1 of 2
1
The Problem with Science (and Sam Harris)
Posted: 19 February 2005 01:10 PM   [ Ignore ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

The problem I see with science, and Sam Harris for that matter is that they expound upon theories as if they were fact. Every time I watch a science related program, the key words are always: may, might, could, maybe, etc. First they throw in a few facts that they do know, then they ALWAYS say something to the effect: and this little piece of bone could mean that man was around 1 billion years ago, not 500,000 as previously thought (just an example).

Scientists never just stop and they:

ya know, we just don't know for sure about this and because we don't know, we'd rather not speculate because 1 year from now we'll change our mind again after we learn a few more facts…

Scientific theories are constantly changing, so I'd rather they omit spouting grandiose theories about the origin of life, space, DNA, astronomy, and other matters.

If they have to push their theories down our throats, what is wrong wrong with theories of an opposing view? Such as intelligent design. Hey, this theory is about as good as any I've heard. It sounds much more plausable than mankind evolving from apes.

(By the way, if we evolved from apes, what happened to the poor apes of today? How come they didn't evolve as well? Poor things?) So, a man PHD wants to tell me that some apes evolved and others remained the same. Sounds simplistic, but certainly presents a pickle to explain. What about other mammals? How come we're the only ones who evolved and developed speaking abilities? What make us so special that we would be endowed with so many gifts? (Could it be that we were endowed by a supreme being not subject to the laws of physics?)

You know, it is so much easier to believe in creationism. Creationism is a science, not a religion. Man was created by God:

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. Colossians 1:15-17

God told man to it subdue the earth using all its vast resources in the service of God and man;

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. Genesis 1:28

Its ok, take a leap of faith. You'll sleep easier tonight.

"The fear of the LORD leads to life, so that one may sleep satisfied, untouched by evil." Proverbs 19:23


I look forward to rebuttals that can refute me with hard evidence.  :wink:

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2005 02:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

Hi Champion,

(I’m going to deposit a few snippets for you, in the Other Writings Forum, btw)

In the meantime, please do a careful read, below…

Many accept what they’ve heard but never challenge it to a large degree, nor, do they take the time to see if those matters are acceptable, and harmonious, after all. Because they heard nuggets they agreed with, or reasonated for them, they assumed the “rest” was just as acceptable. Often, the others who “taught” them,  were genuine in their intent, but they too, were often just “parroting” what they had been taught. (this happens in science, and other areas of study as well)

Let’s remember, the texts you read, (the bible) were written in a language, other than English. Within those writings, you’ll find parables, metaphors, symbols, hyperboles, similes, litotes, repetition, euphemism, apostrophe, anthropomorphism, metonymy, irony, allegory, fables, riddles, typology, synechoche, etc. Could one say then, that a surface reading, and literal interpretation could veil some matters?

Not only that, the use of certain puctuation marks, were not used in the original manuscripts, other words have been inserted by translators, due to their pre-concieved notions, their bent towards their own understanding, not to mention, tampering, for the purpose of mis-leading others. (to keep them in the dark)

Just as you would like Mr. Harris, and others, (Muslims included for that matter ) to NOT be “boxed” into a certain way of thinking, or to be “rich, and increased with goods.” (this may not be just money that the author was intending this to mean. It hints of a “mind set” as a “know it all attitude,” having need of nothing more) You don’t want others to be afraid to read what YOU share, so you in turn, should not be afraid to read what others share from a little different vantage point. (that’s called, practicing, what you preach)

You may be greatly surprised, that more is being “said” in some of those other writings, more then imagined. But then again,  your text says to “cast down imaginations” wink A graven image, can also be, (imho) our thoughts, our concepts, etc.

So if you feel inclined to take a little peek, go to the “Other Reading forum,” where I will soon deposit a few snippets. I really do think you’ll enjoy them.  If you don’t like them, you have the option to “spit them out.”

I have nothing to sell. wink I offer them, out of respect, and care for you, that’s all.

As far as John being the author of Rev. that’s the traditional understanding. Many bible scholars, differ, EVEN, about if that writing should have been put at the “end” of “the book.” (you can do a google search to check into these matters yourself) Some say it shouldn’t even have been included. Time will tell.

