Gould Strikes Back At Creationists

It's the scientific principle...nothing is written in stone until it can be proved, verified, beyond the shadow of a doubt

I think you are confusing law with scientific method. In the scientific method their are several degrees of certainty. We begin with a hypothesis and setting out to prove or disprove it, we arrive after many tests by many men at a theory. Then finally we reach Law. But most of the "laws" of previous centuries have been discredited, and the underlying supports for modern science have lost their sure foundation.

"Unfortunatly, telling me that God waved a magic wand and made things happen does not help me one bit in solving my software problems. Explain how God did it, and you have my absolute attention."

hmm. . . .

But haven't you considered that random mutation is not any explanation of anything. It is to explain the change in species by attributing that change to chance. But chance when considered carefully is no explanation. It gives no cause, it is to say that we do not know the cause.

But the very word science comes from the Latin scio, meaning to know. And scientific study is aimed at knowledge. Except in evolution, I cannot think of any science in which the main hypothesis to be proven is that we cannot know, that it is mere chance.

The far more interesting and respectable investigation is that into the causes of such presumed evolutionary changes. The entire enterprise of attempting to prove evolution is at best interesting, even Darwin's work may be somewhat interesting. In and of itself, the study is quite ridiculous . . . .

. . . unless evolution is merely religion.

I find evolution ridiculous, the notion that we come from apes appalling, and the entire "theory" unscientific.

The real question for hypothetical "changes" is why? What is the cause? Is it merely material? -- or in our awareness of the world, have we been blinded to other causes, teleological and formal which have been ignored by science, not because disproven, but because science generally only focuses on the material and immediately visible and apprehensible.

If I die and I am wrong, I have lost nothing. If you die and you are wrong, you are in big trouble.

Not if you picked the wrong God. Why do you religionists have such trouble with simple logical concepts????? I see this fallacy repeated over and over, yet a school kid can see that it is a false dichotomy. Does religion really stunt mentalities? It seems to, given the evidence I've seen. How many times do the flaws in that easily ascertained fallacy have to be pointed out to you?

I still say it is a hoot that science has always shown (to me anyway) the traits of the class clown proud of his latest prank: The scientist has usurped the high priests in the Holy of Holies and to date, his abuse of power has no novelty.

Ironic, too, that science argues so loudly for evolution while denying the logical conclusion of his theory: an evolution of the spirit that would answer the questions he cannot answer, like why.

And so as to give equal time before whatever election may be coming: The creationist is quick to deny any suggestion of evolution, yet vehemently announces the forth-coming and ultimate evolution, to a heaven that no one has seen.

The problem with science is that because of the coup, science believes his word is law. But....what about evolution?

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.