Posted on 04/29/2008 10:20:32 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
Postmodernism At Work
The following two statements are parts of comments made on the Free Republic forum in response to Pamela Hewitt's "Problems of Evolution."
"Nothing in Science is ever “proven”, just provisionally accepted pending further data." (—allmendream)
All science is tentative, and nothing is ever proved! (—Coyoteman)
Normally, I would not bother with such mindless statements, but they just happen to perfectly exemplify the post-modernist nonsense that is being taught in today's colleges and universities. It is why we are living in the age of gullibility. Do not suppose this is just ignorance, however. These things are being taught with a purpose. The idea is, if you convince people nothing is ever certain, proved, or absolute, you can then put over just anything and call it science.
If "nothing in science is ever proven:"
I must assume these two have "living wills" specifying that cardioversion or defibrillation is not to be used on them since the principle of using electricity to convert a fibrillaing heart to a sinus rhythm has never been proved.
I am going to feel very sorry for these two if they ever need an operation, since the efficacy of anesthesia (once a great scientific controversy) has never been proved.
And they must really be missing out on all those television programs and phone calls transmitted by satellites launched into orbit around the earth's equator at a distance of about 22,300 miles which maintain a stationary position over the earth, by maintaining an orbital speed of approximately 6000 miles per hour, because, according to them, the physical principles such satellites are based on have never been proved.
They must only use electricity if it does not come from nuclear power plants, since the scientific principles describing a sustained chain nuclear reaction have never been proved. (Maybe they use no electricity at all, since they are sure the theory of combustion and Ohm's law have never been proved either.)
Nor must they use computers, or any other electronic devices that would not and could not work if the theories of electronics and quantum mechanics they are based on were not proved. They must avoid all Sky Scrapers because the laws of physics which are the basis of their engineering from the materials used to the structural design would fail if those physical principles were mere unproven hypotheses which, according to them, they are.
I do not know what planet these two live on, but on this planet the principle of an electric current being generated simply by moving a magnet in a coil of wire discovered by Michael Faraday, who was considered a charlatan by his contemporaries, has been proved. The unbelieved assertions by Nikola Tesla and Guglielmo Marconi that wireless communication is possible, has been proved.
What kind of demented mind can insist that nothing in science has been proved? One that assumes things without evidence, based on nothing more than the fact someone does not accept their particular faith. Here is the evidence (a concept totally foreign to such second-hand minds).
"Being a nurse doesn't QUALIFY one, in and of itself, to make an academic argument on Evolution or Genetics. ... Nothing better than an educated layman."
The fact that the "nurse" happens to be a degreed geneticist who has both worked in the field and lectured in it as well, these dimwits did not bother to discover. Evidence is not something they care about, since their cherished faith is being threatened by objective questions their little minds are incapable of answering.
They are dripping with hubris and patent snobbery, exactly like those "scientists" who were publishing papers proving heavier-than-air human flight was impossible while two laymen, who were obviously not educated well enough to learn what they were doing was "scientifically" impossible, were too busy flying to notice. According to these two jokers, the possibility of heavier-than-air human flight has never been proved. They're still waiting for, "further data."
If you believe nothing in science has been proved, it makes it easy to swallow totally made up stories such as the following:
"Evolutionary Biology has unequivocally established that all organisms evolved from a common ancestor over the last 3.5 billion years;" [From Rutgers University]
What's the difference between "unequivocally established" and "proved?" In normal English, even as spoken by scientists, there is no difference; but these story tellers can always say they never said it was "proved" we all came from a common ancestor. It's meant to deceive and gain unquestioned acceptance.
And it's pure fiction. There is no way such a thing could possibly be established. If evolution could happen once, there is nothing in reason or evidence that even suggests it could not happen more than once or even hundreds or thousands of times; but it's happening more than once would not fit their story, so just ignore that fact and present your story as, "unequivocally established," and all the gullible academics will swallow it whole.
I guess it is the same old “cdesign proponentist” tactic of attacking the fundamental nature of Scientific inquiry and when Science rises to its defense crying “What are you so defensive about?”
I am defensive about the truth. Anyone who read that garbage and thought it was true would be ill served by this wonderful Internet site and make themselves look like a fool when they repeat its nonsense.
OK, off to work, and I need to stop posting at work so nothing more from me until after work.
Interpretation:
I did work on NF-kappa B.
(Read about it.)
I mentioned my publication (please do try to keep up)
(Afraid to say it again.)
I do lab research every day, mostly on drug metabolism.
(I wash bottles.)
I lectured at the University level for four years.
(Talked in the pub after classes.)
Hank
“This seems like reasoned discourse to me, under a barrage of ad hominem attacks no less; and your repeated failure to either address you shoddy labeling of me and Coyoteman as Postmodernists or the numerous and verifiable errors in the authors writing.”
Poor baby!
Hank
Well young sir, you should do your homework better.
Interestingly I find only three publications on ARO9 on PubMed, and all three are out of Belgium.
I just found it !!
Oh, I didnt realise it would be there either. Thanks for the headsup
link it.
Here is a link to the only papers I can find by searching ARO9 in PubMed. As I stated all three are out of Belgium. Also none of the authors seems to have a first name that starts with P.
Sigh.
You really should try to keep up.
aromatic biosynthesis occurs in most prokaryotes and some simple lower eukaryotes.
I did say what it was.
Now, try the search with the name of the organism.
And be patient.
What was the link to your latest paper again?
This isn’t about me and my qualifications, it is about the numerous factual errors and resume padding of the author of the “Hewitt Conjecture!!” (double exclamation points mandatory). You claim she has publication(s), please produce them.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2009777/posts?page=1
This new one is even sillier than the last one.
His intellectual content is on par with what is usually deposited in a handkerchief and I think it is time I bowed out of the evo/crevo debate as much as possible (unfortunately I find it nearly impossible to not try to correct blatant mischaracterizations and misstatements about Biology or Science, so that makes it difficult; as most “cdesign proponentists” have nothing but).
Maybe if we ignore this particular snott-rag the thread will die a deserved death.
But thanks for the ping! I always enjoy your posts.
"It wouldn’t really matter. If I design a machine that immediately goes bad on its, it’s a bad design."
I thought we were talking about animals eating each other.
"I thought we were talking about animals eating each other."
“Do you consider the possibility that living things, as Designed, did not initially kill each other?”
"It wouldn’t really matter. If I design a machine that immediately goes bad on its, it’s a bad design.
Hank"
What if the Designer didn't want a 'perfect machine' that would last for eternity?
What if our idea of a perfect design is not what he had in mind?
If the Designer is indeed Sovereign, would not it be his prerogative?
Bingo Fichori!!!
Psalm 90:10 10 Seventy years are given to us! Some even live to eighty. But even the best years are filled with pain and trouble; soon they disappear, and we fly away.
I may think as fast as Moses could talk, but by Gods grace, I get it right eventually.
Fichori said:
I may think as fast as Moses could talk, but by Gods grace, I get it right eventually.
LOL...there you go Fichori.
Look, you obviously believe in ID, and I’m not interested in changing your beliefs, anymore than I’m interested in changing the evolutionists’ beliefs. (By belief I only mean what one holds to be true for whatever reason.) So please understand I’m not really arguing with your belief, only explaining mine.
To me, what you are doing is what the evolutionists do. If the evidence doesn’t exactly fit the story, you change the story.
ID bases its argument, supposedly, on the evidence, evidence that says things look like they’ve been designed and couldn’t just have happened on their own. Look at the order.
So when someone points out flaws and disorder in the design, you add “it was intended that way” to the story. But how do you get the “disorder was intended that way” from the evidence? You can’t.
So, the idea that ID somehow suggests a designer just doesn’t float, because to make it work, you have to assume the designer.
That’s how it appears to me, and the reason I cannot subscribe to it.
Hank
"Look, you obviously believe in ID, and I’m not interested in changing your beliefs, anymore than I’m interested in changing the evolutionists’ beliefs. (By belief I only mean what one holds to be true for whatever reason.) So please understand I’m not really arguing with your belief, only explaining mine.
To me, what you are doing is what the evolutionists do. If the evidence doesn’t exactly fit the story, you change the story.
ID bases its argument, supposedly, on the evidence, evidence that says things look like they’ve been designed and couldn’t just have happened on their own. Look at the order.
So when someone points out flaws and disorder in the design, you add “it was intended that way” to the story. But how do you get the “disorder was intended that way” from the evidence? You can’t.
So, the idea that ID somehow suggests a designer just doesn’t float, because to make it work, you have to assume the designer.
That’s how it appears to me, and the reason I cannot subscribe to it.
Hank"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.