MY GUEST! The wind is all yours, I have to tell you though, It's going to be a LONG JOURNEY, kind of like ETERNITY, ya know!!!
So I hope you have a GOOOD, trip, LOL!!!
Jeremiah
Plunge said:
Morris' arguments... all share the same basic lack of understanding as to what evolution is and suggests and then build silly straw man arguments. For instance, no biologist has EVER suggested that such a complex organ as the eye evolved either all in one step, or went through a long period of non-functionality before all the "necessary parts" were in place for it to see. All such explanations are based, in reality, on gradual changes not only to the eye itself, but to what eyes are needed for. Likewise, Morris' account of the evolution of sex bares little relation to how actual biologists discuss it... however, you must concede that Morris' accounts are, in fact, objectively dishonest in their portrayal of how science deals with these subjects and what it would look for in terms of an evolutionary explanation.
Plunge seems to have missed the central element of what I was saying. Having myself been educated as a scientist, I am perfectly aware of how evolutionists present their arguments and supposed explanations. I made no representation of any kind as to how they present their arguments. My point was that their senarios cannot work. Plunge was entriely correct in asserting that "no biologist has EVER suggested that such a complex organ as the eye evolved either all in one step, or went through a long period of non-functionality before all the "necessary parts" were in place for it to see." But the uncontestable fact that no biologist has ever suggested such an idea has no bearing on the question. My point was, and remains, that one or the other had to have happened for the eye to have "evolved"
While there are many theories of evolution, the most common one, and the only one that, in my opinion makes any real sense, is the theory that evolution is the process of natural selection of random mutations. This is the theory that I was addressing, and the only theory that I consider even worth answering.
The theory REQUIRES a long chain of beneficial mutations. Any mutation that increases an individual's chance of reproducing offspring will supposedly be favored by natural selection. This is not a "straw man" as Plunge seems to imply. It is an ABSOLUTE requirement of the theory.
My point was that this senario cannot allow complex organs such as the to develop gradually. If a mutation leading toward vision did not improve an individual's chances of reproducing offspring, it would be rejected by natural selection. Thus, it would ABSOLUTELY have to be workable and useful at EVERY point in its evolutionary development. But that would require that it appear suddenly, because the individual components would be useless without each other.
As to geology, Plunge says "neither side believes that there are no transitions in the fossil record, as Morris claims."
Again, he has missed the point. The "transitional" forms he refers to are life forms that resemble forms that are both older and younger than themselves. (Assuming, for the point of argument, that the geological record represents a time line.) Such transitional forms do indeed exist.
But what does not exist is, for instance, rock formations that include both Cretaceous and Paleogene fossils. This fact is so well known that the dividing line between them is commonly refered to as an "extinction event."
As to Plunge's comment about my claiming that there is a "conspiracy of silence," I never said that. A pre-conceived mindset blinds men to obvious facts that contradict that mindset. As I pointed out about EVERY professional geologists I had confronted with these facts. ALL of them knew the facts already. But NONE of them had ever realized what they proved.
Jim Morris
"NO! But, In a sense you already are, right? advocating the slaughter of unborn children, who have the inability to speak out against their horrible execution!"
??? Again, you seem to be having fantasies and then posting about them here. When did I advocate the slaughter of anything?
"Then why this:
"It is, however, a functional and indeed wildly successful method within the context of our shared reality to a degree that it seems like faith-based ideologies sometimes get jealous and resentful of it, and seek to try to undermine or claim credit for. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.""
Because it's true: whatever the worth or ultimate truth of anything, science is wildly successful within the context of our shared physical reality. Your response does not in any way shape or form respond to what I said. It, in fact, pretty much just changes the subject entirely.
"Science is in no way shape or form a "shared reality" because, science, is not the true reality, believe me!"
Again, it's irrelevant if our shared physical reality is "TRUE" or not. Regardless, science is about our shared reality and quite successful within it.
"God did not intend for man to know everything, God said: "I will confuse the knowledge of man" So, If science wishes to have a basis for REALITY it MUST by all accounts, acknowledge and give credit to Almighty God for it's findings."
Ironically, if it did so, then it wouldn't be humble, it would be arrogant. Again: science is meant to be a pragmatic study of the evidential world around us that moves from evidence to evidence. It's not supposed to be and wouldn't work as a top down declaration of ultimate truth.
