Posted on 07/23/2008 10:44:41 PM PDT by thinkingIsPresuppositional
Crushing scientific dissent
By Christopher Cook
I have a dualistic and conflicted view of science and scientists.
One the one hand, I respect greatly the rigor and honesty with which most scientists conduct themselves. I respect the field's idealized desire for the truth, no matter where it leads.
On the other hand, I realize that while there is an idealized desire for truth, the unfortunate fact is that science, like every other human field of endeavor, is run by humans. And scientists, like all humans, run the gamut:
Some are honest. Some are honest but lazy. Some are honest but do the herd-mentality thing that is so common to human beings in general. Some are corrupt and venal for their own purposes. Some are corrupt and venal for much grander purposes.
The result is that science, in spite of its higher aims and more rigorous standards, gets corrupted just like anything we flawed humans touch. And thus, even in science, the results can sometimes be flawed, faked, forged, false, or forced down our throats.
Moreover, science is continually changing its view of things. Our body of scientific knowledge at any one time is just a snapshot. It's only what we know now, and its constantly changing...
(Excerpt) Read more at modernconservative.com ...
" Then again, there are also a lot of people shilling for the "majority" view of anthropogenic global warming, and that view is increasingly looking less like science and more like a pile of steaming agenda with large chunks of hysteria in it.
What nonsense!
There is a mountain of evidence supporting the theory of evolution, but the theocons are unwilling, for religious reasons, to see or accept it.
That leads them to attack science, and the scientific method, usually from a position of ignorance of the very things they are attacking.
A "true" theory! What nonsense.
IOW, the FACT that evolution has only been postulated as a THEORY, merely confirms your OPINION that there is no God.
Thank you. Next.
“Read all about it in HIV, AIDS, and Gallo’s Egg”
No, I'd rather not. I know all the arguments about how HIV doesn't cause AIDS and the conspiracy to crush dissenter's.
And nothing has changed in past few days.
Check out the site Modern Conservative and I think you’ll find the article and post are more about Aids than Evolution.
What was amazing was how bad it was. I lost a great deal of respect for Ann because of it.
You exhibit the very lack of knowledge of science that I mentioned in my previous post.
What do you expect the theory of evolution to be other than a theory?
What higher level do you expect there to be in science, some level higher than just a theory?
In reality, there is no higher level in science. A theory is the current best explanation for a given set of facts. There is usually one theory at a time for that set of facts because a theory is the current best explanation. There may be hypotheses competing for the position, but there is generally only one governing theory at a time.
Here are a couple of definitions that might help (from a long list on my FR homepage):
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.Given all of this, your criticism of the theory of evolution because it is a theory exposes your lack of familiarity with science, but does nothing to harm the theory of evolution.Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Darwin 1:1 In the beginning, well, I can't deal with that. 2. After that, there was a spark, maybe, or a chemical reaction or, well, I can't deal with that. 3. then there was amoebae in the sea, and it had the prescience to split into two! 4. The rest is history... but I can't deal with some of that, either! 5. But, it does eliminate any help from above...
.jpg/300px-Shona_witch_doctor_(Zimbabwe).jpg)
Does that look like an intelligent design to you?
Agreed. And is a lawyer pundit where this idiot USUALLY goes for unbiased Scientific discussion of issues? A woman paid to say outrageous things and pander to the far right (which usually I quite enjoy)?
It looks like part of God's creation to me! You must have some bias toward black folk! That guy has the highest rank in his society. He is their resident scientist or the equivalent, and he, too, makes a lot of conjectures... and gestures!
Education can't erase bigotry, I guess...
I was referring to the picture of the platypus in reply 9. Unless, of course, you relate Africans with platypus's (platyputi?). In which case you have a whole different set of biases to deal with yourself.
It’s not against my faith to believe in evolution, but I don’t because evolution lacks evidence.
Have you studied the evidence, or are you taking the word of the creationist books and websites?
I studied the evidence myself, primarily in the fields of evolution, fossil man, and osteology, for six years of graduate school.
It is there.
Those creationist websites are lying to you when they say there is a lack of evidence. They have to lie, as the evidence is staring them in the face and their beliefs won't allow them to accept it!
Here is one example. The folks over at Answers in Genesis have, on their website, a Statement of Faith. The first two sections are as follows:
(A) PRIORITIESWith those a priori beliefs do you think that institution, or its members, can tell the truth about science? Or practice science?
(B) BASICS
- The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
- The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
- The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches.
- The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.
- The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe.
- The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation.
- The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.
- The special creation of Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first woman), and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for the necessity of salvation for mankind.
- Death (both physical and spiritual) and bloodshed entered into this world subsequent to and as a direct consequence of man's sin.
I wouldn't take their word on anything that pertains to science. And neither should you.
I’m not taking their word. Their faith seems to be against evolution; my faith is not. But again, just because my faith is not against evolution, that doesn’t make evolution true.
Why did some of us become humans, but yet some remained apes?
What is the scientific theory that says something can come from nothing?
So many questions.
From a recent post on another thread:
To: SolitonFunctioning together, these two characteristics control the rate of evolution of an animal species. When a species is facing a rapidly changing environment and there is great competition, the species must struggle harder to survive. This increases the metabolism and speeds up the rate of evolution. This is exactly what the species needs if it is to survive. In a changing environment, a species needs more variation in their characteristics in order to adapt. (This literally increases the raw material for Natural Selection. This gives Nature more choices. Simply speaking, those who work harder are more likely to survive and those who are lazy are more likely to fail).
This describes the early ape-like critters that were forced to the edges, then out of the shrinking African forests some six million years ago (our ancestors).
When an animal species is existing in a slow changing environment and there is little competition, the species doesn´t have to struggle so hard to survive. If there is a lot of food available and life is easy, the species may literally become lazy. This slows down the metabolism and slows down the rate of evolution. This is exactly what the species needs. It´s already adapted to the environment and doesn´t need to evolve, so it doesn´t need to change any characteristics.
This describes the early ape-like critters that remained in the forests some six million years ago.
It also answers the oft-asked question, "Why are there still apes?"
8 posted on July 25, 2008 2:53:03 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
What is the scientific theory that says something can come from nothing?
Why are you disparaging this? Don't you believe the exact same thing, yet posit the cause as something for which there is no evidence whatsoever?
lol, when ETers get challenged about the theory, they just changed the theory. I’ve seen it countless times.
“Why are you disparaging this? Don’t you believe the exact same thing, yet posit the cause as something for which there is no evidence whatsoever?”
Yep, both ID and ET are about faith and things unseen. :)
P.S.
Of course, ID is more commonsensical.
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.