Replies

YHAOS: "Accordingly then, “Darwinism,” indeed all of what me might call Science, can’t possibly be involved in heresy because, not being involved in spiritual matters or anything having to do with value judgments, it has nothing to say to the Judeo-Christian Tradition, or to any religion.
"But, then along comes a fellow like Richard Dawkins, proclaiming opinions which seem profoundly at odds with what is generally accepted, claiming there are visible implications for moral judgments and proclaiming the existence of value criteria in the Theory of Evolution, even if what he and some of his colleagues have to say is a human horror."

This appears to be the core of your argument, and the very site of your Big Switcheroo.

The truth of the matter is that natural-science itself is a very limited, restricted enterprise requiring: natural explanations for natural processes.
So, whenever some scientist, be it Dawkins or anybody else expresses their philosophical, metaphysical, ontological or religious opinions, those are not, by definition, "scientific".

So Dawkins can say whatever he wishes philosophically -- it's just him talking, not science itself.
If Dawkins says:

"The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer.
I think that it is a scientific question.
My answer is no.”

Those are opinions to which Dawkins is certainly entitled, but which, by definition, are not scientific.

YHAOS: "Dawkins is not alone.
There are many noted Scientists of renown who agree."

But many other scientists are not atheists, including some of the best known, from Albert Einstein to Max Plank to even (perhaps) Stephen Hawking.
And many scientists throughout history have been self-acknowledged Christians, including this list.

So, your practice of equating science in general, and "Darwinism" in specific with atheism is simply false, and you should stop doing it, FRiend.

Finally, I recently stumbled on a very nice chart, which could apply to most any thread here.
I think we'd all do well to examine it and decide at which levels our own arguments should fall:

Love your pyramid chart. Really cool. Whom do I credit for its use?
You would, indeed, do well to examine the chart for your use of its categories.

It’s been my experience that the arguments of 0bamatrons do not rise above the pyramid’s 4th level (contradiction), and generally sputters and stalls out at attempts to rise above the second (Ad Hominem) level.

By the way, it must be thought that Liberals, 0bamatrons, RINOs, and other Repubics in general, would have some difficulty in discerning the subtle distinction to be found in the bottom two levels (Ad Hominem and Name-calling) of the pyramid (clearly, another reason for referring to all Liberals as “bottom feeders”). They all seem to mix the two levels apparently without regard for their subtleties.

The simple matter is this whole “struggle” is all about seizing the control of power and wealth: power over Conservatives and the confiscation of Conservative wealth (Liberals will surrender their very souls with nothing more than a whimper - if even so much as that). Put simply, a fight over money and control of our backsides. Liberals have taken over Science and use it to demonstrate their “superiority” over Conservatives. Liberals do not believe anything of value exists beyond backsides. Why don’t you address your objections to them?

“The truth of the matter is that natural-science itself is a very limited, restricted enterprise requiring: natural explanations for natural processes.”

Something about which I’ve been trying to convince my antagonists for years now . . . without success. I’ve had little trouble with my Judeo-Christian friends; they understand the point, that Science is science. It is not the Judeo-Christian Tradition that mistakenly thinks Science is an ethical and moral system designed to guide us in the value-judgments with which we must deal. The truth is both Liberals and Scientists know better, but dare not admit it.

“Dawkins can say whatever he wishes philosophically -- it's just him talking, not science itself.”

Don’t be insulting and disingenuous. Dawkins certainly can say whatever he wishes. It is, indeed, just him talking. That is not, however, how he represents himself to the public (which you should well know and understand). Dawkins presents himself (deservedly) as an eminent evolutionary biologist and presents (undeservedly) his “opinions” as authoritative and definitive (verily canonical), therefore requiring unquestioning acceptance. Has anyone on his side of the issue ever declared that his opinions are simply that, and cannot be represented, in any fashion, as scientifically valid? Have you? Not under any circumstances, I’ll wager, lest you experience the modern version of the public stoning.

Public stonings no longer remain the sole province of the religious. While Moslems still indulge in the real thing as well as the virtual (and perhaps other religions . . . I am not a fanatical follower of the practice and therefore cannot say), Judeo-Christians have abandoned both the literal tradition (let him without sin cast the first stone) and the less violent but no less brutal scandal-mongering version. But the virtual, if not the literal, practice has been taken up with enthusiasm by 0bamatrons (and by Liberals generally) and by Scientists panicked at the thought of the loss of federal grant money, or the loss of the control of other public money.

“But many other scientists are not atheists . . . ”

So I’ve heard many times, and that’s fine. Let them, then, call their fellow scientists on their many violations of the cardinal principles of Science. Instead they remain silent and attack rather the critics of these violations. Dawkins counts on his eminence to let him skate free from any consequences for his scientific heresies, as do many another like him. And skate free they do.

“your practice of equating science in general, and "Darwinism" in specific with atheism is simply false, and you should stop doing it, FRiend.”

You mischaracterize my criticisms, and rather clumsily at that, so your invitation to shut up will have to remain unsatisfied.

BroJoeK: But many other scientists are not atheists, including some of the best known, from Albert Einstein to Max Plank to even (perhaps) Stephen Hawking.

Spirited: These men are atheists only with respect to their unbelief in a living, personal Creator who by Divine Providence upholds the souls of men and all things within the space-time dimension yet nevertheless exists outside of the cosmos/nature (space-time dimension).

Of course none of these men were atheists with respect to their religiously held belief in the ‘nature’ philosophies and/or nature religions (i.e., Epicurean Materialism, Neo-Platonic or Eastern Pantheism) they embraced.

All nature religions/philosophical systems are monist by nature. Monism expresses the very ancient idea that all that exists is either spiritualized matter or physical matter and the evolutionary, emergent, or emmanationist energies working in and through the One Substance over vast ages of time.

No nature religion or philosophical system is able to account for the origin of life and conscious life in particular. This is why Francis Crick among others (including Richard Dawkins), has moved away from abiogenesis (life emerged out of spontaneously generated matter) and toward pan spermia conceptions, the idea that perhaps life hitched a ride on an asteroid to our planet or maybe extraterrestrials brought life here. But as Crick has honestly admitted, pan spermia merely moves the problem of life out into deep space.