Others, say Paul wrote it, “about” John” since the ending signature STYLE, closure, mirror’s the identical way Paul ended all his writings.

So as you can see, even those who studied these ancient languages, studied the writing styles, etc,  cannot agree, to the degree, of unity.

When most of us realize, we were wrong, in whatever, it can hurt, but ONLY for a little while wink But what has anyone really lost, if they gained, in the end?Only egotistical pride, would prevent one from admitting when they missed it. (and you know what your text, says about pride)

Know in advance, I’m not saying these writings I post at the other forum, can’t miss it, as well. But perhaps they did find some pieces of the puzzle, and to not even check it out, would be imho, a great loss, for those who claim to seek.

I’m not afraid to read anything. I’ve read stuff from A to Z, and more. Most of those writings, were not in agreement, with the others, and yet there seems to be (most often) a common thread knit somewhere, within.

If you do read them, please post any further comment, at the Other Reading Forum, or the Faith Forum.

PS. You said about S. Harris (and others in the field of science,(which is a most fascinating area of study, btw) that they expound upon theories, as if they were FACT. Tell me…tell me, that you can’t see, that fundamental “Christians” do the very same thing! (uh, that would be the pot, calling the kettle black)

But nonetheless, my offer still stands.

A. D.

wink

Sacred Cows Make The Best Hamburger

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2005 02:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  369
Joined  2005-02-07

First of all, Champ, you have completely misused the word “theory.” In science, a theory is not a set of unproven arbitrary baseless ideas. It is a model proposed to try and explain a set of facts, which makes predictions that are then tested by trying to disprove them. If the predictive value of a theory turns out to be useful and accurate, then it becomes the accepted theory, until someone can prove it wrong with a better model of understanding.

When scientists use the word theory, they are not saying, “well, gosh, we just don’t know.” They’re saying, “we know X; what does this mean?” They propose a theory, and gather data in an attempt to disprove this theory. If the data don’t disprove the theory, and especially if the attempt to disprove the theory actually produces new data, then the theory is valid.

Theories at the engine of understanding. Without theories of evolution, we would not know about DNA. At all. A theory is factual; it is not speculation, or a guess.

Second, you misrepresent evolution. Humans did not evolve from apes, and no biologist has ever claimed that we did. Humans and apes are related to each other genetically, sharing a common ancestor.

Thirdly, creationism is not a science. To qualify as a science, creationists would have to allow unbelievers to go over every single tenet of the “theory” and rip it apart, trying to disprove it with evidence. They would also have to accept the results, if in fact it was diproven; that is, if the evidence proves creationism wrong, creationists have to accept that their theory is wrong, and come up with a better one.

To be useful, theories have to make predictions which can tested. Merely finding an apparent flaw in someone else’s theory is not science. Creationism has to make testable predictions in order to be considered a science. Since it cannot do so, it is not science.

Finally, which creation “theory” are we supposed accept? There are at least two in the Book of Genesis that contradict each other in almost every detail. There are also competing creation stories from other world religions. How do we know which one is the correct account?

Only by testing them out, and trying to disprove every single one of them. When we do that, we will eventually find which of them, if any, is true. We might also learn that none of them are. And when that happens, it’s time to find a better explanation for the facts that surround us every day.

Which is how we got to evolution in the first place. It is the only theory which explains all the facts of biology and zoology, from DNA to opposable thumbs.

For creationism to be science, it has to withstand the best efforts of nonbelievers to prove it wrong. Since it cannot do that, and since creationists are unwilling to let it do so, it is therefore neither science nor theory.

The difference is simple. Superstition begins with an explanation based on nothing, then looks around for selective “facts” to flatter it, ignoring the facts which don’t, and claiming special knowledge when confronted by informed doubt. Theory begins with all of the facts as they are, ignoring none of them, and offers an explanation that makes predictions, which are then tested by trying to disprove them; theory welcomes informed doubt, and indeed, thrives on it. Superstition is chosen on the basis of what makes the believer feel special and important, enlightened and superior. Theory is chosen on the basis of where the facts lead the observer, regardless of how the observer feels about it.

