Posted on 08/12/2014 8:09:40 PM PDT by JimSEA
No you don't, you folks loathe and despise certain parts of science -- sometimes called "historical science" -- because it doesn't comport so well with your theological beliefs.
That's why you all try to redefine the word "science" to suite yourselves.
But the US Supreme Court has ruled on your attempts, and they are unlawful.
By law, the word "science" means what real scientists say it means, not what you science-haters hope to redefine it as.
So, regardless of how clever you think your "logical consistencies" are, evolution theory was, is and will remain a part of science.
I absolutely love it, it's the kind of idea I could easily subscribe to, without any thought of ever calling it "science", because it's not.
It's theology, religion, metaphysics or something else, but not natural "science".
Indeed, all that speculation we hear today about "multi-verses" and "before the big bang" is all beyond the natural limits of science and should go by some other name -- "metaphysics" works for me...
And do not hide behind the idiocy that is "whatever scientists say it is."
Dont know why you targeted that at me.
I am fine with evolution. I think if God had an issue with it, he would make that known.
The last thing I do is take a 3000 year old story, told by people who wiped the crap from their butts with their hands, literally.
Love the message and content. But I think they might have the details a little off.
That said, there is nothing like arrogant “educated” people. You base your world view on the letters after someone’s name, as if anyone with half a brain could not read a Nature journal.
Stated simply, the word "science" is short for the classical term (as used, for example, by our Founding Fathers) "natural science", meaning "natural explanations for natural processes".
"Science" is more fully defined by the term "methodological naturalism", not to be confused with similar sounding words like "philosophical naturalism", "ontological naturalism", "metaphysical naturalism" or even "scientific naturalism".
All of those other terms describe a religious-style belief in atheism.
By contrast, "methodological naturalism" requires no such atheistic beliefs.
It simply says, for scientific purposes, we will set aside everything except: natural explanations for natural processes.
And, what are sometimes called "historical sciences" (i.e., geology, astronomy, paleontology) also include a key assumption, known as "uniformitarianism", meaning: the present is key to understanding the past.
In other words, physical processes we see in operation today can be used to explain physical evidence we find from the past -- for example, Plate Tectonics.
ShadowAce: "And do not hide behind the idiocy that is "whatever scientists say it is."
That's not "idiocy", since the "right" of anti-scientists like yourself to redefine what is, or is not, "science" was presented to and ruled on by the US Supreme Court -- and you have no such "right".
Real scientists will tell us what they consider to be, and not to be, "science".
Anti-scientists, like yourself, can blabber whatever you wish on the subject, but by law, your words are meaningless.
Is that simple enough for you?
Sorry about that. :-(
Since you were already engaged here, I thought you might be interested in my two-cents worth, didn't mean to suggest that you were on one side, or the other.
I've seen your posts before, and think I "get" where you're coming from. Didn't mean to suggest any criticism, FRiend.
Your link to methodological naturalism is a classic example. That process--from the very beginning, before even considering any questions--eliminates those areas the followers find uncomfortable.
True science does not eliminate anything beforehand. Your desire to do so indicates bias, and therefore, application of that is not actual science.
Sorry, but sadly I do have a life outside Free Republic, and it often makes demands which keep me away for days on end.
This morning I have some time, and yours was the first post answered.
So don't read "hesitation" into the delay.
ShadowAce: "Show me where I re-defined anything.
You can't.
I used the dictionary definition.
You, though, are redefining the word to exclude the things you find uncomfortable."
No, you used your own personal definition of "science", in your posts #205 & 219 above.
I have merely pointed out that you are, by law, forbidden from doing so, at least in terms of public education.
As a result of that ruling, anti-scientists have now mostly retreated into the less obnoxious recourse of labeling --
Your "historical sciences" include geology, astronomy, paleontology and those parts of biology which touch on evolution.
But, to be scientific, they require both assumptions of
ShadowAce: "Your link to methodological naturalism is a classic example.
That process--from the very beginning, before even considering any questions--eliminates those areas the followers find uncomfortable."
"Methodological naturalism" is an accepted distinction, accepted by scientists, which allows anyone of any religious faith to work side-by-side, in fruitful collaboration with any other scientist of any other religious belief -- or of no beliefs.
For scientific purposes we simply:
ShadowAce: "True science does not eliminate anything beforehand.
Your desire to do so indicates bias, and therefore, application of that is not actual science."
Of course it does -- natural "science" by definition is a very limited enterprise, restricted and limited by its a priori assumptions and definitions, key ones being definition of "methodological naturalism" and the assumption of "uniformitarianism".
Science has nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- to do with anything super-natural or, for that matter, with historical processes (i.e., miracles) which left no physical evidence in geological strata.
Once you leave those self-imposed restrictions on science behind, you've left the realm of science and entered some other classification, such as philosophy, theology, metaphysics, etc.
Once in your own realm, you may make whatsoever assertions you wish, regarding the super-natural or miraculous.
You may read directly from your historical texts, if you wish, or take as literal today's reports on "alien abductions" -- whatever you wish to do there is perfectly fine, so long as you don't call your beliefs "science".
Mr. Rennie ruined Scientific American for me many years ago.
It started spiraling leftward when he took over.
Did he ever!
“I am fine with evolution. I think if God had an issue with it, he would make that known.”
I think God has an issue with it...that’s why people keep fighting over it. Not too many folks fighting over the fact that the world is round or even that gravity wells distort space/time or that time slows down for the observer as the speed of the observer increases. Yet they are fighting over the evolution controversy...and quite a dust up it is. The one over looked issue has to do with the fact that it is the wannabe science writer buttboys like John Rennie that keep pushing the...”evolution happened so God doesn’t exist” line. That is the crux of the issue(pardon the pun).
Science writer wannabe’s don’t see the irony in proclaiming a tautology(there is no God) in order to negate a tautology(there is a God) when in truth science if it is practiced correctly can make no reasoned assertions pro or con!
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.