Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
|Re: Bzrd's Quote
Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by bzrd on August 4, 1999 14:01:47 UTC
: : : : Modern science has become a souless quest for a material truth that does not exist....bzrd
: : : :::::::::::::::: : : : How so?
: : ::::::::::::: : (It was of course a loaded question on my part.)
: : In 1959, a symposium celebrating 100 yrs of Darwinism was held in Chicago. This was about the same time Darwinism and population genetics were wed to produce the neo-Darwinian synthesis. The event also followed on the heels of Stanely Miller's work with the pre-biotic soup and abiogenesis. It seemed from that point forward that science made the materialist philosophy easily the most tenable in light of these events. The materialist philosophy is that there is nothing beyond what science can understand or duplicate. Further, any competing position or philosophy is prevented ipso-facto from attaining any foothold in the realm of science. All scientific evidence is veiwed with materialist pre-conceptions. : :::::::::::::::::::: : I do not agree with your assessment here. No offense, but you seem to have a misconception about what science is. Your last sentence above is particularly mis-informed.
: There MAY be some scientists who PERSONALLY have a desire to fulfill preconceptions, but that would be BAD science. It is engaged in by some, but it is not the scientific way. Much the same as there are religious people who seem to be seekers of truth such as yourself, and those whose blind adherence to dogma will not allow them to go beyond their preconceptions either. The pendulum swings BOTH ways on this issue. But it is neither the fault of Science nor Religion that it does.
: Science is about only ONE thing. Finding out how things work. Period. It may very well be that Science CAN explain how everything works, and even TRY to duplicate it, but science does not address the CAUSE for the universe or life itself. It is not the role of science to do this.
: : : For example, the fossil evidence is considered only in a Darwinian light, this despite that one could just as easily make a case for design theory. : ::::::::::: : The fossill record is considered in many lights, not just Darwin's. If anyone can make a case for design theory, so be it. Science would not argue with any proof of design theory if that can be shown to be provable. As yet, it has not. Science does not rule it out, it merely wants proof. It may not be provable, or it may be. In either case science will continue to seek "how things work" anyway.
: It should be noted the over-riding theme of the fossil record is stasis. Species seem to appear out of nowhere then become extinct in virtually the same morphological state. How does this support Darwinism? : :::::::::::: : You are correct about the stasis part here, but not how it works. It has no conflict with Darwin at all. The more you study the PROCESS of evolution, the more you understand how stasis works and why it is not "punctuated equilibrium" like so many thought for a while. The process of HOW evolution works is still unfolding. This in no way disputes the fact that it has occurred tho. I would recommend the you read "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins. The best description for the lay person on the process of evolution. Yes, Dawkins is an Atheist. But that does not discredit the findings in biology. I do have to be a "born again Christian" to read and understand the Bible or a Jew to contemplate the Talmud. Dawkins merely explains how stasis works and why some people mistakenly think it contradicts Darwin. I know you are open-minded enough, inquisitive enough and solid enough in your faith not to let his particular philosophy bother your desire to understand a simple biological process any more than you would reject using your computer if you found out Bill Gates was a satanic worshipper. (I'm NOT saying he is!) :
: : There is no bio-molecular foundation for the increasing genetic complexity called for by macro-evolution. : :::::::::::::: : This is quite simply not true my friend. I actually don't think YOU are saying this. I think you are repeating some statement here made by someone else who knows nothing about microbiology.
: : Finally, science does not have a clue how life would originate through a materialistic process. : :::::::::: : True, at this juncture. Maybe it NEVER will find out. It doesn't stop the desire to learn how tho. Why should it. Maybe God will eventually show us how he did that too, just as He is revealing how evolution is such a logical, easy to understand, (when sought), methodology to propagate life all over the planet.
: : The fact they even make the attempt trivializes the event. : ::::::::::::: : Nonsense! If I believed this, I might as well shut myself up in dark cell, refuse to learn anything, starve and die. If the search for THIS knowledege trivializes any of God's work, the search for ANY knowledge does. What are we living for if not to grow and learn. I cannot imagine any statement you could possibly make that I would be more opposed to, more in utter disagreement with, than this one. (No offense of course.) To me, learning may in fact be the single most important, most rewarding, most purposeful thing in a person's life. The older I get, the more I realize this, and the more I am able to discern those that are most qualified to teach me. Those that have the most to teach are usually the ones who are quietest about expressing their knowlege. The sheisters are usually the ones who yell the loudest. Knowlege usually sells itself. It doesn't need an advertising banner proclaiming "THE TRUTH". If it has one, it usually turns out to be pig in a poke like some of the postings I've seen on this message board.
: : It is time to separate empirical science from materialist philosophy : ::::::::::: : I didn't know they were ever joined. Science is practiced by people. Some do it well, others not so well. No need to let a persons' personal inadequacies spoil the integrity of the search for knowledge.
: : ......good to hear from you agian Viper:) : ::::::::: : Thanx. It's always nice to talk to you.
: bzrd here, Viper. In retrospect, I msut agree with you on the "search for knowledge" aspect of my post. I stand corrected. :::::::::::: Recently, I read a book, "Darwin's Black Box" by Micheal Behe. Behe can be safely catagorized, I think, as being relatively dispassionate regarding creationism. He is certainly not a YEC. Anyway, prior to writing his book, he searched the literature on the topic of bio-molecular evolution. "In fact, none of the papers published in the "Journal of Molecular Evolution" over the entire course of its life as a journal has ever proposed a detailed model by which a complex biochemical system might have been produced in a gradual step by step Darwinian fashion." pg. 176. :::::::::::: Got to go, God bless you.
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2022 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins