A little more irony.

| 317 Comments

Here’s an interesting take on why theistic evolution (TE) might be a bad position to hold:

So essentially, both Dawkins and Miller see no evidence of design, and their philosophy as to how evolution works is the same, yet Dawkins follows that evidence and declares the world is without a designer and Miller claims to believe there is a designer. Bizarre. So Miller apparently, like most TE’s, holds to his religious beliefs on faith ~alone~. That’s the problems with TE’s - they can give you no reason whatsoever as to why they believe what they do in regard to their religious beliefs other than they take it all on faith. (source)

Here’s why it’s interesting (at The Questionable Authority):

317 Comments

This is some really funny stuff. I am lmbo. (laughing my bum off)

So basically what is said in the article: mr.Miller is just a believer, and mr.Dawkins is a real scientist.

Well mr.Miller has a lot of things where he have to find an answer for. But in the meanwhile he kept to his theory, and thinks well, eventually we will find the answers. That makes him a believer.

You probably feel it coming now, right?

I.D. movement they showed so unbelievable big gaps in evolution, without any person be able to fill in these gaps, or answer the questions. But,.…. till you guys find the answers you guys in the meanwhile keep to your theory. That also makes you, just a believer. Bizarre.… With exactly the same reasoning as you placed Mr.Miller in the “believer-corner”. And every day more and more questions will raise.

I am curious to your responses. uh oh

Peace, PatricktheDutch

Some people like a god of the gaps.

Some people don’t.

(shrug)

That’s the problems with TE’s - they can give you no reason whatsoever as to why they believe what they do in regard to their religious beliefs other than they take it all on faith.

So, are you implying that those scientists who are theists must abandon their faith in order to be classified as real scientists ? Or Christians who accept evolutionary science but feel God guided the process (from a philosophical point of view), must now become atheists ? This is exactly what AIG and co. want to hear.

Gentlemen:

For the record, I’m a believer but also a Darwinian who understands that ‘theistic evolution’ is *not* a scientific position. It’s theology, and therein lies the rub, as far as the source of this business is concerned.

The IDevotee eager to undercut Miller’s position is not doing so out of desire to promote reason as a strategy or to cleave religion from science, etc. Far from it!

Rather, they are eager to knock Miller because in their minds he constitutes a greater *threat*. Miller’s personal take on evolution is a theological position, a rival to their theology—and most definitely not a godless rival.

This may wound the vanity of many here, but the truth is that creationists are not the least bit frightened by professed atheists. You are a convenient ‘bogey man’ for these folk, since skeptics who don’t invoke God in any fashion can be easily (albeit unjustly) dismissed in the churches with the ad hominem ‘of course he/she’s just an atheist.’

They can’t do that with Miller, and that’s the *real* reason guys like Philip Johnson have said that people like Miller are the greater threat.

Respectfully submitted.…SH

Scientists who are also believers don’t have to give up their faith. They just have to render unto science what is science’s and render unto God what is God’s, if you will. Evolutionary theory has rendered evolution unto science, so it makes no more sense to say God guided the process from a philosophical view any more than it would make sense to say God guided the Pittsburgh Steelers Super bowl win. There is no evidence that God was needed to guide either task, so believers need to find something else for him to do.

There’s nothing bizarre about it. If we expect religiously inclined people to just give it all up, we’re shoveling poop against the tide. The best we can hope for is that religious people will retreat to a position where all that’s left is personal faith. Then they’ll leave everyone else alone, and stop trying to inject logic into a premise that’s inherently illogical.

“Or Christians who accept evolutionary science but feel God guided the process (from a philosophical point of view), must now become atheists?”

I think that this is taking it too far, though perhaps it is more right than wrong. If a Christian takes the Bible seriously, I think there are some serious issues with turning the beginning of Genesis into anything other than a strictly literal account. There are Biblical issues that arise, such as Paul’s views on women: “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” (1 Tim. 2:11-14) This is technically wrong, as Adam certainly was deceived; nonetheless, that issue aside, Paul still presupposes that the fall actually happened. In fact, he’s so sure that it happened that he considers it a valid argument for silencing women (ie. keeping them from teaching).

