We Won, So We Won't Play Anymore, And That Way You Cannot Win
"Science organizations have generally turned their backs on forums in which they have been challenged to defend Darwinian evolution, on the theory that engaging the intelligent design school in any way is to take its ideas too seriously." - By Alex Johnson, Reporter MSNBC.COM.
It is kind of like a volleyball game - if it is not your serve, you cannot score. The important thing to remember is that having control of media and institutions has never made a person correct in their thinking or theories.
It is kind of like a volleyball game - if it is not your serve, you cannot score. The important thing to remember is that having control of media and institutions has never made a person correct in their thinking or theories.
16 Comments:
I can't say that I blame them. Everytime it's IDs turn to serve, they hurl bowling pins over then net instead of volleyballs...
Science and faith are kinda like baloney and ice cream. You can eat them separately, but mixing them produces messy results.
"Science and faith are kinda like baloney and ice cream."
This statement is simply untrue. It can only be said to be true by a person who has a faulty understanding of one or both of the concepts. Read this article for a taste of the possibility that true science and biblical Christianity are completely compatible.
http://www.arcapologetics.org/veritas/veritas-2005-01.htm
>> This statement is simply untrue.
Depends on how loosely you define science I suppose. A casual glance at a standard dictionary would seem to point to the contrary. Ex:
Faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
Science - Knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method and concerned with the physical world and its phenomena.
Besides, I'm not arguing that they are completely incompatible. They just seem to be two completely different ways of looking at existence. For example, faith does not require the same scrutiny or evidence that the scientific method needs. So, why use science to justify faith? And on the flip side, wouldn't it be erroneous to use faith in the scientific method?
Then again, maybe some people like baloney flavored ice cream...
Faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
Science - Knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method and concerned with the physical world and its phenomena.
If faith is merely what you just described, then I have no use for it. For example, I could have faith that I could be the next olympic gold medalist in swimming - though I have no logical proof or material evidence. That is not faith that is idiotic.
On the other hand, I could have faith that Michael Phelps will win the gold in 2008. It is still faith - since it has not happened. But it is a faith based on logic and evidence. That is what Christianity is. Answer this question: What makes the most sense of most of reality. Answer: Biblical Christianity as a whole and unified system explains more about human nature and bahavior (sinful) and the existence of anything at all (as opposed to Naturalism which postulates usually that matter is eternal and that life somehow spontaneously blinked into existence).
Thus, your definition of faith is insufficient.
Your definition of science seems acceptable. But here is the catch. What if you find an arrowhead out in the woods? Well, it is clear that some person made it. Would it be unscientific to then say that a person made it? Would it be unscientific to say, "We have observed this item and have determined that it could not have developed through mere natural processes?" Of course not. If the item was indeed designed, then science demands we address that fact.
In a similar way, if the evidence of, say, irreducible complexity in a cell (or a million of possible phenomenon) shows clear evidence of design, then it is a mockery to true science to ignore that because it might have what our culture decries as religious overtones. The problem with the way science is done today is that it refuses to be open to the possibilty that nature is designed. It begins with a philosophy that it cannot be designed and therefore ignores the evidence that it is and thus squelches the scientific process.
It is like finding an arrowhead and doing everything to show how this came into existence by purely natural processes, while it is clear to anybody looking that the item was designed. Likewise, when you see the complexity of the systems of the human body, or the intricacies of the human eye or ear, it is ridiculous to say that it is impossible that these things could have been designed. Every true scientist should at least be opened to the possiblity of design - for the sake of science. After all, we should all agree that the end goal of science is to find out the truth.
Excellent response Jason. Inferred in your statement is also the aspect that scientists come to the lab with presuppositions (faith if you will) that shape the way they observe (e.g. the heliocentric vs. geocentric views), making it impossible (in so far as humans are involved) to know with certainty that our perspective is not in some manner skewed or altogether blocked (as is illustrated by the arrowhead).
>> If faith is merely what you just described, then I have no use for it. For example, I could have faith that I could be the next olympic gold medalist in swimming - though I have no logical proof or material evidence. That is not faith that is idiotic.
Don't get so offended... I didn't make it up. It's from a dictionary:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith
>> Thus, your definition of faith is insufficient.
I'm not the one changing the definition to suit my own needs. One can say that there is no (acceptable) logical proof or material evidence for God, yet still have faith. Do you think those people idiotic?
I truly was not at all offended by the definition and I apologize if my tone seemed to indicate this (upon re-reading I see that it might). I actually am using the word "idiotic" in a technical sense (not a mocking sense), that is to say, "A person who lives in his own world."
Just for the record, if you want to talk about Biblical faith, you need to consult the Bible which defines it in Hebrews 11. According to that book, "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." Note that the use of the word "assurance" takes faith out of the realm of "blind faith" which seems to be what monster zero is advocating as the proper definition of Biblical faith.
Bk, I agree that there is a strong distinction between 'faith' and 'blind faith'. You should note that the definition I provided was under 'faith'.
blind faith - belief without true understanding, perception, or discrimination (dictionary.com)
One big problem with the English language (or perhaps human communication in general) is that the meaning of words is too tightly coupled with the intention of the speaker. I think that's why most of these discussions turn into semantical arguments.
monster zero,
You may be right that it is semantical, but if you are going to argue about the meaning of faith in Christianity, it is important to use the term as Christianity uses it. And, in fact, the first definition of "faith" under the link you provided does give a decent equivalent of Biblical faith, i.e., Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
>> if you are going to argue about the meaning of faith in Christianity, it is important to use the term as Christianity uses it
I'm not arguing about the meaning of faith in Christianity. I'm discussing the role of faith in the scientific method. And the problem that scientists have with faith in the scientific method is based on the definition that I provided: lack of logical proof or material evidence.
If your problem is with lack of logical proof or material evidence, then you should understand the claims of those who are advocating ID.
Jason >> After all, we should all agree that the end goal of science is to find out the truth.
This is like saying that the end goal of a hammer is to build a house. The hammer has no goals. The people who use hammers do.
monster zero,
You are sounding more and more like an ID advocate all the time. :)
"This is like saying that the end goal of a hammer is to build a house. The hammer has no goals. The people who use hammers do."
Science is a tool in the hand of people who have the purpose of finding out the truth (using the scientific method) of a particular phenomenon. So though I said "the end goal of science is to find the truth," I meant by that, "People use science with the end goal of finding the truth."
BK does make a good point.
>> You are sounding more and more like an ID advocate all the time. :)
I guess it's better than calling me a media-controlling naturalist...
Post a Comment
<< Home