Posted on 08/13/2005 3:49:15 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
I used quotation marks around the word "knowledge." And no, my assertion that astrology contains a certain amount of "knowledge" does not "say it all." If you believe evolutionism can admit reasonable conjecture to the table and still be called "science" in the strict sense, then you had best be ready to understand there are other fields of knowledge that indulge reasonable conjecture that may wish to receive the same title.
Evolutionism wants to eat its cake and still have it. It wants to enjoy an air of scientific certitude while it indulges conjecture to the hilt, yet refrains from direct observation and testing in real time. Evolutionism beats creationism to the punch in introducing unscientific notions into the classroom. Way to go!
Begging the question of whether intelligent design is "anti-evolutionary," What it does is to show that the synthesis of Darwinian evolution, physical anthrologogy, palenontology, and genetics is as explanatory as it claims.
From the beginning, evolutionists have tried to minimize the differences between humans and other primates. At the same they cannot agree about the the extent of the differences between the human "races." An immediate "spin-off" of Darwinism was eugenics, which fed the virulent nationalism of the Germans, and which is encorporated in Hitler's "Main Kampf."
The intelligent agency is what is inferred from the existence of an order that cannot be explained by other theories.
There is no such thing as science in the strict sense. All science, including physics, has gradations of certainty in its elements of knowledge.
The things that upset you the most -- the age of the earth, common decent -- are among the things known with the greatest certainty. Things that could be considered wild conjecture, such as the evolution of social behavior, are quite distant from the mainstream. Nothing central to biology stands or falls if some conjecture about moral behavior is bogus.
Unlike Iran and Saudi Arabia, speculation is not illegal in this country, and since we are a capitalist country, people will write the kind of articles that sell books and magazines. These books and magazines have no impact whatsoever on actual science. They are just noise. And contrary to claims, very little of this noise makes it into textbooks.
Someone yesterday suggested looking at what textbooks have to say about the origin of life. So I dug out my 35 year old college textbook and read it. It would have to be updated a bit if printed today, but nothing in it was actually wrong.
I hate to shock you, but Mein Kampf is based on creationism:
For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God's Creation and God's Will.
-- Mein Kampf, Volume 2, Chapter 10.
See also: Ichneumon's discussion of the Hitler issue (post 515)
Mighty kind of you to suggest as much. So where do you draw lines of certitude? When does a teaching cross the line from "science" to "philosophy?" As far as I'm concerned, if the teaching is not a result of direct observation and testing in the real world, it should be labeled as history. If the teaching proposes a history that is both unobserved and unrecorded in human language, then it is a weak history. If the teaching suggests that order can arise apart from an intelligent agent, then it is a philosophy.
That standard would make most of science invalid. Most of geology, nearly all of astromomy. And these are the math intensive sciences.
Anyone who has been to police training knows that eyewitness is the most unreliable form of evidence. Forensic evidence is far more reliable.
First, they want to tighten the requirements of science to exclude evidence they don't like. One way to do this is by restricting science solely to those phenomena that are reproducible in the lab. We see this argument being made quite often. Were they successful in this effort, science would no longer include fields that rely on observations of natural phenomena, such as geology, plate tectonics, volcanism, astronomy, cosmology, and of course -- evolution. They reject the discoveries of those sciences because they can't be reproduced in the lab, and dismiss all conclusions by flippantly asking: "How do you know? Were you there?" They'll eventually have to exclude a lot of lab-reproducable science too, because atomic theory (specifically fusion) supports the age of the sun, and radiometric dating supports the age of the earth.
At the same time, they want to loosen the requirements of science to include "evidence" they do like, by opening up science to unverifiable (and perhaps supernatural) influences. This is the effort being made in Kansas:
Conservatives Seek Redefinition Of Science In Kansas Schools [Evolution vs Creationism].
Unsurprisingly, this is the same thing the Discovery Institute wants to do. From their website:
Questions about Intelligent Design1. What is the theory of intelligent design?
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. [Emphasis added by me.]2. Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?
It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges.
Source: Top Questions.
Of allthe evolution critics currently, Fester is about the most boring, but I think it is necessary, at least once a day to post a general rebuttal to his mutterings. I put myself on a diet. Only three or four fester posts per week.
I find that there is no point in pretending that he is engaged in a dialog. He learns absolutely nothing form these threads and never modifies his rantings to conform to reality.
But your point is well taken. It is science to say that a particular human document is without error, even when contradicted by countless other documents. But the rocks lie. Makes sense if you chugafew before posting.
As you wish. Personally, I never respond to obvious trolls. Or incurable blockheads. Sometimes it's hard to tell one from another.
On the other hand, if you really want an even handed discussion. But as for the pernicious effects of eugenics you don't have to look at Hitler;s works. It is still the basis for the neo-malthusian move of Margaret Sanger, and for sterlization programs in the US --supported by the likes of Justice Holmes--which were very much like those conduc ted by the Nazi government.