"Ok then - What do you do when you go to a party, HOO-RAY FOR THE SCIENTISTS, THEY'RE THE GREATEST, WITHOUT THEM WE WOULD'NT BE ANY CHIP DIP??"
Nope. Are you going to answer my question though? Would you do such a thing, as you pretty much have done here?
"When you fail to realize that God is the one who provided the food that you eat every single day, Yet, you are'nt thankful for any of it, You are'nt thankful for ANYTHING! You say in the back of your selfish little mind - All in the name of ME, BIG ME!"
You aren't privy to my mind. You've already stated and implied several falsehoods about me and anything I've said, so your track record for truth is already pretty lousy. Simply making up out of the blue what you think I believe and feel simply won't do.
"What would you do, when and if God would decide to send a drought or plague or something that destroys all the crops that you eat, people scrambling for every morsel their feeble bodies could snatch?? Would you be thankful then????
Something you need to really think about!!!!!!!!"
Strange how when you feel like you aren't getting your way in a discussion, you always turn to fantasizing about threats and punishments.
"What do you mean...So what? It's your situation not mine, I'm just directing you in the path that will lead you to happiness."
I mean: so what? What does anything you just said have to do with the discussion in this thread, which was about other matters than ultimate reality or ones religious beliefs, and so forth?
"One thing is for sure though! You are'nt goint to shove God out of our schools for the lies that you so persistently push!!!!!!"
How can an all powerful omnipresent God be shoved out of anywhere? What's shoved out of schools is not God, but the STATE pretending that it has the authority to direct or be involved in religious worship. That ISN'T an authority taken from the people and given to the state (as ALL authority the state has ultimately comes from it taking authority from the people).
"So I hope you have a GOOOD, trip, LOL!!!"
Your inability to hold a coherent discussion about a single subject is truly astounding.
"Your inability to hold a coherent discussion about a single subject is truly astounding."
That's just it! I don't debate on the lines of your kind, because if I did that, the I would be just as "bad" and brainwashed as you, on these issues!
Science can do anything it wants to, but when it starts to saying things like - "This earth is ten million years, that evolved from a pea sized piece of dirt, without a Creator"
Then is when I have to get in the face of that teacher and say, Hey! Your NOT teachin that garbage in my classroom, If you want to teach that falso balogna, Go to Asia or Japan or somewhere!!!!!
Jeremiah
"How can an all powerful omnipresent God be shoved out of anywhere? What's shoved out of schools is not God, but the STATE pretending that it has the authority to direct or be involved in religious worship."
You just don't understand!
We don't want Atheists teaching in our classrooms, They set an extremely 'BAD' example for our children!!! and teach them falso information!!
We want Christian teachers who teach ID for their basis to science and other subjects in general!
Because it teaches TRUTH and it sets the proper guidelines for inspirational study into how God Created everything!! ID does'nt set itself up as the ultimate authorative fact above all facts to what creation consists of, more or less, such as the atheistic scentists are doing right now.
So, If something in Creation ever intrigues you into why it works the way it does?, Just remember one thing: God done it!!
Jeremiah
If a mutation leading toward vision did not improve an individual's chances of reproducing offspring, it would be rejected by natural selection.
This is just plain false. A mutation doesn't necessarily have to be explicitly beneficial--it just can't be explicitly harmful. If the mutation creates something that is neutral and doesn't really help or hurt the organism, there's nothing to select against that mutation, so it would remain despite not conferring any sort of advantage.
Plunge: You are doing fantastic yeoman's work in this thread. Terrific job explaining all this stuff. But as a word of advice, don't bother with Jeremiah. All he'll ever do is spew out his "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" spiel ad nauseum.
"That's just it! I don't debate on the lines of your kind, because if I did that, the I would be just as "bad" and brainwashed as you, on these issues!"
The lines on which I debate are: logically responding to actual claims made by the other person. The lines you seem to debate on are: invent and lie about things a person never said, and then respond to them, regardless of what the topic of discussion is. You can call me names all you want: it's ultimately pointless.
"Science can do anything it wants to, but when it starts to saying things like - "This earth is ten million years, that evolved from a pea sized piece of dirt, without a Creator"
It's 4.5 billion, the planet didn't "evolve," and science doesn't have the capability to say anything yea or nay about the actions of a Creator. If you can't even explain what you oppose accurately, why should anyone listen to you when you say you oppose it? You don't know what you are talking about.