Likewise, Paul’s view of original sin seems to require a literal interpretation of Genesis (1 Cor. 15:21-22, 47-49; Rom. 5:12-19), and I think it could be argued that (given Paul’s argument), if a specific, literal Adam had not “fallen,” then a specific, literal Christ would not be necessary (some Eastern Christians would disagree, and claim that Christ would have been necessary even without the fall, but that’s probably not a very widely held belief, and is another subject).

When I was a Christian, it was not the scientific evidence for evolution that caused me concern, but it was the theological issues that worried me. Between my reading of Scripture and the Church Fathers I came to believe that some of the central tenets of Christianity were based on (and required) a literal interpretation of Genesis. So while I was Russian Orthodox at the time, I could understand what all those Evangelical-types were fussing about. They act like their entire belief system would crumble if evolution were true. And, I think they are right.

As to how people like Dr. Miller and Theodosius Dobzhansky can believe in evolution and remain theists, I don’t know. Perhaps they found some way through the theological maze that I missed. But if they did, I can’t see the path that they took.

so it makes no more sense to say God guided the process from a philosophical view any more than it would make sense to say God guided the Pittsburgh Steelers Super bowl win

I think most scientists who are Christians, and Christians who accept evolutionary science realise that theistic evolution is not science. It’s just our way of reconciling science with our faith. Christians like myself Mark, who find the whole YEC thing total nonsense, have no problem with theistic evolution. However, according to YEC’s, the one thing that evolution does is to remove the need for God in the equation. Therefore, belief in evolution leads to lawlessness, sexual immorality, racism, and all the other things that are wrong with the world (Ken Miller mentioned this in his talk in Ohio). I think most sensible Christians don’t accept this. However, attacks on the Christian faith by scientists who say that science proves you don’t need God only reinforces the position of the YEC’s, in my opinion. I think that in light of the current increasingly bitter debate, scientists who hold this opinion would be better saying nothing (even Richard Dawkins has admitted this !). What are they trying to do ? Are they attempting to alienate all Christians ?

I understand what you’re saying, Peter, and don’t necessarily disagree from the strategic standpoint (that the theistic, agnostic, and atheistic pro-science camp needs to remain united against the anti-science camp).

But I’m still waiting for verification of the oft-repeated claim that PZ, Dawkins, Dennett or other “scientists … say that science proves you don’t need God…”

As we all know, science isn’t in the “proof” business in the first place. It’s a tentative affair, all about the best fit to the data.

Please present me with an instance of any of these folks making the claim that science “proves” anything, much less that it “proves” that we don’t need God (that some of the scientists listed don’t believe in God, don’t think that science can “prove” God, maintain that we can live our lives and engage in science without worrying about the existence of God one way or another, and even recommend that religios belief tends to cause greater problems than it resolves, I accept, but those are different propositions).

I think many of us here, and even such as Ken Miller, are guilty of accepting the IDiot misrepresentations of what these folks are actually claiming…

I just about fell out of my chair laughing at that one. Classic irony from a group of professional charletans. Quite frankly, their opinions on theology are just as bad as the science they claim supports ID.

Peter Henderson wrote:

I think that in light of the current increasingly bitter debate, scientists who hold this opinion would be better saying nothing (even Richard Dawkins has admitted this !). What are they trying to do ? Are they attempting to alienate all Christians ?

Riiight, we should be quiet and pretend we don’t exist or believe what we believe while you and many others go out there and tell lies about what we believe?

Evolution has very little to do with why I’m an atheist and a militant agnostic, but Darwin’s theory still does have theological implications. I think Justin hit on some of the reasons why the Bible and evolution do not jibe (like how Paul’s arguments about women and original sin are undermined).

But like everybody keeps pointing out in other threads, Christianity is not the be all and end all of religion. It’s just the religion that is producing American creationists.

The battle between Theistic evolutionists and the Dawkins’s camp is who gets to pick up the people who fall of the creationist wagon. They do fall off once in awhile and each of our sides is going to try to sway them.

That battle has to go on.

Dunford: “That’s the problems with TE’s - they can give you no reason whatsoever as to why they believe what they do in regard to their religious beliefs other than they take it all on faith.”

I’ll offer this reason..

1Ti 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

Creation Science Bible Guy wrote:

I’ll offer this reason..

1Ti 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

So, you think you can use theology and the Bible to tell real science from “science falsely so called” ??