Creationism is superstition. Nothing else.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2005 11:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1377
Joined  2004-12-21

My friends, I have learned that reasoning with people like the champ is useless, and does nothing other than raise my own blood preassure.  The only thing I have found that works is to try and keep them from infecting the next generation with their profound ignorance. 

Pete

 Signature 

http://powerlessnolonger.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 February 2005 04:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

Hey Pete,

>>>The only thing I have found that works is to try and keep them from infecting the next generation

That’s, the VERY answer, as to the “why.” (as well as setting the individual “captives” free) How does one actually keep them from “infecting” the next generation? I hope you see my point.

In fact, I insist, you see my point!

wink

Why “bother “inoculate against smallpox?

Along these lines…

Why bother trying to rescue the POW’s? Do we ask that POW if they are a fundi, BEFORE we rescue them? If they said yes, would you leave them to die? (maybe you shouldn’t answer that lol)

When someone rescue’s a drowning person from a lake, does one stop to interview them first, regarding their beliefs, or even, try to discover, if they are a “good” person, or a “bad” one?

Why-how do humans even have a desire TO rescue others?

Glory seekers?
Compassion?
Empathy?
Sympathy?
Nurture, instinct?
(others?)

If a psychiatric patient is delusional, why bother to help them back to “reality?”(people sacrifice, and spend huge sums of money, in order to get a psych degree, in order to do just that)

If one’s small child, is afraid of the monster under their bed, why bother trying to help them? (not only that, they will, can, and do, convince their siblings, and friends, that the the boggie man is real, he lives under the bed, etc)

WHERE are those fundaMENTALalists going to be challenged? WHERE will they go, to hear these"reasonable questions?”  Their churches-buildings? Their literature? From the White House?

Why should Mr. Harris even “bother” to write his book then?

Most people change by degrees. Better to bring one to moderation, to start, than nothing at all?

Do we stick our heads in the sand, and hope it (fundamentalism) just magically goes away?

Maybe..if they get a taste of some “new wine” they’ll disregard the “old?”

Did you notice, how Champ picks out a verse, for Mr Harris, and others, that said “Return oh ye faithless, and I will heal your land.”

Now you SEE, how the fundi mind “reads into” that?

That verse, doesn’t even say you HAVE to be “one of faith” in ORDER to return, it just says…return.

From their own text, Paul said he wished some would go so far, as to even castrate themselves. Hmm, if one were to do so, one could not then,  REPRODUCE, eh? Think about it.

Pour a shot Pete, and we shall celebrate!
wink

PS. You know the REAL reason your blood pressure goes up, is because of the darn Republicans! (lol)

A.D.

wink

LIVE….quickened people GROW…CHANGE….PROGRESS….become more integrated and whole….it does not cling to upstream backward glances of former moments of ‘clarity and definition’.... no, we are downstreaming….. no longer ragged assed salmon beating our way upstream to spawn in some fixed place…some valhalla holy place of ‘arrival and park’.... shut the engines down. (A Flyer)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 February 2005 09:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

:D “intelligent design” is a theory, it is not a scientific theory. And I’m not at all assured that it is a rational theory.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 February 2005 12:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

Hey pete
  Bush is presedent!!!!!!!!!!! You can’t ignore these people, you need to try and free their minds. They are dangerous in their present form. Evolution will not mend their brains in time to prevent desaster.
                                                    TM

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 February 2005 12:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1377
Joined  2004-12-21

Advocatus, this is the reason that it does no good to debate with these folks:

You know, it is so much easier to believe in creationism. Creationism is a science, not a religion.

The first sentence says it all!  It is easier!!!  No thought required, and no analysis either.  Just lean back and believe!  How do you fight that?  It is a perfect recipe for the dumbing-down of the whole country, and that, my friend is the object of the exercise.

Any fool with half a brain should realize that the second sentence is totally false, but they all believe it!  Again, no thought required.  I dont know what the answer is, I just think that my energies, such as they are, are best spent attempting the have some small influence on the next generation. 

I make contact with local grammer school and high school science teachers, who are a very good lot, by the way, in spite of where I live, and I do my part to see that they have all the materials they need.  There are many good study aids available, but the teachers, in many cases, cant afford to spend the money, and forget the school board.  Speaking of which, I am considering a run for my local board.  As a Realtor, I know most of the players, and, by the way, I AM a Republican!  : - )

I think the solution lies in a gradual shift in mind-set.  I wish more of the discussion on this site was devoted to working the problem rather than bickering about politics, bitching about the administration, and useless discussion with the champions of the world.  I think we are missing a real opportunity here.  There is a great deal of talent here, and if properly directed, could make a hell of a difference.

I admit that I waste a lot of time debating with these zealots as well.  It is hard for me to pass up a cheap shot, but I am getting better.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Pete

 Signature 

http://powerlessnolonger.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 February 2005 02:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

The problem is Champ, is that religion has been wrong on everything it ever said about reality. The Earth is NOT flat. The Earth is NOT the center of the universe. The sun and stars are NOT lights set in a solid dome covering the earth. Disease is NOT caused by demon possession. Not one thing about the physical world was ever learned through revelation.

Religion WISHES it could be so successful as science. Science has cured diseases, fed more people than ever before, expanded the life span of billions of people. Science has revealed the TRUE nature of the physical universe. The exact same science that has revealed that the universe is billions of years old, and that we evolved from a common ancestor, is the same science that has cured these diseases, fed people, built cars, airplanes, spaceships, and the computer that allows people to reach out to the world and claim that your ancient books are to be believed over rational, objective, methods.

Science has proven itself over and over every day, religion has never once.

But what should we expect from someone that apparently believes that ID agrees with creationism.

Thanks for the laughs!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 February 2005 07:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

Guest: You said
“religion has been wrong on everything it ever said about reality. The Earth is NOT flat. The Earth is NOT the center of the universe. The sun and stars are NOT lights set in a solid dome covering the earth. Disease is NOT caused by demon possession. Not one thing about the physical world was ever learned through revelation.”

Excuse me, but if you read my post, I said that science said the earth was flat while the bible said it was a sphere. grin

Further, I never said any of the things you mentioned. By the way, you make lots of charges against the bible, but not one specific reference. Until you do so, all of your charges are hearsay.

Hearsay:  gossip (usually a mixture of truth and untruth) passed around by word of mouth.

Yes, I am taken aback, all the posts in this topic are filled with hearsay when referencing the bible. This is making my job a lot easier. But if it makes you feel better, by all means. Yet, how can you possibly maintain intellectual integrity on this issue? Have you even studied the bible?

hampsteadpete says that I advocate “no thought required…”. Not so, the more science we understand, the better creationism looks. Evolution, it just takes too great a leap of faith to believe in it. It’s such poppycock disguised at a reliable theory.

Creation is not a science??!!?? You are kidding me right? Please note:

“Today there are thousands of scientists who are creationists and who repudiate any form of molecules-to-man evolution in their analysis and use of scientific data. Creation scientists can now be found in literally every discipline of science, and their numbers are increasing rapidly. Evolutionists are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain the fiction that evolution is “science” and creation science is “religion”. When news media personnel and others make such statements today, they merely reveal their own liberal social philosophies, not their awareness of scientific facts.”

I ask you all, are you going to continue to be clever and deny truth? Any of you intellectuals ready to repent and start a new life in Christ? “For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.” Philippians 1:6

I look forward to your responses. (Agreements are welcome, but conversions are preferred.  However, will accept that seeds are planted-but will they grow?).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 February 2005 11:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1377
Joined  2004-12-21

“Today there are thousands of scientists who are creationists and who repudiate any form of molecules-to-man evolution in their analysis and use of scientific data. Creation scientists can now be found in literally every discipline of science, and their numbers are increasing rapidly. Evolutionists are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain the fiction that evolution is “science” and creation science is “religion”. When news media personnel and others make such statements today, they merely reveal their own liberal social philosophies, not their awareness of scientific facts.”

That is a lie!  Where did you get this, Acts and facts?  Conversions welcome?  You are an arrogant fool!  Have you ever read a biology book?  A physics book?  A geology book?  I think not.

 Signature 

http://powerlessnolonger.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 February 2005 01:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  3
Joined  2005-02-20

First let me apologize, I am the guest that posted above, I thought I had logged on before posting.

Excuse me, but if you read my post, I said that science said the earth was flat while the bible said it was a sphere. grin

Well, you’re wrong! Science never claimed the earth was flat. The discrption of the earth in the old testament was borrowed from the Babaloyns. It discribed a flat earth, coverd with a solid dome of sky. This is how people viewed the world. It was Greek mathmations that discovered the earth was round. It was much later when Galileo proved the earth revolved around the sun, dispite what the bible said. Religion has not revealed ONE thing about the world that was correct, everything we know we know from science, even if it was simple observation.

Yes, I am taken aback, all the posts in this topic are filled with hearsay when referencing the bible. This is making my job a lot easier. But if it makes you feel better, by all means. Yet, how can you possibly maintain intellectual integrity on this issue? Have you even studied the bible?

Oh yes, I have studied the bible, I’m sure more than you have, if you think Josh Mcdowell has anything of worth to say.

hampsteadpete says that I advocate “no thought required…”. Not so, the more science we understand, the better creationism looks. Evolution, it just takes too great a leap of faith to believe in it. It’s such poppycock disguised at a reliable theory.

I’m sure you know even less about evolution than you do the bible.

Creation is not a science??!!?? You are kidding me right? Please note:

“Today there are thousands of scientists who are creationists and who repudiate any form of molecules-to-man evolution in their analysis and use of scientific data. Creation scientists can now be found in literally every discipline of science, and their numbers are increasing rapidly. Evolutionists are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain the fiction that evolution is “science” and creation science is “religion”. When news media personnel and others make such statements today, they merely reveal their own liberal social philosophies, not their awareness of scientific facts.”

Cutting and pasting a statement from the ICR web-site does not make it true. The last number I saw was around 350. Perhaps you could find what this claim is based on?
As of right know, there are over 150.000 scientists, many Christian, some not, that understand that an old universe and evolution are facts, so an appeal to authority seems useless. But take a look at some of the “credintuals of some of the most promenant creation “scientists”,

“Dr.” Kent Hovind. The simple fact is, so many of the prominent creationists claim credentials that they have no right to claim. “Dr.” Hovind is but one of the worst examples. He claims to have a masters and doctorate in education from Patriot University. Trouble is, Patriot University is a degree mill; its only accreditation is from the American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions, which provides accreditation for a $100 fee.

Another good example of this is “Dr.” Carl Baugh, who claims to be an archeologist with a Ph.D from the California Graduate School of Theology - again, an unaccredited school. It’s unaccredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (primary group responsible for accreditation in the region) and unaccredited by the state of California. “Dr.” Baugh also claims two Ph.D degrees in education and anthropology from the Pacific College of Graduate Studies in Melbourne, Australia and the College of Advanced Education in Irving, Texas. Again, neither school is accredited by any regional or national body to grant degrees. Pacific College is a small religious school run by an Australian creationist, Clifford Wilson, who is a close associate of Baugh’s. The College of Advanced Education is a division of the International Baptist College. Guess who’s president? That’s right, Carl Baugh.

And again, another example of a creationist misrepresenting their credentials is the Australian creationist Ken Ham, the head of one of the more prominent creationist organizations, Answers in Genesis. He claims:

“Ken’s bachelor’s degree in applied science (with an emphasis on environmental biology) was awarded by the Queensland Institute of Technology in Australia. He also holds a diploma of education (roughly equivalent to a master’s degree in America) from the University of Queensland. In 1997 he was awarded an honorary doctorate from Temple Baptist College in Ohio.”

Thing is, a diploma of education is NOT roughly equivalent to a master’s degree in America. It’s a ONE YEAR course designed to equip bachelors degree holders with enough basic teaching theory to prepare them for a job in basic education. Many Australian teachers upgrade their diploma of education to a bachelors of Education, which involves another year of study. A bachelors of Education, also, can be obtained through undergraduate study, so it’s not equivalent to a master’s degree either!

A few more examples: Richard Bliss, who develops curriculum for the Institute of Creation Research (another prominent creationist organization), has a doctorate of education from the University of Sarasota in Florida, another unaccredited diploma mill (this one located in a hotel!)

Kelly Segraves, a co-founder of the Creation Science Research Center, claims to have a MA and DSc degree from the “Christian University” and from the “Sequoia University.” Neither school exists; there is a Sequoia College in California, but it has no record of a student named Segraves.

Not very impressive.

I ask you all, are you going to continue to be clever and deny truth?

No, I’m going to continue to be rational, and accept truth, wherever it can be shown. Your bible hasn’t shown squat, science has.

If I want financial advise, should I listen to a bum on the street trying to sell me magic beans? Or should I listen to a millionaire that tells me how he made it.

If I’m sick, should I pray to be healed? Or should I see a doctor?

If I want to learn about the universe, should I read some ancient book, that has been consistently wrong in the past, or should I listen to the scientists that gave me my nice air conditioned house, a well fed stomach, double the life expectancy of any generation before me, that gave my this lovely computer that works on the same principles that are used to explain the universe?

You claim to know some truth, but the only truth that has ever been demonstrated, has been discovered in this world, by methodological naturalism.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 February 2005 02:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

>>As a Realtor, I know most of the players, and, by the way, I AM a Republican! : - )    (end quote)

Ooops! grin

Well Pete, you know what was said to Sam, on C-span?

“It’s not too late!”

wink

I’m not “labeled” btw, but that’s another discussion.

Appreciate your humor, the the grace-full way you dealt with my mistake.

(You see that Champ? Pete, extended mercy to me, he must be more loving, than the “god of your understanding”...unless… yours is the one that said “Peace, and GOOD WILL, to ALL men? The gospel, the goodnews? The Good-spell? ahhhem, who has bewitched you, may still be a timely word of “correction”)


A.D.

wink

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 February 2005 04:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1377
Joined  2004-12-21

Nice post, Dog!

 Signature 

http://powerlessnolonger.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 February 2005 07:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

Thanks Hamp!
Have you read Sagan’s “Demon Haunted World”? He does a great job of comparing science with superstition.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 February 2005 12:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

Ah, Champion - I see you popping up all around. I’m guessing you’re just a troll, here to stir things up, cause a little trouble, but debate is fun, I always enjoyed it in school so I’ll nibble a little of your tasty bait.

Going back to your original post - you are inconsistent. You attack science for the uncertainty of its theories, that fact that theories sometimes change. You deride the qualifying language in “science related” television programs: “may, might, could, maybe, etc.”

Then you complain that science is being pushed down your throat. Which is it? Is science vague and wishy washy or is science aggressive and assertive?

You ask “what is wrong with theories of an opposing view?” The answer is simple: Nothing is wrong with theories of an opposing view. All theories were once “theories of an opposing view.” They are now dominant because they stand up to observable data better than previous theories.

Example: When I was a kid, the continents were not moving around on the surface of the planet. Or at least, that was the theory. Now, an opposing theory has come to dominate - the theory of plate tectonics. The idea that the continents are moving around on the surface of planet earth. The theory of plate tectonics does a better job of explaining observable data than previous theories so it has come to dominate the field of geology.

Speaking of geology, another opposing theory has more recently gained credibility. That would be the theory of global devastation by collision with heavenly bodies. The idea that the earth suffered from cataclysmic collisions with asteroids or comets was having a hard time in the scientific world of geology. “Geology happens slowly - over millions of years.” Then a funny thing happened. A comet collided with Jupiter. And we all got to watch it live on TV. It was observable data. Suddenly the idea of cataclysmic collisions took on more credibility. Suddenly we noticed impact craters all over the planet we hadn’t really taken note of before.

Your basic critique seems to be that science changes but religion doesn’t - therefore religion is better. That is only true if you are afraid or apprehensive about change. You challenge us to believe - you assure us that we will sleep better at night. I sleep just fine - in my ever changing and surprising world…thekeez

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 2
1
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed