Posted on 04/03/2009 8:22:15 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Unfortunately, since religious studies are not science the language could be used to prevent any discussion of ID. As I posted above - I think the ID side was taken for a ride.
I have always found it amusing that from a mathmatical and scientific point of view creationism is the only logical conclusion. Nothing else reconciles with common sense.
Knowing how hard atheist and Darwinist fight to keep common sense out of the argument has always boosted my confidence in creation.
Actually, no, it will continue to be the courts that have their dirty finger in the pie, but perhaps with a bit more restraint.
I’m curious to see this mathematical and scientific affirmation of Creationism, maybe you could explain it?
Sorry I was unclear. What I was trying to say was that I don’t know what people are talking about when they say no dissent is allowed.
I hear dissent all the time. It is a constant.
One is, of course, expected to back one’s dissent with scientific evidence. That is only reasonable.
The language invites attack on the phony TOE “evidence”.
Prepare for the onslaught!
And then the good creationist parents will send their kids to school to point out that evolution is ultimately based on an 'a priori' assumption of philosophical naturalism and the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
Then the 'good' teachers will explain that all of 'science' is based on the fallacy of argument from ignorance. (i.e., unobserved P predicts that not-Q will not be observed and since we don't observe not-Q, then unobserved P is 'supported'.) The 'good' teachers will then claim that, if you can't show that evolution engages in more fallacy than the rest of 'science', you can't criticize evolution.
Then everyone will be happy. ;-)
Good point. They certainly will be in it, too.
Of course you are right. You dont need an alternative to critique an existing theory. OTOH, you cant call your critique a theory based on your criticisms alone.
Stay on topic.
This about laying waste to evolutionism. To that end, this is a monumental decision.
That wasn’t an attack - it was a reading of the bureaucratese. The base interpretation allows for exceptional defining of the terms in the language. I would be very unhappy with this on the ID side.
I would be more than happy to address any of the issues you find with evolution; I’m sure there has been some manner of misunderstanding, but evolution does account for all the current data. We are still working on the precise details of course, as is every branch of science, but the fact that natural selection explains life is no longer in serious doubt. Perhaps you could raise a particular point and we could discuss it?
As it happens, I would have no problem with presenting the material this way in a college classroom, or possibly even advanced high school classes (asking for, and answering, objections to evolution) however the point of classes in high school is to get the facts as we know them, and at the moment, evolution really IS a fact, as much so as gravity is. Remember, unlike in layman’s terms, in science the word “Theory” is a very specific term referring to “an overarching explanation accounting for all the data” such as the theory of gravity, or the germ theory of disease.
It's a very good point. Like I always say, nobody remembers anything from high school biology class anyway.
Except perhaps the few that go on to major in biology.
One is, of course, also expected to back one's affirmative position with scientific evidence. That is only reasonable.
Unfortunately, 'a priori' assumptions and fallacy are what we get instead. But let's hold the dissenters to a higher standard. That's what 'science' is about.
Shhhhh.....don't remind the creationists that we have a mind to think.
Ok. The mathmatical chances of the Universe, earth, and life being a complete accident are about the same as pouring four tons of molten steel on your driveway and having it dry into a perfectly running 1958 Buick full of gas and with factory air.
Scientifically, we must examine the fact that everything in our world was designed and created...everything, that is, except for the most complicated things of all which is independent life in its millions of unique forms. It doesn’t make sense to trust that only the most complicated aspects of our existence was an accident.
>Isn’t this more a defeat for Creationists?
Why do you think that is the case?
Sure it does. All you have to do is assume that the natural world is all there is 'a priori' and you end up there by default.
Philosophical naturalism. The foundation of all things.
The scientific method is the foundation of science. If you don't like the rules that demand you offer a better theory before displacing the currently accepted one, head on over to philosophy or religion class.
There is a difference between the scientific meaning of "hypothesis," "theory," and "law," which many nonscientists are not familiar with. Here are some simple definintions. An abstract:
A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.
A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.
This is why there is both a law of gravity, and a theory of gravity, incidentally.
You can critique the theory of evolution all you want, but it has been supported with repeated testing, and predictions. To substitute a different theory, you'd have to have a stronger body of evidence, with testing and predictons stronger than that seen for evolution. So far, I've seen no testing or predictions for ID or creationism.
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.