quote:

Is this a tacit admission that a science is more trustworthy than religion? Afterall, if religion were more trustworthy then giving eugenics a patina of religion would make it more acceptable, right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Is this a tacit admission that a science is more trustworthy than religion? Afterall, if religion were more trustworthy then giving eugenics a patina of religion would make it more acceptable, right?

It is not only an admission, but an insistence that 'science', or at least what is claimed to be science by the consensus of scientists, has in large part replaced in the Western world those magesteria and institutions upon which societies have normally relied for wisdom and authority in making decisions about how we will live our lives.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
It is not only an admission, but an insistence that 'science', or at least what is claimed to be science by the consensus of scientists, has in large part replaced in the Western world those magesteria and institutions upon which societies have normally relied for wisdom and authority in making decisions about how we will live our lives.

quote:

I don't want to drag this too far off topic, so I will make this statement and let it rest (but feel free to reply).

I have always found it strange that creationists will use the word "religion" as a term of derision. I have yet to see a scientist try to demean creationism by calling it "just another science", and yet we see creationists demeaning science by calling it "just another religion". To me, this is a tacit admission that science is better than religion.

quote:

Perusing this board for any length of time would definitely provide some counter-evidence to that claim along with movies like 'Expelled'. There is a huge culture of anti-science still present.. at least in the US.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Perusing this board for any length of time would definitely provide some counter-evidence to that claim along with movies like 'Expelled'. There is a huge culture of anti-science still present.. at least in the US.

I actually think what is happening is that there is a huge backlash against metaphysical notions masquerading as science. No one protests the theory of gravity or germ theory.

quote:

Science can definitely contradict certain metaphysical notions... but that doesn't make those scientific discoveries metaphysical. Study of meteorology and weather certainly dispelled any notion that Zeus physically hurls lightning bolts down from the sky like a javelin, but that doesn't make meteorology metaphysical. Science certainly proves 6 day creation to be false, but that doesn't make science metaphysical. Creationists fail to acknowledge this at every turn

quote:

But hell, even today, there are millions upon millions of people who read their horoscopes, visit psychics, palm readers, use tarot cards, believe in faith healers, psychic surgery, homeopathy, power crystals, chakra realignment, watch the 'ghost whisperer', or even believe that the creation story in genesis is a literal account of events... and the list goes on and on. It's quite depressing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
That, I find depressing.

quote:

It's not necessarily depressing; it can also be humbling, amazing and inspiring.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
And evolutionists fail to admit that their theory I regularly employed to justify fundamental metaphysical beliefs. Unlike meteorology, many evolutionists claim that evolution provides not an explanation for how life developed, but for every aspect of our experience as humans; in short, the dismissal of Zeus equals the dismissal of the notion of intelligence beyond our own.

quote:


Not nearly as depressing in my mind as the number of those who believe that the universe is one of a multitude of universes that are continually being created and destroyed, that our universe just happens to have the specific attributes it does because it is but one of those many unseen universes, that the earth just happens to be able to support life as it does because it is merely one of a multitude planets that just happen to exist, that life just happens to have arisen here because certain conditions existed before such life arose, and conveniently changed so that such life could develop, that the complexities of life just happened to have occurred in just the right way at the beginning so that the diversity that exists could exist and become combinatorially interdependent, and that this would lay the groundwork so that humans could just happen to arise and have the cognitive wherewithal to appreciate all that had happened before them, and dismiss it all, including their individual existence, as merely a product of chance. That, I find depressing.

quote:

I really don't think it does. It certainly gets used to dispel certain metaphysical beliefs (6 day creation etc), but it doesn't in and of itself provide credence to any metaphysical beliefs. But why would you have a problem with such a thing anyways? We know the 'good folks' over at DI use and develop ID expressly for the purpose of furthering their metaphysical beliefs in hopes of re-centering science around Christian theology (what's puzzling is why they are so dishonest about it, when the Christian God seems to value honesty). They don't want science to be an honest exploration of nature, but a tool to re-affirm their preconceived notions about God... So are their metaphysical beliefs better than an atheistic evolutionists metaphysical beliefs?

quote:

Anthropic Principle. Our frame of reference is naturally biased towards assuming it was all created for us.

quote:

As for the parallel universes of quantum mechanics, I don't think anyone would stake their life on that idea

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Perusing this board for any length of time would definitely provide some counter-evidence to that claim along with movies like 'Expelled'. There is a huge culture of anti-science still present.. at least in the US.

I actually think what is happening is that there is a huge backlash against metaphysical notions masquerading as science. No one protests the theory of gravity or germ theory.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Their beliefs, yes, but if they are honest, they recognize that their beliefs are not assured by either theory or evidence.

So you are saying that a number of evolutionary biologists are simply dishonest?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
I actually think what is happening is that there is a huge backlash against metaphysical notions masquerading as science. No one protests the theory of gravity or germ theory.

quote:

The theory of gravity and germ theory are both based on scientific materialism, are they not?

quote:

If they claim that evolution is evidence of the validity of atheism, yes. Many atheists, including evolutionary biologists, recognize it is a philosophical choice, not a scientific conclusion.

quote:

The General Theory of Relativity is the theory of gravity, and the Big Bang is a consequence of GR. Some creationists reject the Big Bang, and rejection of the Big Bang is rejection of the theory of gravity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

ORIGINAL:ianz

quote:

Look this is ridiculous. You're using examples from 100-150 years ago to suggest that the theory of evolution as it stands now is racist.

I wonder if Nazzism isn't racest. It's been a long time since Hitler died.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

[Not nearly as depressing in my mind as the number of those who believe that the universe is one of a multitude of universes that are continually being created and destroyed, that our universe just happens to have the specific attributes it does because it is but one of those many unseen universes, that the earth just happens to be able to support life as it does because it is merely one of a multitude planets that just happen to exist, that life just happens to have arisen here because certain conditions existed before such life arose, and conveniently changed so that such life could develop, that the complexities of life just happened to have occurred in just the right way at the beginning so that the diversity that exists could exist and become combinatorially interdependent, and that this would lay the groundwork so that humans could just happen to arise and have the cognitive wherewithal to appreciate all that had happened before them, and dismiss it all, including their individual existence, as merely a product of chance. That, I find depressing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Neither has to assume materialism. They are based on evidence.

quote:

Why? I find it extraordinary!

I suppose the question is, if you find it depressing, when considering the question of how and why we are here, are you predisposed to look for answers that are uplifting? Are you, in other words, predisposed to accept theories that require a creator, and imply some purpose to our existence?

quote:

The same for the theory of evolution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Well then it should be amenable to the idea that an intelligence offers explanatory power when considering the origin and development of life.

quote:

And when that idea does have explanatory power let me know. So far, ID is nothing more than a designer of the gaps. It's only evidence is what IDer's believe nature can not do. That's not what an explanation should do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Why? I find it extraordinary!

I suppose the question is, if you find it depressing, when considering the question of how and why we are here, are you predisposed to look for answers that are uplifting? Are you, in other words, predisposed to accept theories that require a creator, and imply some purpose to our existence?

You misunderstand me; I do not find the universe depressing, I find the willingness of large number of people to believe in fantasies about the universe depressing. I am predisposed not to believe in fantasies myself.