An idea that provoked, but didn't deliver [by Kenneth R. Miller]

"1) Science can only study the world as it is. All speculation on the origin of the world (even when based on assuming that it is "self-evident" that physical laws and processes are unchanged and that whatever "evolution" is taking place now is merely a continuation of the creation process) are ipso-facto outside the realm of science and is inherently philosophical."

Nonsense. By that standard, we can't use science to find out what happened last week. Of course science can examine historical physical processes. It's called indirect evidence; it's used all the time in every branch of science.

"2) The separation of life into various compartments (such as "science" and "religion") is an extremely modern, recent, and false philosophy. Until relatively recently in human history "religion" (whichever one it was) was woven into the warp and woof of everyday life. In Judaism, for example (and Judaism is, after all, the first and oldest religion) there is no such thing as "religion." Instead the absolute truth of Torah permeates and governs every aspect of life."

Thankfully we are no longer slaves to the dictates of religion when it comes to science. Thanks to people like Galileo and Newton.

Nonsense. By that standard, we can't use science to find out what happened last week. Of course science can examine historical physical processes. It's called indirect evidence; it's used all the time in every branch of science.

The world was fully created and fully functioning last week. To take the world as it exists today as an explanation of how that world came into existence is like saying a clock obviously must have ticked its way into existence.

You've probably had your head rammed too far up your tachat to notice, but after 2000 years the Jews are back in Jerusalem. Who in their right mind can ignore this and live in a world of purely physical phenomena?

Go back to reading Ayn Rand.

"The world was fully created and fully functioning last week. To take the world as it exists today as an explanation of how that world came into existence is like saying a clock obviously must have ticked its way into existence."

There is plenty of physical evidence that the universe did not exist until about 15 billion years ago. To ignore the evidence that exists is to willfully be ignorant.

"You've probably had your head rammed too far up your tachat to notice, but after 2000 years the Jews are back in Jerusalem. Who in their right mind can ignore this and live in a world of purely physical phenomena?"

There is nothing remotely supernatural about the existence of the present state of Israel. Your *point* is absurd.

"Go back to reading Ayn Rand."

That crap again? You have no argument so you resort to ad hominem. Pathetic, though hilarious. :)

There is plenty of physical evidence that the universe did not exist until about 15 billion years ago. To ignore the evidence that exists is to willfully be ignorant.

Um . . . how is what you said a response to my words quoted above?

Listen pal . . . you and I have nothing even remotely in common. We aren't members of the same ideology or political movement or anything. I'm trying to help bring about the Final Kingdom of G-d on earth; you're trying to lower taxes (takes a moment for the laughter to subside). I'm not trying to convert you. Why are you so freaking missionary that you think you have to convert me?

I'll stay on my side of the fence, you stay on yours. Okay?

"Um . . . how is what you said a response to my words quoted above?"

It's a rebuttal of what you said, that there is no way to know how the universe came to be (though in truth science does not claim to know what came before the Big Bang.)

"Listen pal . . . you and I have nothing even remotely in common."

Thankfully for me. I believe in using reason to understand the world around me. You...

"We aren't members of the same ideology or political movement or anything."

Agreed. I am on the Right politically.

" I'm trying to help bring about the Final Kingdom of G-d on earth;"

Good luck with that. Does ignoring the physical creation help bring that about? :)

"you're trying to lower taxes (takes a moment for the laughter to subside)."

Yes, lower taxes and economic freedom is a real pisser. Good to see where you stand on that issue. :)

"I'm not trying to convert you. Why are you so freaking missionary that you think you have to convert me?"

I wouldn't waste my time converting you; I am correcting your errors for the lurkers. You are hopeless.

Thankfully we are no longer slaves to the dictates of religion when it comes to science. Thanks to people like Galileo and Newton.

(1) The Galileo myth is quite tired at this point. Galileo wound up spending a few years under weekday house arrest because he p*ssed off the wrong powerbrokers, not because of scientific research. Copernicus said the exact same things as Galileo in Rome a generation before Galileo and he was lauded.

But that's conveniently omitted in every anti-religious diatribe.

(2) Newton would be highly insulted if anyone suggested to him that his scientific work was contrary to his religious obligations - obligations which he took very seriously. Newton wrote more about theology than he did about science and he considered his scientific work to be in service of true religion against scepticism.

And I have to agree with ZC: The notion of "religion" and "science" being separate and opposed compartments of the human condition is a leftist notion which has its basis in purely political battles of the XVIIIth century.

"The Galileo myth is quite tired at this point. Galileo wound up spending a few years under weekday house arrest because he p*ssed off the wrong powerbrokers, not because of scientific research."

For one thing, I wasn't referencing his troubles with the Church. I was referencing his use of only physical, non-supernatural causes. As for his imprisonment though, he did more than just piss off the wrong people. He was charged with heresy.

"Copernicus said the exact same things as Galileo in Rome a generation before Galileo and he was lauded."

He was also dead when his book was published. He was lauded because nobody believed that the Copernican system was anything more than a good mathematical way to get some better predictions of where the stars and planets will be. He was careful NOT to claim that the earth really did physically move around the sun. Galileo made that mistake and was punished for it.

"Newton would be highly insulted if anyone suggested to him that his scientific work was contrary to his religious obligations - obligations which he took very seriously. Newton wrote more about theology than he did about science and he considered his scientific work to be in service of true religion against scepticism."

And yet his physics and optics also deal only in physical, non-supernatural causes and explanations. That was my point.

"And I have to agree with ZC: The notion of "religion" and "science" being separate and opposed compartments of the human condition is a leftist notion which has its basis in purely political battles of the XVIIIth century."

No, that separation began with the ancient Greeks and reached maturity with the scientific revolution. Again, with Galileo and Newton. Science and theology deal with two different things.

was referencing his use of only physical, non-supernatural causes.

Copernicus referenced no supernatural causes in his calculations.

Like Galileo and Newton, he assumed God created physical nature and the laws which govern it.

He was charged with heresy.

If you anger a cardinal he'll call you a heretic. If you anger a prince he'll call you a traitor. If you anger a journalist he'll call you a racist. A heresy charge in 1600s Rome generally had much more to do with politics than with someone actually and consciously dissenting from Catholic doctrine.

No, that separation began with the ancient Greeks and reached maturity with the scientific revolution.

The greatest scientific mind Greece produced was Aristotle, who was also a theologian.

And there was no such thing as a "scientific revolution" - meaningless propaganda phrase.

"Copernicus referenced no supernatural causes in his calculations.

Like Galileo and Newton, he assumed God created physical nature and the laws which govern it."

And this goes against what I said how?

"If you anger a cardinal he'll call you a heretic. If you anger a prince he'll call you a traitor. If you anger a journalist he'll call you a racist. A heresy charge in 1600s Rome generally had much more to do with politics than with someone actually and consciously dissenting from Catholic doctrine."

But he was charged with heresy for going against Church doctrine.

"The greatest scientific mind Greece produced was Aristotle, who was also a theologian."

That doesn't change the fact that the ancient Greeks were the first to use natural explanations for physical events. Note too that I said the separation began with them; it matured in the scientific revolution.

"And there was no such thing as a "scientific revolution" - meaningless propaganda phrase."

Sure there was. At least in the physical sciences like physics, chemistry, and astronomy. Biology lagged behind.

But even to speak of "the rational mind," one requires a ratio, a standard or measure that the mind itself does not create. If there were no "objective" Truth, reason itself would have nothing to know and nothing to do. And science would be a pointless exercise.

So very true and well said. Thank you for your excellent post!

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.