How does that work for you?

But I’m still waiting for verification of the oft-repeated claim that PZ, Dawkins, Dennett or other “scientists … say that science proves you don’t need God…”

This type of sentiment doesn’t help Stevie:

http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/[…]8706,00.html

The battle between Theistic evolutionists and the Dawkins’s camp is who gets to pick up the people who fall of the creationist wagon.

I’ve never been a young Earth creationist. I would imagine that Ken Miller has never been one either. There are a lot of people like myself in the church who are of the same opinion. Unfortunately, it seems to be the YEC’s that are gaining the upper hand at the moment with claims that seem persuasive to those who have no background in science.

NormDoering:”So, you think you can use theology and the Bible to tell real science from “science falsely so called” ??

How does that work for you?”

I’ll guess I won’t be winning anyone over here, but I’ll give it a shot. When God created Adam, he wasn’t created as an infant, but as a man - perhaps 20’s or 30’s. In the same way, when the universe was created, it was created with the appearance of being billions of years old. I suppose I should have changed my screen name to YEC.

Peter, thanks for the link, but I still didn’t see a claim from Dawkins–even at secondhand, and even in a friendly review that did not rely much on quotes–that “science disproves God.”

Sure, I saw that Dawkins dismantled various purported “proofs” of God but, again, that’s not the same thing.

And I’m sure that you aren’t here offering to “prove” God, either…

I’ll even go so far as to admit that the fundy religious of the world probably don’t make–or see–this distinction.

But I still think it’s an important one to make, among the pro-science forces of various religious bents (or non-bents); and, just possibly, for the occasional fundy who might be open-minded enough to grasp it: neither science as a whole nor evolution in particular “disproves” God, or tries to do so.

Even atheist scientists don’t claim that science or evolution “disprove” God–however comfortable they may render that scientist with his or her atheism.

And no matter how “deluded” the atheist scientist might argue that the faithful are–that argument is still not based on a scientific “disproof” of God (though science may well disable some of the attempted “proofs” of God, that again is a different claim).

BibleCreationGuy: “In the same way, when the universe was created, it was created with the appearance of being billions of years old. I suppose I should have changed my screen name to YEC.”

Appearance of age dealt with by Dobzhansky, an Orthodox Christian. Doesn’t say much for God:

“One can suppose that the Creator saw fit to play deceitful tricks on geologists and biologists. He carefully arranged to have various rocks provided with isotope ratios just right to mislead us into thinking that certain rocks are 2 billion years old, others 2 million, which in fact they are only some 6,000 years old. This kind of pseudo-explanation is not very new. One of the early antievolutionists, P. H. Gosse, published a book entitled Omphalos (‘the Navel’). The gist of this amazing book is that Adam, though he had no mother, was created with a navel, and that fossils were placed by the Creator where we find them now – a deliberate act on His part, to give the appearance of great antiquity and geologic upheaveals. It is easy to see the fatal flaw in all such notions. They are blasphemies, accusing God of absurd deceitfulness. This is as revolting as it is uncalled for.…Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts. As pointed out above, the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness.” (Dobzhansky, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution”)

Biologist and Catholic Kenneth Miller writes:

“In order to defend God against the challenge they see from evolution, they have had to make Him into a schemer, a trickster, even a charlatan. Their version of God is one who intentionally plants misleading clues beneath our feet and in the heavens themselves. Their version of God is one who has filled the universe with so much bogus evidence that the tools of science can give us nothing more than a phony version of reality. In other words, their God has negated science by rigging the universe with fiction and deception. To embrace that God, we must reject science and worship deception itself.….One can, of course, imagine a Creator who could have produced all of the illusions that the creationists claim to find in nature. In order to do so, we must simultaneously conclude that science can tell us nothing about nature, and that the Creator to whom many of us pray is inherently deceitful. Such so-called creation science, thoroughly analyzed, corrupts both science and religion, and it deserves a place in the intellectual wastebasket.” (Kenneth Miller, Finding Darwin’s God, page 80)

Oops the verse from 1 Timothy is one AnswersInGenesis says not to use.

“The phrase ‘science falsely so called’ in 1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV) refers to evolution.”

http://www.answersingenesis.org/hom[…]dont_use.asp

How we know the earth is very old

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p14.htm

Phil P

Philvaz: “.…rocks provided with isotope ratios just right to mislead us into thinking that certain rocks are 2 billion years old.…”

You have to assume make assumptions about C14 inventory, particularly that the C12 worldwide inventory has not changed. C14 isotope is produced by the action of cosmic ray activity. Cosmic rays are formed from energy sources such as the sun, stars, and possibly super nova explosions. Thus, at the beginning of time, when the light bearers were created, there was little or no C14.

Bible Guy wrote:

When God created Adam, he wasn’t created as an infant, but as a man - perhaps 20’s or 30’s. In the same way, when the universe was created, it was created with the appearance of being billions of years old.

Oy Vey! We’ve got another AirHead Dave on our hands: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bi[…];f=14;t=1958

Now now Norm no name calling..

…it would make sense to say God guided the Pittsburgh Steelers Super bowl win.

That was the Immaculate Reception in the late ’70s. Superbowl XL is courtesy the referees!

Shiva:

Superbowl XL is courtesy the referees!

Got that right!

Though I find it suspicious that the refs all attend the Church of Nfl…

And that the bulk of the games are scheduled…on Sunday.

There could well be a conspiracy within a conspiracy involved here.

Hey! Creation Science Bible Guy, or whatever anonymous Net persona you want to adopt:

Did you notice the passage from Miller’s book? Did you read it? Did you understand that it is a very pointed criticism of your views?

After all, a God who deliberately makes the universe appear much older than it actually is doesn’t sound like the “Way, the Truth and the Light”! Your theology asks us to believe in, to worship a God who lies to us? Why would any Supreme Being find it necessary to do that, and WHY should anyone worship a God who is a liar?

The truth is, what’s being denied by the scientific community is not God, but a particular theological position regarding God and the Bible. If you are so in love with your position on scripture that you would call God a liar, what are you REALLY worshiping? A god, or your own limited understanding?

Scott

Ding!

Time’s up.

I’m sure you don’t belive that God is a liar..

Pro 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

Mat 13:10-11 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

And there you have it, right from the Bible you take as God’s word:

Creation Science Bible Guy wrote:

I’m sure you don’t belive that God is a liar..

Pro 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

Don’t think, just believe.

Mat 13:10-11 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

And you don’t even get to understand what you believe.

There’s an argument against the Bible (or against science) right from the creationist’s mouth.

Like normdoering I didn’t become an atheist because of evolution, I quite happily accepted evolution and my christianity. My main reason was more to do with reading about the mind and consciousness but that’s another story.

I agree that atheists shouldn’t be quiet about our beliefs. However, it also up to us atheists to try and turn this demonisation around. I think that more atheists being vocal (not militant just open about their atheism). It is harder to demonise a group when everybody finds that they know one or two in the group and that they don’t go around eating babies but are hardworking trying to make ends meet like everybody else.

As for ChristianScienceBibleGuy, I think he is of a species that is going to disappear. I know that is sometimes looks hopeless but I think they (and ID) did their dash in Dover. The exposure to the world in the harsh light of the court room show the vacuousness of it. The current generation will manage to maintain their disconnect with reality but by enforcing obviously false evidence they are going to blow it with the next generation. Telling kids if Genesis is false then the Bible is false is a bad mistake. They might be able to remove books from bookstores and the libraries but the internet is another matter. Nine and ten year olds are on the internet now. How long before the more curious find out that the stuff on AIG is a joke. It’ll only take one per fundie school class and it will spread like pornography used to spread around the catholic school I used to go to. AIG is stuck 20 years in the past. My favourite is the fossil record. There is no mixing of layers. No rabbits with the T-Rex’s. AIG’s answer is that dinosaurs were big slow creatures and settled in their layer. My six year daughter (she wants to be a dinosour vet, bless her) knows that there were many small, fast dinosaurs as well.

Michael

I’m sure you don’t believe that God is against reason.

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD… (Isaiah 1:18 KJV)

Walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time. Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:5-6 KJV)

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason… (1 Peter 3:15 KJV)

Be not deceived; God is not mocked; the earth is very very old (Gal 6:7 New Dalrymple Translation) :-)

Phil P

Creation Science Bible Guy, now let me get this straight.

