Posted on 02/22/2009 6:59:30 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Get back to me when you detect a creationist who has realized that there is no conflict between the biblical creation story and the theory of evolution.
One of the Popes in the last 150 years would have done so.
Yes, if a Pope’s job were to spread truth rather than doctrine.
It's pretty obvious that at some time in the last 150 years at least one Pope came on the scene as a Creationist and adapted his views to Evolution. The evidence for such an event is that the Catholic Church teaches that Evolution does not conflict with Genesis. The Catholic Church gets its interpretive viewpoints from the Pope.
Earlier Popes wouldn't have known beans about Evolution. Neither would scientists!
In any case, neither point of view is relevant in the long run. We will eventually discover things going on in our genome that we had only thought possible with super computers.
There is no doctrine regarding scientific inquiry. There is only the scientific method, which is a method that only involves logical operations and physical evidence. Something carries the weight of doctrine and the the consequential quality of truth, because it's been declared so, or as such by a consensus of folks in authority. Nothing similar exists in science.
"It's pretty obvious that at some time in the last 150 years at least one Pope came on the scene as a Creationist and adapted his views to Evolution."
Darwin did the same.
"In any case, neither point of view is relevant in the long run."
The truth always matters, regardless of run.
If you were to change it to include "even falsified data may be used to substantiate desirable findings", you would be subject to sanction.
No, it is what I said.
"If you were to change it to include "even falsified data may be used to substantiate desirable findings", you would be subject to sanction."
As I said, it involves logical operations and physical data. data can not be falsified. Data is fact. Findings, as the meaning is considered here, are conclusions, which must be the result of logical operations. Although one generally starts out with a hypothesis, no desire, no matter how hard one squints and tapps their heels together, will produce data that will support the faulty reasoning of a bad hypothesis.
Yes, data can be fudged, and folks do it all the time. However, that's contrary to the method (or doctrine).
Facts can not be made up. Messing with data, or coming up with fictitious data is an example of bearing false witness, or lying. One has a right to be told the truth. That's why the moral code forbids lying, bearing false witness, ect...
Fraud isn't contrary to the scientific method, only to the moral code. The logical operations of the scientific method will simply generate garbage if false data is used. ...GIGO.
The relevant concept here is how the qualitative quantifier truth gets applied to some conclusion, or claim. In the case of logical operations, every sentient rational being will conclude either the quantifier applies always and universally, or it never does. In the case of doctrine the application of the quantifier is due to a consensus vote, that fixes the application to the claim forever. Science never considers doctrine to be valid, only valid outcomes of logical operations are.
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.