Jump to content
IGNORED

why this is important


alphaparticle

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

 

 

Science isn't a quest for truth, just facts IMHO Philosophy and Faith seek truth. Science informs this endeavor. I did not get a degree in science to prove or disprove God. It never occurred to me to do that. Instead I studied because of awe and wonder. Sure I believed in God, but I think all these debates are tiresome. Both parties know they are right and them theatrics!

 

'Science isn't a quest for truth, just facts"

 

Aren't Facts, TRUTH?

 

 

Sure I believed in God, but I think all these debates are tiresome. Both parties know they are right and them theatrics!

 

Which debates are you referring too?  Why are they Tiresome?  Who are the 2 Parties?

 

 

"I did not get a degree in science to prove or disprove God. It never occurred to me"

 

I didn't either; but there appears to be Roosters in the Hen House......

 

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

Michael Ruse; How evolution became a religion; creationists correct? National Post May 13 2000

 

"Then, sometimes from the same person, you have evolution as secular religion, generally working from an explicitly materialist background and solving all of the world's major problems, from racism to education to conservation. Consider Edward O. Wilson, rightfully regarded as one of the most outstanding professional evolutionary biologists of our time, and the author of major works of straight science. In his On Human Nature, he calmly assures us that evolution is a myth that is now ready to take over Christianity."

Michael Ruse: Science, March 7 2003 p. 1524

 

John Polkinghorne PhD, Professor of Mathematical Physics Cambridge

'People who tell you that 'Science tells you everything you need to know about the world' or 'Science tells you that religion is all wrong' or 'Science tells you there is no God', those people aren't telling you scientific things. They are saying metaphysical things and they have to defend their positions from metaphysical reasons.'

John Polkinghorne PhD; Expelled, April 18 2008

 

William Provine PhD Professor of Biology Cornell

'Creationists will have to speak louder. I continue to support those who would like to have their voices heard in biology classes. I encourage the effort to limit the teaching of evolutionary biology until such time as evolutionists encourage a more inclusive participation of students. The very idea of the American Civil Liberties Union conspiring with evolutionary biologists to limit the free speech of the majority of the high school students in this country is grotesque.'

William Provine PhD; Darwinism, Design and Public Education 2003, p. 511

 

 

'Scientists committed to philosophical naturalism do not claim to have found the precise answer to every problem, but they characteristically insist that they have the important problems sufficiently well in hand that they can narrow the field of possibilities to a set of naturalistic alternatives. Absent that insistence, they would have to concede that their commitment to naturalism is based upon faith rather than proof. Such a concession could be exploited by promoters of rival sources of knowledge, such as philosophy and religion, who would be quick to point out that faith in naturalism is no more "scientific" (i.e. empirically based) than any other kind of faith.'

Phillip Johnson Professor of Law; Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism, October 1990

 

 

'The public should view with profound alarm this unnecessary and misguided reintroduction of speculative historical, philosophical and religious ideas into the realms of experimental science.

Through the writings of neo-Darwinian biologists, they have subsumed many of the biological experimental discoveries of the 20th century. This is so despite the fact that those discoveries were neither predicted nor heuristically guided by evolutionary theory.'

Philip Skell PhD; The Dangers of overselling Evolution, February 23 2009

 

 

 

Hey Enoch, You said “Aren't Facts, TRUTH?”

 

Technically, the answer is no. Facts are observations; i.e. articles or data measurements. If they exist, they are rationally indisputable – but only given the unverifiable faith premise that observations can be trusted (which we generally all adhere to).

 

Truth is a claim about ultimate reality. It is an absolutist concept which places it beyond the scope of science. That is, science only attributes confidence and probability to claims about truth – but can never itself legitimately proclaim a truth (because we don’t know what we don’t know). There is always the possibility that some new discovery could undermine everything we previously thought we knew about an issue.

 

For the longest time, society has been under the misapprehension that science does deal in right/wrong, true/false etc. As such, scientists enjoyed the position of modern day prophets. A news article introduced with “scientists believe ...” had become the modern day equivalent of “thus saith the Lord”. And the scientific community did nothing to correct this false impression; addicted to their ideas being considered ‘gospel’ in broader society. In my opinion, this is why the scientific community became so offended by members of society having the gall to question them over climate change. I mean, how dare these unqualified peasants question our authoritaa – don’t they know that we are scientists – some even climate scientists? (But in reality, the scientific method has always permitted the scrutiny of any scientific claim.)