In the same way, when the universe was created, it was created with the appearance of being billions of years old.

So you agree then, that the evidence (which is what science is based on and is all that matters in science) shows that the universe is old, in direct contradiction to a literal interpretation of Genesis?

Can we now conclude that you agree that the claims made by Creationists and IDers are scientifically baseless? Can we now conclude that your beliefs are based on biblical information that is contrary to scientific information, and that you will therefore support keeping your religious beliefs (which you seem to say are contrary to all scientific data) out of science classes?

Carol Clouser Wrote:

I have heard it said that had the Bible remained unknown until last year and was then found in some cave in a rotting, crumbling vessel and archeologists would have required many years to put the pieces together, historians and archeologists would all have jumped up and down beside themselves, announcing the discovery of a major, valid source of information regarding the distant past. If it claimed a flood 5000 years ago, then a flood there must have been! After all, if another crumbling document is found today in some cave describing a flood 5000 years ago, it would most likely be considered as valid evidence. What is different about the Bible?

You don’t seriously think historical research works that way, do you? King Arthur and the Round Table show up in some crumbling documents, therefore we believe in King Arthur? Someone finds an old parchment which mentions dragons, therefore dragons existed?

alienward, this conversation doesn’t seem to be going anywhere, so I’m going to bow out now.

Thought Provoker wrote:

“I don’t think you fully appreciate just how sick scientists are.”

You ought to be ashamed making a comment like that. If all people and societies emulated the scientific method in their lives, that is to approach life’s mysteries with reason and deliberation, the world would be a MUCH BETTER place to live in. And we would all be treating each other as the Bible demands and most religions (with the notable exception of Islam) claim to be advocating.

Anton,

“You don’t seriously think historical research works that way, do you?.….Someone finds an old parchment which mentions dragons, therefore dragons existed?”

Depends on what you mean by “that way”. Do we base an awful lot on ancient documents? Of course, we do. Is the mere “mention” of something outlandish proof that it exited? Of course, not. It certainly helps if there is corroboration. But a single apparently credible document does launch working hypotheses. It has happened before and it will certainly happen again.

Carol Clouser Wrote:

But a single apparently credible document does launch working hypotheses. It has happened before and it will certainly happen again.

A “working hypothesis” is very different from “If it claimed a flood 5000 years ago, then a flood there must have been!”

Folks,

We are rapidly approaching Yom Kippur here in the beautiful Garden State, ushering in the holiest day of the Jewish calendar. About this day the Hebrew Bible tells us to “afflict your souls”, which the sages interpret to mean no eating, no drinking (even water), no sex, and various other comforts and pleasures. This applies to a 24 hour period from sunset on Sunday to sunset on Monday.

Before turning to God on this Day of Atonement and asking for forgiveness for sins committed against God, we turn to each other and ask for forgiveness for offenses we committed toward each other. God does not forgive such sins until the victim of said offense grants his forgiveness and is made whole.

This period also ushers in the New Year of 5767, the number of years since Adam in the Bible appeared on the scene. No, he was not the first human, nor does the Hebrew Bible make any such claim or even hint at such.

So, I wish all my friends at Panda’s Thumb a happy, peaceful and prosperous New Year and ask anyone I have offended to please forgive and forget. I will try to do better from here on, and so should we all.

Agreed.

If all people and societies emulated the scientific method in their lives, that is to approach life’s mysteries with reason and deliberation

Um, Carol, that is not what the scientific method is.

The scientific method consists of five simple steps (none of which can be followed by any religion). They are:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe

2. Form a hypothesis that potentially explains what you have observed

3. Make testible predictions from that hypothesis

4. Make observations or experiments that can test those predictions

5. Modify your hypothesis until it is in accord with all observations and predictions

Are you following those five simple steps? Congratulations – you are doing science.

Not following those five simple steps? Then you’re NOT doing science – no matter HOW much “reason” and “deliberation” you think you are using.

Your (or Judah Landa’s) Biblical interpretations simply are not, and cannot ever be, “scientifically” any more valid than anyone else’s. No matter HOW much you’d like them to be. (shrug)

That is the difference between science, and religious apologetics.

Are you following those five simple steps? Congratulations — you are doing science.

Not following those five simple steps? Then you’re NOT doing science — no matter HOW much “reason” and “deliberation” you think you are using.

But don’t feel bad, Carol — the hyper-atheists here make the very same mistake, every time they proclaim that THEIR religious and philosophical opinions are “scientific”.

In the final analysis, there’s just not much difference between them and you. Different sides of the same coin. Yin to your Yang. (shrug)

HI Lenny,

Do you suppose one can engage in ANY of those five steps of yours without “reasoning” and “deliberating”?

I wrote… “I don’t think you fully appreciate just how sick scientists are. Not only wouldn’t they be disappointed, they would be thrilled! “

Carol Clouser Wrote:

You ought to be ashamed making a comment like that. If all people and societies emulated the scientific method in their lives, that is to approach life’s mysteries with reason and deliberation, the world would be a MUCH BETTER place to live in. And we would all be treating each other as the Bible demands and most religions (with the notable exception of Islam) claim to be advocating.

I should have known better than to make an informal remark like that. I was trying to make a point similar to what the Rev. Dr. Lenny made. Atheists might be disappointed, scientists wouldn’t be. What you suggested would be just another scientific observation that needs to be explained. Hypotheses would need to be created and adjusted. More verifying experiments would need to be performed.

Whether or not the enjoyment of such detailed, turn-the-crank activity is the sign of a well-adjusted individual is a matter of opinion. Yes, I applaud their efforts, but being somewhat of an obsessive-compulsive individual myself, I think it takes a “special” way of looking at things that isn’t mainstream behavior. In short, I meant “sick” in a good way as only a similarly “sick” individual can.

For those who would like to read a thorough survey of what is actually known about Mesopotamia in the period under (some posters) discussion, try

A. Kuhrt, The ancient near east, c. 3000–330 BC, vols 1 & 2, Rutledge, 1995.

Carol:

So, I wish all my friends at Panda’s Thumb a happy, peaceful and prosperous New Year and ask anyone I have offended to please forgive and forget. I will try to do better from here on, and so should we all.

Agreed.

And while we’re at it, let’s not forget to–

Spread the word: End A War! Save A Gerbil!

David:

For those who would like to read a thorough survey of what is actually known about Mesopotamia in the period under (some posters) discussion, try

A. Kuhrt, The ancient near east, c. 3000—330 BC, vols 1 & 2, Rutledge, 1995.

Boy, does Carol have a book for you!

Thought provoker,

I guess I misunderstood your comment. Sorry about that.

Do you suppose one can engage in ANY of those five steps of yours without “reasoning” and “deliberating”?

So what. One can’t engage in literary criticism either without “reasoning” and “deliberating”. That doesn’t make literary criticism “science”.

Five steps, Carol. Got ‘em? Then it’s science. Don’t? Then it ain’t.

And yes, that means your religious interpretations (and Landa’s) aren’t science.

Sorry if you don’t like that. (shrug)

Wow… 314 comments. I’m surprised you folks are still on this one.

Lenny,

Are you feeling well? You seem to be losing your touch.

I was saying the scientists base their activities on reason and deliberation, in contrast to some folks who base opinions and beliefs on an absence of (adequate) reason and deliberation.

So, what on earth is your point?

And I never argued that “my” interpretations or translations constitute “science”. Instead, I argue that they constitute superior linguistics.

So, again, what pray tell is your point?

So, what on earth is your point?

My point is crashingly simple, Carol.

You wrote:

If all people and societies emulated the scientific method in their lives, that is to approach life’s mysteries with reason and deliberation

I wrote:

Um, Carol, that is not what the scientific method is.

The scientific method consists of five simple steps (none of which can be followed by any religion).

Not following those five simple steps? Then you’re NOT doing science — no matter HOW much “reason” and “deliberation” you think you are using.

The I added:

But don’t feel bad, Carol — the hyper-atheists here make the very same mistake, every time they proclaim that THEIR religious and philosophical opinions are “scientific”.

In the final analysis, there’s just not much difference between them and you. Different sides of the same coin. Yin to your Yang. (shrug)

See the point now, Carol?

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Mike Dunford published on September 22, 2006 5:35 PM.

An Excellent Law Review Article on Creationism Law was the previous entry in this blog.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design Review: Quote-Mining, Trivializing, and Generally Getting it Wrong (Chapter 7) is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter