Like this. Sheesh!
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.
"I wish some creationist would explain how kangaroos got from Mt. Ararat to Australia."
The flood was local, not global.
Like this. Sheesh!
Like this. Sheesh!
False premise.
for me it is just hard to grasp its size. I would think it has to end somewhere. If it does have a wall or an end, what is behind the wall...
It's rather difficult to understand how being "fit" in the sense of being adaptable, intelligent, resourceful, efficient, translates into something other than general advantage or "strength."
Darwinism is an idiocy. The "fit" do not rule much of anything. They never have.
Then why do they so fiercely disagree about other procedures like carbon-dating, etc?
I also proved that evolution cannot be true because, Sheldon is not perfect.
Maybe scientists are not right about everything they believe. Did this thought not cross your mind?
I also proved that evolution cannot be true, because Louis Sheldon is not perfect. Sheldon is a scumbag.
Breeding faster or more successfully is all that really counts for evolution.
Cockroaches and paramecia have it all over humans as far as biological fitness goes.
It is entirely possible that smarts is now counter-productive. Two very large human populations (Russia and China) have systematically killed off many of their smart folk, and others have concluded that provding for smart offspring is more than they can manage so have voluntarily quit or reduced breeding.
I wish some creationist would explain how kangaroos got from Mt. Ararat to Australia.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/migration.asp
Such as the rate of decay being constant.
Such as the assumption that the sample has never been contaminated.
Such as the rate of diffusion is the same on the edge (or surface) of a sample as it is in the middle (or center).
Prove the above assumptions, and I may allow for it to be a little more accurate. The problem with all the forms of dating is that they do agree with each other within a few percent, but that's not proof that they are accurate within a few percent.
I believe the theory of evolution is so faith based that only a moron would believe it.
Science disproves it on every turn, and continues to do so, while evolutionists just change their interpretations of their errors.
Then, they try to claim regardless of their errors, they were right all along because a new theory to explain their view came up, and then try to call it science.
All a Creationist has to say is: "In the beginning, God..." . . and nothing changed at all, ever in the Creationist story.
Darwinism is an idiocy. The "fit" do not rule much of anything. They never have.
You misunderstand. Fit is a poor term. One's success is measured by the spread of one's genes. This actually includes one's group's genes as well. Anything that contributes to that counts; disease resistance, faster running, better memory, and especially taking care of your children or your group's children better.
How many times have you read about a person who dies trying to rescue a drowning child? That is a common trait with the goal of protecting the genes of an individual or group.
So forget "fit" in terms of mere strength or rule. Start thinking about the many ways in which a person or group can ensure the success of their offspring. You will be much closer.
I don't believe it's going to happen. But I could be wrong. Sorry.
At least this guy is intellectually honest.
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.