 

It is unfortunate that the scientific term “fact” is commonly misunderstood and misused to exaggerate scientific confidence in a particular, preferred truth claim (e.g. the claim that “Common Ancestry/evolution is a fact”).

 

 

Fact: something that actually exists; reality; truthhttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  28
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  1,046
  • Content Per Day:  0.27
  • Reputation:   194
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  09/25/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  09/30/1960

It is a tragedy that some people are taking a sound theory with good evidence and making a religion out of it. And like all powerful theories they may be modified or abandoned if a better one is found. And there is the opportunity for creation scientists. Give us something other than statements of faith!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

It is a tragedy that some people are taking a sound theory with good evidence and making a religion out of it. And like all powerful theories they may be modified or abandoned if a better one is found. And there is the opportunity for creation scientists. Give us something other than statements of faith!!!!

 

"It is a tragedy that some people"

 

"Some People"?     "....evolution is a myth that is now ready to take over Christianity." ----- Edward O. Wilson, rightfully regarded as one of the most outstanding professional evolutionary biologists of our time."

Michael Ruse: Science, March 7 2003 p. 1524

 

Edward O. Wilson is a little more than "some people."

 

 

Sound Theory?

 

Franklin M. Harold; Prof. Emeritus Biochemistry, Colorado State University, (evolutionist) .....

 

‘We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.

Harold, Franklin M: The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, 2001, p. 205. {Emphasis Mine}

 

Powerful Theories?

 

William Dembski PhD Mathematics

 

'Regardless of one's point of view, it's quite easy to see that Darwinism is not in the same league as the hard sciences. For instance, Darwinists will often compare their theory favorably to Einsteinian physics, claiming that Darwinism is just as well established as general relativity. Yet how many physicists, while arguing for the truth of Einsteinian physics, will claim that general relativity is as well established as Darwin’s theory? Zero.'

William Dembski PhD; Uncommon Dissent, 2004 p. xx

 

 

"And there is the opportunity for creation scientists. Give us something other than statements of faith!!!!"

 

How about these (Just a small taste)....

 

'‘My recent book resulted from many years of intense study.  This involved a complete re-evaluation of everything I thought I knew about evolutionary genetic theory. It systematically examines the problems underlying classic neo-Darwinian theory. The bottom line is that Darwinian theory fails on every level. It fails because: 1) mutations arise faster than selection can eliminate them; 2) mutations are overwhelmingly too subtle to be “selectable”; 3) “biological noise” and “survival of the luckiest” overwhelm selection; 4) bad mutations are physically linked to good mutations, so that they cannot be separated in inheritance (to get rid of the bad and keep the good). The result is that all higher genomes must clearly degenerate.'

John Sanford PhD Geneticist Cornell University (Inventor of the 'Gene Gun')

http://creation.com/geneticist-evolution-impossible

 

 

Michael Denton PhD Biochemistry

 

'To the skeptic, the proposition that the genetic programmes of higher organisms, consisting  of something close to a thousand million bits of information, equivalent to the sequence of letters in a small library of one thousand volumes, containing in encoded form countless  thousands of intricate algorithms controlling, specifying and ordering the growth and development of billions and billions of cells into the form of a complex organism, were composed by a purely random process is simply an affront to reason. But to the Darwinist the idea is accepted without a ripple of doubt -- the paradigm takes precedence!'

Michael Denton PhD; Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1986 p. 350

 

John Lennox Professor of Mathematics University of Oxford

 

'If we are prepared to look for scientific evidence of intelligent activity beyond our planet, why are we so hesitant about applying exactly the same thinking to what is on our planet? There seems here to be a glaring inconsistency which brings us to the nub of the question we referred to in the introduction: Is the attribution of intelligent design to the universe science? Scientists, we emphasize, seem quite happy to include forensic medicine and SETI in the realm of science. Why, then, the furore when some scientists claim that there is scientific evidence of intelligent causation in physics (small furore) or biology (large furore)? There is surely no difference in principle. Is the scientific method not applicable everywhere?'

