Posted on 04/04/2009 10:51:32 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
It is with out a doubt that a majority of Americans believe “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” Genesis 1:1. Unfortunately, most who believe these words cannot answer the questions raised by the thousands of fossils that archeologist's have dug up and claim are millions of years old. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at norcalblogs.com ...
Was Karl Popper one of these philosophers who was vary unreliable in regards to how science actually works?
Which Karl Popper? The early Karl Popper, or the late Karl Popper who came to realize that he had made some mistakes on the subject and revised himself? Anti-evolutionists love to quote-mine the former and not the latter. Not very honest of them, is it?
Popper's later works are reasonably good, but even those get misleadingly misrepresented by anti-Evolutionists -- once they latch on to someone, they get stuck in a rut.
So yes, Popper's later comments on the topic are generally good, but that doesn't mean that I think he gets everything exactly right (few non-scientists manage to do that, something is usually lost in translation when being an outsider-looking-in), nor should I be expected/required to agree to any particular anti-evolutionist's Popper quote yanked and presented in isolation, nor whatever spin the anti-evolutionist attempts to put on it.
So to head off what is bound to be your next post, don't bother quote-mining Popper (or anyone else) for me. Popper isn't gospel. If you have a point you want to make, attempt to put it in your own words and we'll see if it holds water. I care about facts, evidence, and valid arguments, not something that a so-called authority might have announced when he was feeling pedantic. Read this if you're still unclear on the concept: Quotations and Misquotations: Why What Antievolutionists Quote is Not Valid Evidence Against Evolution. "Argument from authority" is still a logical fallacy.
Science really isn't religion -- its validity doesn't depend upon "and so it is written" nor the pronouncement of some apostle.
“Which Karl Popper? The early Karl Popper, or the late Karl Popper who came to realize that he had made some mistakes on the subject and revised himself?” [excerpt]Ah yes, you must be referring to his statement that Darwinism was not testable.
Definitively a hot button subject.It is clear, however, that Popper had not really retracted his original 1974 claim regarding Darwinism not being a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme.[13] In fact in the 1982 revised edition of the book, his original conclusion that "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme" remained.[14] Leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, Michael Ruse acknowledged regarding Popper's statement and the actions he took after making that statement: "Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable."[15]
“Anti-evolutionists love to quote-mine the former and not the latter.” [excerpt]I do find it interesting how the lines between the former and the latter are blurred.
“Popper's later works are reasonably good, but even those get misleadingly misrepresented by anti-Evolutionists -- once they latch on to someone, they get stuck in a rut.” [excerpt]Perhaps its because Popper's works were so damaging to these sudo-sciences?
“So yes, Popper's later comments on the topic are generally good, but that doesn't mean that I think he gets everything exactly right (few non-scientists manage to do that, something is usually lost in translation when being an outsider-looking-in),” [excerpt, bold emphasis mine]Well, Darwin was no scientist, he was just a med school dropout turned theologian.
“nor should I be expected/required to agree to any particular anti-evolutionist's Popper quote yanked and presented in isolation, nor whatever spin the anti-evolutionist attempts to put on it.” [excerpt]I don't expect you to agree with something that you disagree with.
“So to head off what is bound to be your next post, don't bother quote-mining Popper (or anyone else) for me. Popper isn't gospel.” [excerpt]Sounds like you don't like Popper.
“If you have a point you want to make, attempt to put it in your own words and we'll see if it holds water. I care about facts, evidence, and valid arguments, not something that a so-called authority might have announced when he was feeling pedantic.” [excerpt]Facts?
“Read this if you're still unclear on the concept:” [excerpt]I learn about science from talkorigins like I learn about Capitalism from a Communist.
“Science really isn't religion -- its validity doesn't depend upon "and so it is written" nor the pronouncement of some apostle.” [excerpt]Correct, science is not a religion.
>>Geez, fd, you know better than to equate Christianity and creationism with islam.
I had abandoned this thread, but let me address your post. Perhaps I wasn’t clear (God knows that has happened). I am not equating islam with Christianity — I am equating the result of anti-scientific theology with the OUTCOME which we see today in islam, which started the same way.
Have a blessed day.
“No it hasn’t, there has been futile attempts to debunk the proof of dinosaurs being around when men where but never have they done more then write a paper with their opinion. An opinion of a drawing is just that, an opinion.”
Ladies and gentlemen, these are the people who want to teach science to your kids. Thank God their peculiar microcosm of creation rationalism is confined to otherwise fine home school environments.
Evolution (and the the existence of a very old earth) is perfectly compatible with Christianity.
[Gee, really? Then what are those hundreds of journal articles I read every year in the field of evolutionary biology, which are a drop in the bucket compared to the vast numbers which are published?]
Well, if they are using a naturalistic methodology, then the resulting discoveries are nothing more than proposed conventions.
Wow, Fich -- that attempt to re-define words on the fly in order to avoid admitting you told a whopper is even more desperate and transparent than Bill Clinton's "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"...
You claimed that evolutionists "do not make scientific discoveries".
I pointed out how ludicrous this is -- there are thousands of such scientific discoveries, large and small, as anyone who has ever cracked a biology journal (or even read pop-sci coverage) is fully aware of.
When called on your transparently false claim, you did what anti-evolutionists typically do -- you failed to admit that you had made a false claim, you failed to show any kind of chagrin whatsoever at being caught telling a big giant whopper, and instead you just attempt to redefine reality into some alternate universe where what you said was somehow not wrong after all.
You goofily tried to redefine "scientific discovery" in a way that made them not "discoveries", but "proposed conventions", whatever in the hell *that* might mean on Planet Fichori... In your own private little universe, discoveries simply aren't actually discoveries, and thus you think you can get away with saying that evolutionists don't make discoveries, they just make things that *look* like discoveries but are something else, so there...
Oh, come ON!
Evolutionists do make scientific discoveries, Fich. You know they do. Just admit it, and admit that you got caught telling a big fat untruth when you said they didn't, and that you were being silly when you tried to re-define simple terms to magically make your initial falsehood somehow "true".
Remember, kids, this is the kind of double-speak, the kind of "words mean whatever I want them to mean if it helps me avoid having to admit anything", that anti-Evos want to confuse schoolchildren with in order to try to tear down actual science (yes, Viriginia, that includes evolutionary biology) and raise doubts about, while pushing their own non-scientific agendas masquerading as "science" when it isn't.
Fich, if you're done playing your silly "discoveries aren't discoveries" word games, it's time to go ahead and admit that you told a whopper, retract it, and apologize for wasting out time with blatant falsehoods.
If on the other hand you want to bluff and bluster on and pretend that you didn't get caught red-handed telling a big old fib in the service of your anti-evolution propaganda, be my guest, it only makes clear to all astute lurkers just how little concern you guys have for truth and accuracy.
But don't expect it to help your credibility any, and don't expect me to waste much time talking with you -- the dodging and weaving and gameplaying gets really old really fast. I prefer to discuss and debate issues with people who actually have things of value to add to the conversation.
[“You guys amaze me -- you have no shame when you tell such enormous, transparently false whoppers. It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so creepy, and if you weren't trying like hell to get this know-nothing nonsense taught to schoolchildren.”]
So, are you going to answer my question about Popper?
I have -- so are you going to respond to my amazement at your blatent misrepresentation? Or are you going to continue to pretend that such behavior is unremarkable for anti-evos, just business as usual?
“Wow, Fich -- that attempt to re-define words on the fly in order to avoid admitting you told a whopper is even more desperate and transparent than Bill Clinton's "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"...” [excerpt]Quit sounding like you've been throughly pwned.
“You claimed that evolutionists "do not make scientific discoveries".” [excerpt]Evolutionists, or anyone using a naturalistic methodology, do not discover scientific facts, they only propose conventions.
“I pointed out how ludicrous this is -- there are thousands of such scientific discoveries, large and small, as anyone who has ever cracked a biology journal (or even read pop-sci coverage) is fully aware of.” [excerpt]These ‘discoveries’ are nothing more than conventions that have turned into dogmas.
“When called on your transparently false claim, you did what anti-evolutionists typically do -- you failed to admit that you had made a false claim,” [excerpt]Why would I when I haven't?
“You goofily tried to redefine "scientific discovery" in a way that made them not "discoveries", but "proposed conventions",” [excerpt]Uh, no.
“whatever in the hell *that* might mean on Planet Fichori...” [excerpt]Easy ol' boy, you don't want to blow a fuse.
“Oh, come ON!” [excerpt]LOL!
“Evolutionists do make scientific discoveries, Fich.” [excerpt]Only if they are not using a naturalistic methodology.
“Just admit it, and admit that you got caught telling a big fat untruth when you said they didn't, and that you were being silly when you tried to re-define simple terms to magically make your initial falsehood somehow "true".” [excerpt]I don't break for bullies.
“Fich, if you're done playing your silly "discoveries aren't discoveries" word games, it's time to go ahead and admit that you told a whopper, retract it, and apologize for wasting out time with blatant falsehoods.” [excerpt]I have no statements I wish to retract at this point, and I certainly will not be apologizing for, as you put it, wasting out time.
“But don't expect it to help your credibility any, and don't expect me to waste much time talking with you -- the dodging and weaving and gameplaying gets really old really fast. I prefer to discuss and debate issues with people who actually have things of value to add to the conversation.” [excerpt]I'm so devastated! *pout*
“I have -- so are you going to respond to my amazement at your blatent misrepresentation?” [excerpt]I have — You have only misrepresented what I've said.
>>It is with out a doubt that a majority of Americans believe “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” Genesis 1:1<<
I’m coming late to the party but I’m guessing the majority of Americans understand that the sun is older than the earth and that other parts of the universe are older still.
That looks like an admission you put it there, and set fire to it.
***************
Christians and Muslims are alike? Do you really mean to say this?
fervently religious people are alike in many ways, the system matters not. one analogy would be young filipino men flagellating themselves with steel barbs attached to leather strips to commemorate the passion of the christ, and the day of ashura a shiite muslim holy day where young shiite men do the same while honoring the martyrdom of ali.
1 Cor 2:14
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
We shouldn’t expect the atheist to see the truth, and we should expect him to see all religions as the same.
***************
Good point, MrB.
are you offended by the thought that christianity and islam have much in common?
**********************
I guess you can't answer my questions. No problem. I didn't expect that you could.
“We shouldn’t expect the atheist to see the truth, and we should expect him to see all religions as the same.”
I smell a Christian litmus test!
We sure have one around our house...
“As for me an my house, we will serve the Lord”
How does denial of scientific evidence solely to retain the literal inerrancy of the bible serve the Lord?
When the world’s INTERPRETATION of the evidence is in conflict with the Bible, I’m not going with the viewpoint that changes so frequently.
I’m staying with that which I know to be constant and consistent.
I know that biblical inerrancy is nonsense to you, so why bother bothering me with your sniping?
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.