"You just don't understand! We don't want Atheists teaching in our classrooms, They set an extremely 'BAD' example for our children!!! and teach them falso information!!"
As George Washington says, if a person can do their job, we shouldn't care about what their private beliefs are: they aren't supposed to be teaching kids that in the first place. What false information are you claiming anyone is teaching?
"We want Christian teachers who teach ID for their basis to science and other subjects in general!"
But ID isn't science, and Christian instruction is up to the parents to teach. You really want the state in charge of teaching how, for instance, salvation works? Which version exactly: the Catholic version? The Mormon version? The Islamic version?
"Because it teaches TRUTH and it sets the proper guidelines for inspirational study into how God Created everything!! ID does'nt set itself up as the ultimate authorative fact above all facts to what creation consists of, more or less, such as the atheistic scentists are doing right now."
Most scientists, and most that support mainstream biology, are not atheists. ID isn't science in the first place: it doesn't set up much of anything of merit.
"So, If something in Creation ever intrigues you into why it works the way it does?, Just remember one thing: God done it!!"
Again: this is something I want parents and the religious leaders that THEY FREELY CHOOSE being the ones to instruct kids on, not a government teacher. The government has no authority over religion.
plunge i know you are having a bit of fun with this but there is a pointlessness in trying to argue with these people. As you mention, the only way for them to keep the narrative together is by putting words in your mouth, and then arguing against them. Science is a method of inquiry relying on observable facts in the natural world. Last night my 6 yr old daughter asked me if there is just one tooth fairy or does each kid have their own tooth fairy. That science can't answer that question is hardly a failure of science. Science has nothing to say about tooth fairies, a divine creator or why the wild ox consents to serve me (well, maybe we can figure out that last one). There is exactly the same scietific evidence for the biblical account of creation as there is for the Lord of the Rings. Awe and wonder are, well, awesome and wonderful. But they ain't evidence.
"But ID isn't science, and Christian instruction is up to the parents to teach. You really want the state in charge of teaching how, for instance, salvation works?"
That would be a Great idea, if only the Christian people will wake up in this country, and make it a part of education!!
BTW...There is NO seperation of Church and State and NEVER has been, So that plan would be lawful by all means!!
Jeremiah
"Most scientists, and most that support mainstream biology, are not atheists. ID isn't science in the first place: it doesn't set up much of anything of merit."
A good many Atheists do hold positions in the educational system, that do not deserve their position as a teacher, They POISON education, They poison Society!!!
"it does'nt set up much of anything of merit"???
Kinda foolish talking there Mr. Plunge, If it were'nt for God You would'nt be able to speak your opinion here today.
He has bestowed His hand of Mercy upon you, So you could partake in all His blessings upon mankind. Such as is the Freedom of speech (which your secular progressives in this country want to take away) - If it is God's will, then He would at His choosing allow something of this magnitude to happen by allowing the liberals to take communistic control of America, Which is why we are fighting here today is to keep you from taking the voice of the Christian away, and believe me I will fight tooth and nail to see that you do not accomplish it!!!!
"Again: this is something I want parents and the religious leaders that THEY FREELY CHOOSE being the ones to instruct kids on, not a government teacher. The government has no authority over religion."
I - WANT - THE - GOVERNMENT - OUT - OF - THE - CHRISTIANS - WAY!! LEAVE US ALONE!!!
MAKE CHRISTIAN STANDARDS FOR GOVERMENT TO SET AN EXAMPLE FOR OUR YOUNG PEOPLE!!!!!!!
I WANT ATHEISTS *OUT* OF OUR SCHOOL SYSTEMS, TEACH SOMEWHERE ELSE, LIKE CANADA ANYWHERE BUT IN AMERICA!!!
"4.5 billion"
Without question that is the biggest load of HOGWASH that ever hit the fan!!!
Jeremiah
Sick,
It would be our contention that Genesis is in line with the science we know about how the universe came about - we find it, sometimes, pointless to argue with you because no matter how much evidence there is for a Creator and design, you'll just ignore it because your mind is closed on the subject.
Sees,
Huh? We can have mutations which do nothing and they'll be transmitted endlessly until by happy circumstance one useless part meets a newly mutated useless part and the combination becomes useful?
Do any of you guys on your side of the argument realise how narrow minded and bigoted you sound?
Science is bigoted, eh Noonan? Good luck with that meme--that's even more desperate than usual. Fear must really be gnawing at you. It's very rich that somebody who demands that science kowtow to religion (and who rejects all science that is at odds with religion) would try to call people with a correct understanding of science "closed-minded." But it's hardly surprising that you'd be so foolish.
By the way, you still have yet to produce any of this so-called "evidence of creation." Go ahead. We're all waiting for your scientific evidence. Remember--none of that "I look at the stars and see god" pabulum. Actual scientific proof.
Seesthroughit,
I can see that I am wasting my precious time trying to get you to understand the ramifications of your foolishness!!
Nevertheless, If you deny Creation? then you deny the Creator Himself!! In which the bible speaks of the likes of your kind, It says: "The fool hath said in his heart their is no God!!
Remember that: The fool hath said in his heart their is no God!!
Which ultimately leads to Hellfire!!
The only thing I can say to help you understand is, God will prove Himself in the end, at His final return, at the present, He is patiently waiting for you to acknowledge Him!!
So, you need no science to prove God or His Creation, because, God proves Himself! He needs no scientist to prove Him. God Created the Scientist So why should you need "proof" to prove Him???
If you insist on your dis-belief in the Creator of YOU, the have at it - But just remember now - "The Fool hath said in his heart there is no God!!!
Jeremiah
Fear must really be gnawing at you
One more thing on this one!!
Who are you God??
I shake my head in pity for you!!
Jeremiah
I think what we're getting to is the real issue. We want something more in our classrooms, an acknowledgment that like math and science, religion or spirituality may be relevant in classrooms. This is the point you (unknowingly) make when you talk about how a class on metaphysics would lead to contentious debates. Why do you think that is? Maybe it's because people experience their philosophy, their understanding of what makes something real to be meaningful enough to participate in.
Is it any wonder there aren't contentious debates in math or science class? They've been sanitized. So instead of teaching students that knowledge is an active, creative process, that what science views as "factual" today is only the latest in a series of hundreds if not thousands or millions of experiments and taking from that the logical conclusion that a case can be made what appears factual according to science today may be a different fact tomorrow, and if that happens it's proof not that science messed up but that the continuing pursuit of knowledge is what science is all about even when science messes up, instead let's just teach students what makes plankton green because I'm sure that's been more useful and relevant to my life, right?
I'm sorry, but in the arena of ideas, I've gotta say that a class debate about whether "everything happens in its own time" would be a little bit more exciting than what makes plants green. How do I use that information, really? Is it supposed to impress people at parties? Does it make me want to get up in the morning and sing a ballad to plankton or write an ode to plankton? But a contentious debate about the kind of universe implied by discoveries in high energy physics, now we're talking. I'll wake up early to hear about how somebody made it their life's mission to prove Newton wrong.
That's conflict, that's drama, that's a show in which I can have a voice, a part, even if that part is simply the crowd. And I can learn something about who I am by how I feel voicing my part, and if I don't like it, I can find a part that better suits me tomorrow. We've turned schools into experiments in classroom management because for some reason children today often don't have a moral sense, an idea that some things are to be valued. Liberals have taught those who listen to them for years that government is supposed to take care of their needs and their children's needs, but as Plunge says, they don't want the government to teach religion or values, that's not something they're supposed to do. That's not something today's teachers are good at, as Plunge says it would be difficult. So let's not do it if it would be difficult.
I think that more than anything is what sets us apart, Plunge. To me, it being difficult is the best reason to do it. I won't be bored tomorrow. I'll experience surprise, I'll learn, I'll know that today I stood up for something, I'll say in my own way that I love this life. It may not be scientific, it may not be pretty, it may not always be compulsively measured and may not reflect the great perfection of the finite with a big, empty shadow, but it will be my way to grasp the infinite, to embrace my humanity by reaching for something more in that oh, so human way.
I'm sure you'll want to continue to break down what I've said into chunks you can handle, but how about you challenge yourself? Don't respond to the pieces of my arguement, the different sentences that put together are so different from the whole thing. Face the whole of it, don't think about it, experience it; and then respond. At least you won't bore me.
Sees,
Your requests for scientific evidence have been provided waaaaay early in the comments...and now you haven't answered my objections to your assertions about evolution.
Be that as it may, I still wonder why are you so afraid of God? Are you afraid that if you bow to Him, that you'll lose some of yourself?
Sees wants real scientific proof for creatiom. Here's a simple experiment he can try himself.
Go to McDonald's and order a coffee and a coke. Wait four hours and drink them. See how cold the coke is and how hot the coffee is.
We all know that the coffee and the coke will both be at room temperature and neither will taste good.
This simple experiment proves creation to anyone who truly understands science. Hot things cool off and cold things warm up. This is the way things are, and everyone knows it. In Physics, (which is a real science, as opposed to evolution, which is pseudo science) this is formalized as the second law of thermodynamics. But very few have realized what this proves about creation.
The fact that there are differences in temperature prove that the universe has not always been here. If it had always been here, everything would already be at the same temperature. There would be no fires, the sun and the stars would be all burned up. Everything would be dark and at the same temperature.
Since this is not the way things are, we realize that the universe has not always been here. But if it has not always been here, it had a beginning. And if it had a beginning, it came from something that was already here.
Those who want to deny the existance of God seek to escape this necessary conclusion with a theory they call the big bang. But that does not escape the problem. Because we still have the problem of where the explosives for the big bang came from.
Others want to believe in a theory called the bouncing ball. They posit that the universe expands until it reaches a state of infinite dispersion and then contracts to a state of infinite compression, repeatedly producing a series of big bangs. But Steven Hawking put it very simply when he observed that it is impossible to determine what happened before the big bang, so it is pointless to talk about it.
But the big bang theory does not escape the nessity of a creator. Theorists have progresse further and further back into what supposedly happened as the universe began. But finally, at an extremely small fraction of a billionth of a second after the big bang, they reach a brick wall. A difficulty they cannot overcome without an external force. They cleverly avoid the concept of a creator-god by calling this external force an "observer." But whatever you call it, at the point where matter and energy differentiate, the beginning COULD NOT take place without an external force. But since we are talking about the beginning of the universe, that external force has to be something that is not part of the universe. Calling it an "observer" does not get rid of the creator. It only re-names Him in a way more palatable to minds that want to explain everything without God.
Someone (I think it was Sees) also correctly observed that science was not bigoted. This is correct, but only because science is not an individual, but a process. Unfortunately, many scientists are bigots of the first order.
I mentioned in my first post that I observed a considerable amount of intellectual dishonesty in the evolutionary professors during my formal education as a scientists. But there is more than intellectual dishonesty amoung these people.
Although Sees, Plunge, and others will not like this, I have also observed hard, cold bigotry of the worst kind in the scientific profession. In one professional position I once held, someone overheard me talking about my faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. He immediately raised a big stink about it, and raised the entire office into an uproar. The employer solved the broblem by firing, not the man who raised the uproar, but the man who was its subject..... me. On another job I was formally warned that I would be fired if I said anything about my faith to any employee of the company, or to any vendor, on a twenty-four hour a day basis. At another time I was required to sign a paper warning me that I would be fired if I mentioned my faith.
This is only my personal experience. But I have seen repeated news reports about scientists being hounded from their jobs because they dared to question evolution. And I have seen articles jystifying this practice in highly respected scientific journals. So don't bother to pretend that there is no bigotry amoung evolutionists. That dog wount hunt.
Again, evolutionists say that ID is not science because it cannot be tested. I will answer, please tell me even one test that has ever demonstrated evolution. There has never been even one. By exactly the same measure, evolution is not science because it cannot be tested.
Why do we never see intellectual arguments to disprove the claims of the intelligent design people? Because their arguments are too strong to disprove. So the evolutionists attempt to silence the ID folks. This is bigotry, demonstrated even here on this blog.
Jim Morris
We live in a world that gives no hope to mankind.
We live in a world that only thrives on that which is evil and to say that scientists can't prove God, I want to say this concerning that type of statement. God don't need scientists to prove that He is.
And ALL men are without excuse to say there is no God.
I'd be a fool to say there is no God.
He's the Fathr of the man called Jesus Christ who bare upon him the pain ofan old rugged cross, he's the Father of all living.
He created all things and without HIm was not anyting made that is made.
He created the sky in all it's blueness and the sea with it's many droplets of water.
He created you and He created me.
It was originally His image but man has so ruined and stained what Gods created that at one time God destroyed all mankind but A few on a mighty wooden ship. (Some say the ship may have been found on a mountain called Ararat. NoahsArkSearch.Com.
There's men who have diligently searched for the Lord they served. And they found Him.
Such men are, Noah who builded a ship in a desert land for many years while the world laughed and scoffed at him.
Abraham who traversed from a land called Ur and offered his only son but God spared Isaac by an Angel.
Daniel who was spared from a Lions Den.
Moses who traveled with a stiffnecked people for 40 years but through faith God saw him through.
A man called Paul who was mighty in strength by the Lord Jesus Christ and the 12 Apostles who all but one dies a martyrs death.
And today many called but few chosen to serve this God scientists can't find.
Friend, I found him many year ago and never want to turn back. Never want ot again doubt what he's done for me.
I know there's a true God becasue he changed my life and made me different.
I will always tell the story of my Lord and my God because He lives and will live on forever.
You may be right, scientists can't prove God, you know why? Because they just aren't truly looking for Him.
Because your real true creationism scientists have found Him and they will tell you about Him. He's for real and He's still working in the hearts of mankind ONLY through His Son Jesus Christ, Who without Him all will perish.
Jeremiah
Your requests for scientific evidence have been provided waaaaay early in the comments
What, you mean James Morris' pap that was handily dismissed? That pretty much proved my point--there isn't any of this "evidence" you trumpet...oh, there's stuff you really, really want to believe, but as Plunge showed, it's not true. So...try again, Noonan. Remember: No ducking! No metaphysical "seeing god" mumbo-jumbo. Something real and tangible, please. Perhaps your dear old dad's alleged "proof" of the existence of a creator?
and now you haven't answered my objections to your assertions about evolution.
My assertion is simply that evolution does not require that a certain mutation confer an immediate advantage upon an organism. Your objection is...well, I don't know what, exactly. That you can't conceive of a change being neither positive or negative in terms of survival or reproductive advantage. That's your shortcoming, not evolution's. Or, more precisely, a shortcoming due to your willfull ignorance regarding evolution. You seem to think that if a change occurs and it is not immediately beneficial, it will immediately be selected against and eliminated from the future gene pool. I don't know where you got such an idea, but you should divest yourself of it--and a great many other bizarre views you have about science--quickly.
Be that as it may, I still wonder why are you so afraid of God? Are you afraid that if you bow to Him, that you'll lose some of yourself?
I'm not afraid in the slightest--I just don't care either way. That's how agnosticism works. You, however, seem to be downright terrified, which only fuels your paranoia. Your views on science are sort of this layer cake of fear ("science is out to destroy god!"), paranoia ("almost all scientists are plotting to eliminate religion!") and the aforementioned willful ignorance. You sit here and argue--with ostensibly a straight face--that science requires god (an assertion that's laughable on its face) and further argue that contemporary science is this conspiracy to disprove god when really, it should be proving god (one almost doens't know where to begin with what's wrong with that).
Much like me personally, science as a tool and an institution doesn't particularly care about god much either way. If it happens to disprove various aspects of a given religious doctrine (such as creationism...or the great flood,for that matter)...well, sucks for you, but understand that it's only your fear and paranoia that makes such an event into a scientific conspiracy against religion. Science merely searches for answers; unlike you, it doesn't demand that said answers bend to conform with the Bible. That's why you're so afraid of it.
I'm not sure if anyone is still reading this thread but I will would like to knock on the head one of the more common fallacies peddled by the ID crowd, which I see creeping in above. No scientific theory is without shortcomings, including gravitational theory, geology, quantum mechanics, natural selection, and so on..
ID advocates seem to think that if a there is a gap or a problem with the evidence supporting darwinian theory, it automatically becomes evidence FOR a creator. Not so. ID must stand on its own with respect to supporting data, which is what Sees is talking about. Back to my original post, if there is an inconsistency in the geological record, it no more benefits the biblical creation story than any other creation myth. Creationism is untestable and, therefore, outside science. Which is why I am always suprised that people of faith seem to need scientific validation. Why does it matter? Is the doubt so terrible?
Sees,
Denying the significance of my comments does not mean that they were handily dismissed.
If you wish to dispose of my arguments with any convincing power, you need to demonstraate their error. This you have not done, and I am fully satisified you cannot do.
All you have done is to attempt to deflect my arguments by making it seem that I was only incorrectly alleging what scientists say, rather than presenting undeniable facts for consideration.
But I fear I am wasting time on you, for it seems to me that you do not understand because you do not wish to understand.
Jim Morris