Posted on 01/16/2006 8:20:59 AM PST by dead
I AM a scientist and I have no beliefs. At least, I don't think I have.
But isn't that the point? If I knew I had no beliefs then that would itself be a belief. And that's the difference between science and belief, a point missed by advocates of intelligent design, who want their beliefs taught alongside science. A believer knows things, but a scientist tries to discover things. Now don't get me wrong, I have nothing against beliefs or religion. I have enormous respect for religion, and am fortunate to count Christians, Muslims, Wiccans and indigenous Australians among my friends.
And my respect for their beliefs is tinged with envy. Wouldn't it be wonderful to be supplied with a User Manual for life, an omniscient mentor who you can ask for advice, and a knowledge that if you screw up this life then there's always another one?
I am awed by their beliefs, which have inspired some great human achievements. Oh yes, and some of the bloodiest moments in our history, too - but we scientists and rationalists haven't done too well on that score either, have we?
Which brings me to morality. Every religion claims its own system of ethics and morality. Well, funnily enough, my morality is much the same as yours, whether you're Christian, Muslim, Wiccan or whatever. We all think it's bad to lie, steal, kill or rape. Most of us think tolerance is pretty good, too.
So who gave me my morals? Since they're shared by most of the world, regardless of religion, I expect it's coded in my genes. But maybe I'm wrong; maybe it originated in the Creation.
US creationists ask why a belief in mainstream science should get special treatment in schools, while a belief in creationist science is relegated to religious instruction. They miss the point. A believer in science is not a scientist. A true scientist has working hypotheses, any of which can be discarded if evidence for a better hypothesis comes along.
That's what science is - a pragmatic method for exploring our world. If creationism was able to predict discoveries and generate technology, science would embrace it in a flash. But it doesn't. It obviously works in a religious sense for its adherents, but it doesn't do much for the rest of us. It's simply a set of beliefs, not a technique for finding out about the world.
And that leads to a curious asymmetry. I can never come up with a scientific argument to invalidate the beliefs of my religious friends; they have rock-hard, first-hand experience of their faith. But my self-doubting "working hypothesis" of science is always open to attack. As a scientist I must always be open-minded and take seriously any competing idea that might have mileage.
And as an astrophysicist, I really ought to be paying attention. I'd look pretty silly telling St Peter I'd dedicated my life to finding out the secrets of the universe, and had overlooked this awesome Being who had created it.
I don't believe it's going to happen. But I could be wrong. Sorry.
Professor Ray Norris is an astrophysicist with the CSIRO Australia Telescope.
Ever wonder how far space goes? It is does not go on forever, where does it stop. If it does stop... what is behind where it stops? What is it expanding into? Hrm... How can you make something from nothing? The chicken had to come first right?
Now, go to the local housing project and tell me how those one-parent kids are doing."
Firstly, you are referring to "adaptative response."
My original "evolutionary" context was conveyed in the realm of the metaphysical.
the scientists I know follow the evolution theory because there are thousands of hints for it to be true. And if you connect these hints logically you see that it just worked if it was true.
It's a theory though. A scientist knows what that means.
But there is no other theory with more hints to be true - there's not even a hand full of hints to creationism.
Maybe it sounds better - maybe it's bolstering the religious sides of people and that might or might not be of advantage - but it's just not backed by findings.
I think it probably does.
What is it expanding into?
To say that the universe expands is mathematically equivalent to saying that the things within the universe are shrinking. And yet, when you think of it that (equivalent) way, your conceptual problem disappears.
Your problem arises because you're thinking of the universe as some sort of object that exists in some sort of volume somewhere. But that's not right: the universe is the space. It doesn't "expand into" anything. It's the "anything" into which other things expand. It can't "run out of room"; it is the room. As it expands, there is more room, not less.
It is a common straw-man fallacy for creationists to represent that evolutionists claim humans descended from apes, when in fact the evolutionary claim is that humans and apes had a common ancestor. Misrepresenting the opponents position is a cheap shot and warrants the one-word dismissal, in my opinion.
You didn't ask. The general rule is that people are more altruistic towards their genetically related near-and-dear than towards strangers. Thus their genes are carried on better than those of loners. This even holds true (although attenuated) for the military protecting their homeland.
Although the high priests of 19th Century materialism are still winning individual skirmishes, the context of the battle has shifted to their detriment. The fact that they now have to rely on a non-scientist federal judge in Dover PA to issue a legal decree to protect their 19th Century prejudices from examination is a troubling development for their "science."
Any science that cannot stand on its own without the crutch of a legal injunction to support it is in sad, sad shape.
What would be the survival prospects of housing-project occupants and their offspring, if there weren't multi-billion-dollar government programs around? (As was(n't) the case for millions of years?)
Let us answer the debate this way:
If Creation is true, we would expect the Deity to have made everything perfect. However, Louis Sheldon is far from perfect. Therefore, Creationism is not true. Some examples, of why Louis Sheldon is not perfect:
1. Actions of the Traditional Values Coalition regarding the reimportation of prescription drugs from Canada. Sheldon sold out to the drug companies, and then lied to his supporters. The National Review had an excellent series on this:
Values for Sale 3 2. Sheldon exploited the Terri Schiavo case, sending out a plea for pledges, of donations 18 months into the future. The problem was: Terri Schiavo was going to be gone within 2 weeks. The article is Hereexcellent article on the subject. Again, Sheldon is not perfect. Therefore, Creationism is not true. However, if Evolution is true: With 3.5 billion years of time for evolution, one would expect Nature to get things right. However, Sheldon is not perfect. Therefore, Evolution cannot be true.
What a non-sequitur. Darwin's purpose was to explain the world, not to predict discoveries and generate technology. I doubt he would have stopped what he was doing if he decided it probably wouldn't do either of these things. Some science is just about explaining what we perceive or where intuition takes us with no thought at all about its usefullness. If it results in new discoveries and technology, great. If it's a dead-end..that's great too. Something is learned in either case. The fact that the author sets up this straw-man makes his argument appear weak.
Yes. It is!
Uh oh...
Fittest does not always mean strongest.
A hundred years is nowhere near enough for a serious evolutionary change in such a large population as humans unless resistance to a fatal or sterilizing infectious disease is selected for during an epidemic.
Let me express your thought in different words:
If the Creator were as smart as I am, He would have made everything the way I think everything ought to have been made, which is to say: Perfect. Since the world does not seem to have been made the way I would have made it, we can say that there was no Creator.
And I disagree with your notion.
Somehow, "God's will" escapes this criticism?
Non-falsifiable theories like common descent and natural selection are examples of this as you show in your post.
You are mistaken; evolution is falsifiable. Our DNA has a lot in common with other primates, less so with mammals, and even less so with plants. (But, not nothing.) If this weren't the case, evolution would be wrong.
If you want to talk about non-falsifiable theories, talk about "God made it that way, for His own reasons."
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.