Weikart, Richard 1958- "Darwinism and Death: Devaluing Human Life in Germany 1859-1920"
Journal of the History of Ideas - Volume 63, Number 2, April 2002, pp. 323-344
The Johns Hopkins University Press
Excerpt
The debate over the significance of Social Darwinism in Germany has special importance, because it serves as background to discussions of Hitler's ideology and of the roots of German imperialism and World War I. 1 There is no doubt that Hitler was a Social Darwinist, viewing history as a struggle for existence among unequal races. All Hitler scholars agree on this point, and it is too obvious to deny when one reads Mein Kampf. 2 Whether Social Darwinism contributed to imperialism and militarism is less clear, though some have argued it did, at least as a justification for them. 3 Some Anglo-American writers during and immediately after World War I blamed Social Darwinism for inflaming German militarism. 4 [End Page 323]
This discussion over both Social Darwinism in general and its German form in particular has reached something of an impasse lately. While some scholars insist that Darwinism contributed to or at least reinforced a competitive ethos in European political and social thought, others have stressed the varieties of Social Darwinism. 5 The latter remind us that, although some Darwinian social thinkers stressed competition, socialists were also avid Darwinists and saw it as support for their vision of a more cooperative socialist society. 6 Some scholars focus so much on the cooperative and peaceful thrust of Darwinian thinkers that one might think that Peter Kropotkin's Mutual Aid had carried the day in the late nineteenth century. For example, Paul Crook argues that Darwinism produced pacifist inclinations more than it did militarism. 7
Another important debate in Darwin scholarship concerns the compatibility or incompatibility of Darwinism with other world views, especially traditional religion. The warfare thesis, which sees religion and science in perpetual conflict (often with science...
Ah, ad hominem. Reminds me of the calumny addressed to Charleton Coon by the likes of Ashley wahizname.
Eugenics was around long before Darwin (who never advocated it). This is for the lurkers, who may want accurate information:
Greek warrior Spartan civilization. Weakling infants were left in the mountains to die.
The Republic, Book 5, Section 1. Plato recommended state-supervised selective breeding of children.
History of Australia. Before Darwin, England exiled criminals to purify the race.
Before Darwin? Like Melbourne or Sydney?
Conjecture
-n.1. the formation or expression of an opinion without sufficient evidence for proof. 2. an opinion so formed. 3. Obs. the interpretation of signs or omens (although your astrology analogy is precisely this obsolete definition) 4. to conclude or suppose from grounds insufficient to ensure reliability.
In other words, an opinion that has no basis upon any evidence. In other words a "reasonable conjecture" is a contradiction in terms. There is no "reason" in a conjecture.
Contrast this with your second statement quoted above. They are contrapositives to each other.
If you think the essence of science is merely explaining the existing evidence (as revealed in geologic records and such), then it is no wonder you are willing to grant the philosophy of evolution "scientific" status in the classroom.
I didn't say any such thing about the "essence of science" and you don't have the slightest idea what I think so don't try your 'clarivoient act' with me. People who resort to putting words in other peoples mouth, or thoughts in their heads, do so because they don't have any rational arguments of their own to make.
Oh, so evolution is a "philosophy" now. Science has many aspects and is not limited to what you would call it in the "strict" sense.
No one has observed gold and other hard metals being created in a supernova and it is not repeatable or testable but it is the accepted process by which they came to exist by the scientific community.
You just like to play word games.
It appears to me because he really doesn't understand the difference.
Except that it is a handy rhetorical tool for you to bash your demon, evolution, without any real argument in hand.,
Precisely
If you say so. In dealing with the physical world and human knowledge there are ways I tend to be less extreme. Eyewitness testimony to crime, inasmuch it deals with historic events, is subject to error. It does not enjoy repeated testing either. Human motives add to the potential for lies and, as a result, injustice. I am not as inclined as you to put courtroom activities on the level of "science."
Geology has a present world to observe and document. So does Astronomy. There are records (written in human language) showing observations of previous generations that are valuable in learning about the earth's history and the motions of heavenly bodies. When I question the claims and validity of evolutionism as "science," it is the unobserved, unrecorded assumption that all life is derivative of a common ancestor that I have in mind, or that order can arise apart from an intelligent agent.
In that regard, not unlike liberalism, evolutionism is not content to be called what it is: weak history and strong philosophy.
Did you read the fourth meaning? It states "insufficient," not "non-existent." There is insufficient evidence to conclude man is derivative of a primitive life form. There is also insufficient evidence to reliably conclude that matter organizes itself apart from an intelligent agent. Both conclusions have not only been drawn but are operative in the philosophy of evolution.
Science has many aspects and is not limited to what you would call it in the "strict" sense.
As long as you are willing to admit as much, then you ought to be willing to grant admittance at least to the notion that biological entities may have a common designer and that matter does not organize itself without intelligent design. Not only so, but you ought, in term of reasonability and certitude, to hold it on at least the same level as evolutionism.
See #159. I do not equate the two. There is a difference, albeit a mild one, between astrology and evolutionism. At least astrology has the sense to refrain from claiming matter can organize itself.
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.