John Lennox, God's Undertaker, (2007)  p.165-6

 

 

'Imagine you have traveled to Easter Island to view the famous Moai statues. A child beside you asks no one in particular, "Who carved these statues?" A man standing next to the kid look over the top of his glasses and asks, "Why do you assume they're sculpted?" Dumbfounded by the question, the kid has no reply, so you rush to his aid. "The carvings manifest a pattern that conforms to the shape of a human face. The match in the patterns is too close and the figures are too intricate, for it to be mere coincidence." The man scoffs. "Don't tell me you've been reading intelligent-design propaganda, all of that rubbish about specified complexity? Let me ask you this: Who sculpted the sculptor? Who designed the designer? Do you see the problem? Your reasoning leads to an infinite regress. Who designed the designer's designer's designer's designer's..." The child, appropriately unimpressed by this display of erudition, rolls his eyes an mutters under his breath, "Yeah. But I know someone carved these." And, indeed, someone did.'

Stephen Myer PhD; Signature in the Cell  2009,  p. 390-1

 

Carl Woese PhD Professor Microbiology

 

'By now the lesson is obvious: hold classical evolutionary concepts up to the light of reason and modern evidence before weaving an evolutionary tapestry around them. Most of them will turn out to be fluid conjectures that 19th century biologists used to stimulate their thinking, but conjectures that have now, with repetition over time, become chiseled in stone: modern concepts of cellular evolution are effectively petrified versions of 19th century speculations.'

Carl Woese PhD; A New Biology for a New Century, June 2004

 

David Berlinski PhD Mathematics and Molecular Biology

 

'Before you can ask 'Is Darwinian theory correct or not?', You have to ask the preliminary question 'Is it clear enough so that it could be correct?'. That's a very different question. One of my prevailing doctrines about Darwinian theory is 'Man, that thing is just a mess. It's like looking into a room full of smoke.' Nothing in the theory is precisely, clearly, carefully defined or delineated. It lacks all of the rigor one expects from mathematical physics, and mathematical physics lacks all the rigor one expects from mathematics. So we're talking about a gradual descent down the level of intelligibility until we reach evolutionary biology.'

David Berlinski PhD; Expelled, April 18 2008

 

Richard Feyman PhD, Professor or Theoretical Physics California Institute of Technology (Nobel Prize Physics)

 

'Another thing I must point out is that you cannot prove a vague theory wrong. If the guess that you make is poorly expressed and rather vague, and the method that you use for figuring out the consequences is a little vague - you are not sure, and you say, ‘I think everything’s right because it’s all due to so and so, and such and such do this and that more or less, and I can sort of explain how this works'...then you see that this theory is good, because it cannot be proved wrong! Also if the process of computing the consequences is indefinite, then with a little skill any experimental results can be made to look like the expected consequences.'

Richard Feyman PhD; The Character of Physical Law, pp.158-159

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
It is a tragedy that some people are taking a sound theory with good evidence and making a religion out of it.

 

 Evolution is not a theory and it is not sound.   It is, at best, an untested hypothesis.  No evdience of one kind of creature evolving into a completely different creature has EVER been found.    Moths and bacteria strains are not evolution.  

 

And like all powerful theories they may be modified or abandoned if a better one is found. And there is the opportunity for creation scientists. Give us something other than statements of faith!!!!

 

 

The problem is that creation scientists are shut down before they can even speak.   They are degreed scientists with advanced degrees in physics, chemistry, various fields of biology, geology, etc, but because they dare to think for themselves and do not believe the evidence supports things like the Big Bang or Evolution they are blackballed out of the scientific community, denied the right to submit anything for peer review and then condemned because they don't have any peer-reviewed research. 

 

Even though they graduated with the same degrees issued by the same universities and to pursue the same coursework as atheistic, evolutionist scientists, creation scientists are belittled and declared to be nonscientific, uneducated Bible thumpers.

 

They are locked out of the scientific community at large, their research is ignored, but then are condemned for allegedly not producing any research and are said not to be scientists.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  64
  • Content Per Day:  0.02
  • Reputation:   18
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/13/2014
  • Status:  Offline

Defending creationism is important not because people need proof. Because they need to know creationism is an intelligent view. Humanist have been zooming in on our youth, elementary thru collage. God speaks to the world thru his creation.

The heavens declare the glory of God. The skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out to all the earth, their words to the ends of the world... Psalms 19:1-4

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Seeker
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,033
  • Content Per Day:  0.28
  • Reputation:   67
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  12/26/2013
  • Status:  Offline

Interesting that off all the quotes above about evolution, only two of those folks are YECers, the rest believe in a earth way more than 6000 years old. Why are their views on evolution taken seriously but not on the age of the universe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357

Interesting that off all the quotes above about evolution, only two of those folks are YECers, the rest believe in a earth way more than 6000 years old. Why are their views on evolution taken seriously but not on the age of the universe?

Both YECers and OECers agree that evolution is wrong.  Why can't we stand together on the issues we do agree upon, even though there are issues about which we disagree?

 

It shows intellectual honesty to be able to find common ground of agreement stand shoulder to shoulder on those things.  It is no differnt than denominations who disagree over some things, but being able to find common ground on some issues and working together on those things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  48
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  1,363
  • Content Per Day:  0.35
  • Reputation:   403
  • Days Won:  5
  • Joined:  08/01/2013
  • Status:  Offline

 

 

It is true that our "world view" reflects how we interpret everything, even in science.

 

The weakness of science, as I see it, is forcing everyone to assume a Naturalistic world view - the view that "nature" is all that there is, no spiritual realm influencing us, no "supreme being" of any sort who is in command of it all.

 

When speaking of the things of the past, I take on the habit of saying such things as, "It is believed that," or "It has been concluded that," rather than, "It is." After all, is that nor more correct?

Yeah. I think the issue is, you are assuming naturalism, if even for a moment, to do it. Then, you see how well it all works out, how powerful the predictions are, how well we can control the world thinking like that. For me, at any rate, it's hard not to exist in tension between this implicit 'success' of science, associate that with naturalism, vs the more 'unpredictable' nature of spiritual encounters with God.

 

 

 

"Why does it matter if evolution is true or not, why worry about it? Why does it matter if the universe is 14.5 billion years old or 10k yrs old? What does that affect anyway?"

 

 

As a Christian, I believe that the Bible is God’s highest authoritative communication to humanity. The primary purpose of the Bible is to reveal God to humanity, as well as His plan for our salvation. The Bible provides the fundamental premise of all Christian doctrine, ethics and philosophy including the nature of God and reason that salvation is necessary.

 

Opponents of Christianity have long understood that the most effective attacks against the Christian faith are those which undermine the reliability and authority of the Bible. Some non-Christian faiths have constructed their own scriptures through which they judge the Bible (e.g. Islam), others formulate new “scriptures”; permitting them to reinterpret the Bible (e.g. the Book of Mormon, Gnostic gospels etc.). Others simply change parts of scripture to suit what they believe (e.g. the Jehovah’s Witness Bible). There have been many recorded historical attempts to change the Bible; especially the New Testament (e.g. the Alexandrian manuscripts, Constantine’s attempt to standardise the Bible etc.).

 

Non-religious faiths (i.e. atheism, agnosticism) tend to prefer attacking the reliability of the Bible in other ways. For example, vast lists of alleged Bible contradictions have been formulated in an attempt to undermine the Bible; based on the implied accusation of logical inconsistency. In some cases they simply utilize the logical fallacy known as Appeal to Ridicule by mocking the supernatural claims made in the Bible (e.g. talking animals, “magical sky Daddy” & “zombie Jesus” etc.) – thinking themselves to be ever so clever. But by far the most aggressive and successful attacks against the authority of scripture are those claiming the Bible to be scientifically untenable.

 

Science (as we understand it) requires the assumption of a rationally ordered universe. That is, in order for us to be able to attribute scientific confidence to a claim, we have to assume that the laws which govern our universe are constant through time and space, and that identical experiments will thus yield identical results.

 

Scientific advancement stalled in several ancient cultures because they lacked any justification for assuming a rationally ordered universe. However, science prospered under the Christian paradigm which justifies this fundamental assumption (by invoking a rational Creator). This is why Christianity has been the foremost sponsor of scientific advancement for the best part of the last 2000 years; and why the founding scientists of almost all scientific disciplines were explicitly Christian; and why the oldest science universities (e.g. Oxford) were built by the church. Science was originally conducted to glorify the Biblical God through investigation of His creation.

 

However, roughly 300 years ago, a new paradigm was suggested for science which we now call naturalism. Naturalism is a paradigm whereby only natural explanations can be considered to qualify as truth – and therefore is a faith-based paradigm that unjustifiably prohibits the possibility of any supernatural interaction with the physical universe). This new paradigm has been so thoroughly adopted by the broader scientific community that it has become the only type of science that most people are exposed to. This creates the false impression that naturalistic science is logically superior to science performed from other faith-based perspectives.

 

This secular indoctrination of the naturalistic perspective makes it easy for its proponents to make unjustified, Innuendo-based claims that with their position; “you see how well it all works out, how powerful the predictions are, how well we can control the world thinking like that”; and to simply equate their own position as “science” with its “implicit 'success'” – with the obvious implication that opposing positions are not “science”. They furthermore demonstrate no knowledge of the predictive power and consistency of models formulated around alternative faith perspectives; and again appealing to logical fallacy (Innuendo and Strawman Misrepresentations) proceeding to falsely characterise opposing views as unscientific (i.e. “the more 'unpredictable' nature of spiritual encounters with God”) in contrast against their own preferred, allegedly “scientific” perspective.

 

The defence of Biblical authority is of paramount importance to the success of Christian conversion and life. I have encountered many who outright reject Christianity because they think is it scientifically unsustainable based on what is taught in the Bible. And others who fall away from Christianity because they cannot reconcile their faith in naturalistic science with their faith in the reliability of the Bible. Yet as someone who is formally educated in science, I have never encountered an argument or evidence that would warrant a wholesale rejection of the Biblical model of reality (including the creation account). I have searched, and I have found no objective scientific reason that would necessarily, logically bind anyone to the naturalistic models. In other words, as much as our culture and the secular scientific community would like you to believe that theirs is the only rational argument, their expressed levels of confidence in their own position is neither scientifically, or logically, justified. And there is therefore no legitimate reason for a Christian to believe they are obligated to distrust the account of history presented in the Bible. Any such adherence to secular models is based on faith in the naturalistic paradigm, not any objective consideration of the science itself.

 

Thanks for the contribution Tristen. I admit, I am unsure what your upshot is. I'm not sure what you are intending with my quotes. Are you thinking I am trying to promote naturalism or merely implicitly taken in? I don't think that experiences with God being unpredictable is inaccurate insofar as God is a Person and not a thing. Is your point that the dilemma I am experiencing is ultimately unnecessary? That may be so but not really the point of my OP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  48
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  1,363
  • Content Per Day:  0.35
  • Reputation:   403
  • Days Won:  5
  • Joined:  08/01/2013
  • Status:  Offline

 

 

 When I want to know what is 'really real' where do I turn? If I had to put my future income on the line? my family? At the risk of exposing myself, I admit, I have struggled with this sort of thing. I instinctually believe 'the science'. I am challenged to have faith and see the 'greater' reality, the real reality, as being in God. For many of us, there is a tension there. I doesn't have to be that way, but it is. I have personally been convicted of having less faith while engaging in research. There are things happening that way I don't even really understand yet, which is for me a reason I engage in these discussions at all.

 

This isn't just about being curious about the world, or enjoying science as some hobby or career choice. At issue is a fundamental approach to the world. And insofar as I am correct in understanding the YEC crowd, I think they are correct about that.

 

I don't think its as important as you think. Just keep your faith strong, you believe Jesus did walk the earth, and did die for your sins. This is faith in the word, saving faith. When your life/career is on the line regarding this I'm sure you will choose truth rather than compromise.

 

Regarding the apparent conflict between the bible and science, I believe let your heart rule. If your heart goes with science then so be it, you still believe in the core gospel message and you are keeping your faith secure so these are just peripheral issues. BUT... if your heart starts to doubt the mainstream scientific thought, then if that new thinking becomes definite truth to you, then you should not compromise the truth in favor of your career.  And often the heart has a greater take on truth than our stubborn and finite minds which are full of bias and preconceived ideas.  

 

So in essence let the science speak to your heart. When you read a creationist comment, or an evolutionist comment, let your unbiased sense of what is real truth speak to you.

 

(the Holy Spirit communicates in this way, giving you a deep sense of truth when you read something, confirming it or denying it.)

 

That all very well may be so Argosy. I can see wisdom in trying to let it go for a while. It all seems so impossible to me on the intellectual level it may be pointless to proceed that way at the time (at least this is what I get from this haha).

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

 

Both YECers and OECers agree that evolution is wrong.  Why can't we stand together on the issues we do agree upon, even though there are issues about which we disagree?

 

It shows intellectual honesty to be able to find common ground of agreement stand shoulder to shoulder on those things.  It is no differnt than denominations who disagree over some things, but being able to find common ground on some issues and working together on those things.

 

 

It's tantamount to having: Aaron Rogers, Tom Brady, Drew Brees, and Peyton Manning agree on the tenets of throwing a 15 yard post....but all disagree on what their favorite shampoo is. Then question why we should trust their judgement on the 15 yard post because they clearly don't all believe in head & shoulders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...