B
- Status
F
Forest-Pine
Guest
Montalban said:
Ha ha! How true. Case in point: I bet I can tell your approximate age based on what you were taught in science class about the extinction of dinosaurs. There was the whole ice age thing. Then global warming. Then a comet that spread dust around. Now they are back to saying they aren’t sure I think. I don’t remember the latest. Each generation was taught the scientific “fact” based on scientific “proof” that they knew what had been the death of the dinosaurs.
I love science. I lamented when I was majoring in Biology that I could not get a theology degree at the same time. “Then I’d know EVERYTHING!” I would quip.
The fact of the matter is that science has made great leaps and bounds in advancement over the last couple decades. Can we imagine life without phones and microwaves and computers? We needn’t go so far back in time. But it has also progressed in areas that are not so wise: human cloning, “easier” abortions, embryonic stem cell research. Why are these not so wise? Because they do not respect the sanctity of life. They destroy life in order to make it. I am reminded of Frankenstein and cannibalism. Why is it wrong to destroy life? That cannot be answered by science. It is a matter for Ethics. And yet the two subjects are closely tied. The same is also true of all science.
- Science cannot “prove” faith. Logic can prove a logical existence of God, but it cannot prove Christianity. By its very nature, it is “proven” through revelation and history. We Christians have no problem with this. It is you scientists who try to impose your order and requirements of scientific proofs. If that is what it takes for you to believe, you can be assured you will never find an answer. That does not challenge my faith in the least.
- Science is a wonderful study. Most of the time, it learns fascinating things. Some have the potential for great human impact (both good and bad).
- Faith does not have the same goals as science. It does not have the same methods. It does not have the same set of proofs. There is a heirachy of proving a claim true within the Catholic Church that is distinctly missing from our Protestant friends’ churches. But in no way does this compare to science.
- It is a part of the Catholic worldview that anything within science, just like everything within the natural order, must fall under the jurisdiction of God. I know I worded that terribly. Perhaps someone can quote an official source that will be much more eloquent. Nonetheless, the point remains that God is not compartmentalized by science, but science is compartmentalized under God. To argue this point is worthless. You obviously do not need to agree, but you must recognize this distinct difference in worldviews.
The problem you have is that people don’t believe in the absolute truth of science. You don’t want to be compartmentalized under faith. I understand, as a person lacking faith, why this is. Still, you aren’t going to find any converts here.
We have the problem that on a practical, day-to-day level, there are people entrusted with the care of our children, to whom we are required to send them, who are teaching atheism in the name of science. You seem to be able to stop short of doing so when you try. Many teachers cannot help themselves it seems. They are pushing their worldview and their faith onto our children. It is a problem for any person of faith, not just Catholic. Which is why it is getting so much resistance. There are many Catholics and Protestants who believe in 6 day creationsism. How does their belief threaten science? It does not. There are many Catholics who believe in evolution. How does their faith threaten science? It does not. You readily admit this. And yet science feels it is being ostracized by the conservative right. Why? They must feel restricted in some way? Where? Not on the point of evolution in and of itself, so it must be the extra-curriculars that are getting them. Things like God.
F
Forest-Pine
Guest
One other point. It is interesting: Atheists say you are not allowed to use the Bible to prove the Bible correct. Nor are you allowed to use early church fathers, historical evidence, or the word of any other person who might have believed. Even those scientists who are Christian are quickly relegated to the heap pile as what they say must be rubbish within the scientific community. You must take yourself out of your faith and worldview to even talk to them.
Is it any wonder that they are the largest profession of atheists? Of course not; they like it that way and do everything they can to keep it that way.
Why must we prove ourselves to you? It is you who came here to us. And why must we use your “proofs”? And why can you not respect that we have a different set of criteria all together? This is the very core of the problem between Christians and atheists, and one that will never change. It is inherent that the two must clash as we see all of life falling under the dominion of God and atheists see no God at all.
B
buffalo
Guest
Yes - the natural and supernatural combine to tell us about the universe.
D
dts
Guest
Wormwood wrote:
That is just it, faith and philosophy have no place in a science classroom. I don’t want the engineer building my airplane to do so on faith, I want him to build it with an engineering degree based on science.
MKellog wrote:
No one disagrees with this, least of all ID proponents.
Wormwood wrote:
Well dts was disagreeing. He was saying it was impossible to remove them…reread the posts.
I did not argue that ID proponents are promoting faith in the science classroom. On the contrary, I believe they argue that their methods are empirical. They go to great lengths to distinguish themselves from creationism based solely on Scripture.
I do believe it is possible to separate empirical methods from other methods of proof. Notwithstanding this, I also believe that many so-called scientists are promoting atheistic or at least agnostic philosophy in the name of science.
Natural science is dependent on metaphysical assumptions about the nature of the universe. It is not difficult to blur the line between science and philosophy which is why the current debate is so heated. People of faith are beginning to realize, on a widespread scale, that much of what passes for natural or physical science is not really natural or physical science.
It is impossible to separate faith and philosophy from any subject without arbitrarily short circuiting the quest for knowledge. That is one of the problems with “secularism.” It assumes that faith and metaphysics can be ignored for most subjects. While it is possible to simply not mention the impact of the metaphysical assumptions in particular classes, the assumptions are still there. The assumptions should simply be acknowledged for what they are and not glossed over as natural science.
The Christian has a duty to know how his faith and philosophy impacts every area of knowledge. When scientists make atheistic claims in the name of science, the Christian should be prepared to rebut that. One of the ways to aid in this would be to draw sharp distinctions between empirical methods as compared to other methods. At the same time, the Christian must be prepared to rebut claims that the empirical method is the only method of knowing truth.
That is just it, faith and philosophy have no place in a science classroom. I don’t want the engineer building my airplane to do so on faith, I want him to build it with an engineering degree based on science.
MKellog wrote:
No one disagrees with this, least of all ID proponents.
Wormwood wrote:
Well dts was disagreeing. He was saying it was impossible to remove them…reread the posts.
I did not argue that ID proponents are promoting faith in the science classroom. On the contrary, I believe they argue that their methods are empirical. They go to great lengths to distinguish themselves from creationism based solely on Scripture.
I do believe it is possible to separate empirical methods from other methods of proof. Notwithstanding this, I also believe that many so-called scientists are promoting atheistic or at least agnostic philosophy in the name of science.
Natural science is dependent on metaphysical assumptions about the nature of the universe. It is not difficult to blur the line between science and philosophy which is why the current debate is so heated. People of faith are beginning to realize, on a widespread scale, that much of what passes for natural or physical science is not really natural or physical science.
It is impossible to separate faith and philosophy from any subject without arbitrarily short circuiting the quest for knowledge. That is one of the problems with “secularism.” It assumes that faith and metaphysics can be ignored for most subjects. While it is possible to simply not mention the impact of the metaphysical assumptions in particular classes, the assumptions are still there. The assumptions should simply be acknowledged for what they are and not glossed over as natural science.
The Christian has a duty to know how his faith and philosophy impacts every area of knowledge. When scientists make atheistic claims in the name of science, the Christian should be prepared to rebut that. One of the ways to aid in this would be to draw sharp distinctions between empirical methods as compared to other methods. At the same time, the Christian must be prepared to rebut claims that the empirical method is the only method of knowing truth.
M
Montalban
Guest
Montalban said:
I am 38. I was taught evolution at a catholic boys school.
What must now seem a long time ago (1986), I did a course at the Australian National University called ‘Prehistory’. Our textbook was
Poirier, F E, “In Search of Ourselves: An Introduction to Physical Anthropology”, (to which I will be referring specifically to p346ff ).
As to the ascent of man (though it says ‘descent’; itself a loaded term), there were many different theories then that had currency. Each followed scientific method, and each had its fair share of evidences to support it.
My textbook stated that each of the following;
the Unilinear School;
the Polyphyletic School’
the Preneanderthal School; and
the Presapiens School
were all valid possibilities to the pathway our ancestors took. This seemed ludicrous to me (then, and still), that each mutually conflicting theory would be accepted (as long as it doesn’t involve God).
Now two new mutually exclusive theories are being taught. The “Out of Africa” model, and the “Di-regional” or “Multiregional Model” as championed by Wolpoff et al.
And Human Evolution: A Fatal Attraction “ by Milford Wolpoff, University of Michigan and Rachel Caspari, University of Michigan “Race and Human Evolution is a far-ranging account by leading researchers in the field that describes the latest scientific evidence and the **conflicting theories about human evolution.” **
perseusbooksgroup.com/perseus-cgi-bin/display/0-8133-3546-9
The ‘science-gives-us-neat-phones-so-we-can’t-question-science’ theory is an old one.
Why compartmentalise things? I believe I can know Jesus through my whole being through ‘experience’ of mind, body and soul.
The study of theory and nature of science I find interesting.
Science is not meant to have goals.
I don’t know what this means. I can tell you though that as an Orthodox I do have problems with some aspects of ‘creationism’ (even though I believe God did it)
Fr Seraphim Rose said this about Genesis “Some Protestant fundamentalists tell us it is all (or virtually all) 'literal.” But such a view places us in some impossible difficulties: quite apart form our literal or non-literal interpretation of various passages, the very nature of the reality which is described in the first chapters of genesis the very creation of all things) makes it quite impossible for everything to be understood ‘literally’; we don’t even have words, for example, to describe ‘literally’ how something can come from nothing. How does God “speak”? - does He make a noise which resounds in an atmosphere that doesn’t yet exist?” (Genesis Creation and Early Man, p69).
I don’t compartmentalise. Though there are only two types of people in the world, those who catergorise people, and those who don’t.
Sorry I have had to leave bits of your post out, in my reply
W
Wormwood
Guest
The same is true of any religion. Their history and “revelations” coincide with their religions also, so all religions must be right too then correct? They can even use “logic” to prove it to you.
Incorrect assumption. That skeptical sense of proof has brought you vaccinations, a heliocentric solar system, engineering, space travel, and scores of other accomplishments. I think you under estimate that capacity science has in your life.
This is exactly why religion has no place in science. Cloning can be used for limitless areas of healthcare, and could quite possible alleviate all illness along with genetic modification. All religious people seem to see is some sci-fi scenario in which it is somehow used to clone whole people, then kill them…and this simply is not the case. Most cloning is in the area of tissue regeneration and limb regeneration for burn victims and amputees. I am sure if you were a burn victim undergoing countless painfull skin grafts you would support cloning of human tissue. Like I said, this just proves religion has no place in science…you guys don’t need proof, speculation works just fine, and this simply makes religion a stumbling block for science.
Opinion and conjecture, it has no place in science. If that is your personal view, teach that at home and end of problem.
Well until they can split the atom with faith, I am affraid those people are stuck with science. It requires a certain level of belief I suppose (not even close to what religion requires but anyways…), I mean how do we know there ARE molecules right? Is that the point you were trying to make? If so, the main difference would be, that I can sit down, explain the nature of molecules as they are understood, then show you through experimentation the molecules behaving the way I said they would every time (i.e. covalent bonds etc.). You can’t sit down and demonstrate something tangible and repeatable about God, and that is the difference. Sure, we may discover that there are no molecules, but the way we understand them now still gives us a very functional and demonstartable picture into the inner workings of matter.
Ok so you don’t mind if I use Darwin to prove Darwin correct then I take it? Also, I am almost positive this generic and seemingly condescending statement is directed towards me, to which I can only respond: I am not an atheist
Believing that the bible can somehow prove itself is fine for your church buddies, but that has no place in school. Gads man, by your reasoning I could prove that Mein Kompf is true because it says it is true right there in the book.
W
Wormwood
Guest
I never said all of this. If you have historical proof I would love to hear it. Also I think you are missing something here. Would you consider written testamony from one of the first buddhist monks to be proof that buddhism must be correct? I highly doubt it. But that is exactly what you are asking me to do.
Specifically it was medicine I believe, that had a higher percentage of atheists than any other proffesion (then dentists i think?) Obviously not under educated people…what do you think the correlation is?
I believe it was you who addressed me first, so I turn the question to you: Why MUST you prove yourself to me? While it IS true that I came here of my own free will, that does not mean I have to believe everything that is in print, either on this screen or anywhere else.
I have long ago acknowledged this. My point was your criteria has no place in a public classroom, as it is based on false and assumptive logic.
I guess. It seems to me that the religious side is the much more confrontational, I have never heard of scientists protesting church teachings or trying to force science on you during church. Why can’t you just believe what you believe? Why must the whole public educational system be based on your speculations?
No, you argued that faith SHOULD be promoted in the classroom.
See? I said you supported faith based teachings in classrooms. If I have somehow misread these numerous remaks I apologize.
Again you are trying to create a philosophical paradox which simply isn’t there. You know very well that you can have a functional working understanding of ANY subject without the word God ever coming up or even being suggested. You try to make it seem like proponderance of any subject will lead back to the beggining of time and creation, and I say that just simply isn’t the case. If someone wants to delve into the deepest areas of a particular scientific discipline, they have PhD’s for that, but that is rarely the case. The truth is, in high school especially, people just don’t care enough to get caught up in all these musings about the metaphysical properties of english, or the religion of calculus.
W
Wormwood
Guest
What assumptions? It sounds as if you are the only one making these so called obvious assumtions. Perhaps if you step back and just take it for what it is: man’s attempt to understand the universe around him; then you could relax and stop thinking that people are anti-God just because they don’t use him or his book to prove their theories. Also, no one has even attempted to answer how to choose which religion to start enforcing in schools…you are all for it now, but what if the population shifted and all schools had to teach the hindu story of creation…would you still support religion in schools then?
That “duty” should be taken care of on his or her own time. This is not a matter for educators (who are also highly atheistic…something about knowledge?) to be teaching children.
You are obviously the latter because of this very statement, the former would have said there is only one type of person in this worldMontalban
I don’t compartmentalise. Though there are only two types of people in the world, those who catergorise people, and those who don’t.
Just a heads up to he who does not compartmentalize.
D
dts
Guest
lifesite.net/ldn/2005/aug/050829a.html
Men in Zoos: London Gone Loony
One more manifestation of cosmic war being waged over question: “What is Man?”
Commentary
By John J. Jalsevac
The final and strangely beautiful song from the most recent album of the popular rock group Nine Inch Nails asks an interesting question. “See the animal in his cage that you built,” it begins, “are you sure what side you’re on?.. / Are you sure what side of the glass you are?”
On a certain level this is actually a question worth pondering in some depth. For instance, in our highly regulated, leisureless modern lives, how much like caged beasts have we allowed ourselves to become? Or perhaps, in our search for fulfillment in pleasure have we denied our human nature and become instinct-enslaved brutes? This is thought provoking stuff, at least much more so than song-writer Trent Reznor’s typically crude and profanity laden lyrics.
But strangely enough, even if the question were asked in its most strictly literal sense, there are a select few who would have a very different answer than most of us. For in one enclosure of the London England zoo, as was widely reported in the news last week, there is a new collection of sumptuous specimens of what the curators have called a “plague species”. This is a harsh label for any species, but in this case especially so because the species on display is Man.
In this very embarrassing zoological charade three brawny men and five shapely women have volunteered to strut around for a few days in their underwear and strategically placed fig leaves in an enclosure that was once the home of one or another species of bears. In the immortal words of the Zoo spokeswoman, the purpose of the exercise is that "Seeing people in a different environment, among other animals … teaches members of the public that the human is just another primate.”
Which is strange, because I could have sworn that it was to teach members of the public that the London zoo spokeswomen is an idiot (Sorry, but ad hominem attacks sometimes seem so strangely appropriate).
Evolution Controversy and Abortion, Euthanasia, Etc
Anyway, it is a curious feature of LifeSiteNews that every so often we weigh in on the debate over Darwinian evolution in what is probably mistakenly thought to be motivated by an opposition to any explanation of life but strict fundamentalist creationism. Some have expressed puzzlement about our interest in evolution and wondered what on earth it has to do with the much more central and vital cultural issues of abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research, etc.
The answer, it is as good a time as any to point out, is everything. It has everything to do with it.
In fact, all the many, many articles we print about the science of the unborn child, of whether it cries or doesn’t cry in the womb, or the gruesome details of embryonic stem cell research, etc., are comparatively mere quibbles. Vital quibbles mind you, quibbles that can sometimes save and often have saved valuable lives, but quibbles nonetheless.
The truth is that while we give our energy to these skirmishes over abortion and euthanasia and everything else, what is actually being waged is a cosmic war over a fundamental question of metaphysics and anthropology. It is a war over the question: “What is Man?”
Until this question is answered and answered well, men like Princeton professor Peter Singer will continue to insist on such apparently heinous propositions as the right of a mother or father to kill their child up until the arbitrary number of thirty days after birth. And no matter how much we insist that Terri Schiavo ought to have been allowed to live, if she is just another primate, a monkey whose only distinction is an affinity for clothing, then what’s to stop us “putting her out of her misery?”
Well, nothing really, just as there isn’t anything to stop anybody putting Peter Singer out of his misery if he too were “just another primate”. As the intellectual and agnostic Ivan Karamazov rightly points out in Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, “without God, all things are permitted.” The same very much holds true if evolution alone—as its proponents obviously believe—explains existence.
In fact, under the monstrous gaze of what Darwinian evolutionary anthropology has become it is difficult to explain why Peter Singer has so far held himself to a mere thirty days after birth. Really, if parents ever don’t want their child, they should be able to drop the hatchet at will. And the same, of course, goes for the child. It’s called survival of the fittest silly.
[continued]
Men in Zoos: London Gone Loony
One more manifestation of cosmic war being waged over question: “What is Man?”
Commentary
By John J. Jalsevac
The final and strangely beautiful song from the most recent album of the popular rock group Nine Inch Nails asks an interesting question. “See the animal in his cage that you built,” it begins, “are you sure what side you’re on?.. / Are you sure what side of the glass you are?”
On a certain level this is actually a question worth pondering in some depth. For instance, in our highly regulated, leisureless modern lives, how much like caged beasts have we allowed ourselves to become? Or perhaps, in our search for fulfillment in pleasure have we denied our human nature and become instinct-enslaved brutes? This is thought provoking stuff, at least much more so than song-writer Trent Reznor’s typically crude and profanity laden lyrics.
But strangely enough, even if the question were asked in its most strictly literal sense, there are a select few who would have a very different answer than most of us. For in one enclosure of the London England zoo, as was widely reported in the news last week, there is a new collection of sumptuous specimens of what the curators have called a “plague species”. This is a harsh label for any species, but in this case especially so because the species on display is Man.
In this very embarrassing zoological charade three brawny men and five shapely women have volunteered to strut around for a few days in their underwear and strategically placed fig leaves in an enclosure that was once the home of one or another species of bears. In the immortal words of the Zoo spokeswoman, the purpose of the exercise is that "Seeing people in a different environment, among other animals … teaches members of the public that the human is just another primate.”
Which is strange, because I could have sworn that it was to teach members of the public that the London zoo spokeswomen is an idiot (Sorry, but ad hominem attacks sometimes seem so strangely appropriate).
Evolution Controversy and Abortion, Euthanasia, Etc
Anyway, it is a curious feature of LifeSiteNews that every so often we weigh in on the debate over Darwinian evolution in what is probably mistakenly thought to be motivated by an opposition to any explanation of life but strict fundamentalist creationism. Some have expressed puzzlement about our interest in evolution and wondered what on earth it has to do with the much more central and vital cultural issues of abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research, etc.
The answer, it is as good a time as any to point out, is everything. It has everything to do with it.
In fact, all the many, many articles we print about the science of the unborn child, of whether it cries or doesn’t cry in the womb, or the gruesome details of embryonic stem cell research, etc., are comparatively mere quibbles. Vital quibbles mind you, quibbles that can sometimes save and often have saved valuable lives, but quibbles nonetheless.
The truth is that while we give our energy to these skirmishes over abortion and euthanasia and everything else, what is actually being waged is a cosmic war over a fundamental question of metaphysics and anthropology. It is a war over the question: “What is Man?”
Until this question is answered and answered well, men like Princeton professor Peter Singer will continue to insist on such apparently heinous propositions as the right of a mother or father to kill their child up until the arbitrary number of thirty days after birth. And no matter how much we insist that Terri Schiavo ought to have been allowed to live, if she is just another primate, a monkey whose only distinction is an affinity for clothing, then what’s to stop us “putting her out of her misery?”
Well, nothing really, just as there isn’t anything to stop anybody putting Peter Singer out of his misery if he too were “just another primate”. As the intellectual and agnostic Ivan Karamazov rightly points out in Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, “without God, all things are permitted.” The same very much holds true if evolution alone—as its proponents obviously believe—explains existence.
In fact, under the monstrous gaze of what Darwinian evolutionary anthropology has become it is difficult to explain why Peter Singer has so far held himself to a mere thirty days after birth. Really, if parents ever don’t want their child, they should be able to drop the hatchet at will. And the same, of course, goes for the child. It’s called survival of the fittest silly.
[continued]
D
dts
Guest
G.K. Chesterton’s Everlasting Man
But the unfortunate fact is that “evolution really is mistaken for explanation”, which G.K. Chesterton points in Everlasting Man, which is by far one of the best books on the question of Man, and which everybody ought to read immediately if they haven’t already. “It has the fatal quality of leaving on many minds the impression that they do understand it and everything else; just as many of them live under a sort of illusion that they have read Origin of Species.”
Much like the Big Bang theory, the theory of Darwinian evolution creates the dangerous aura of The Answer, when it isn’t anything of the sort. It’s exactly the same monstrous fallacy so many made of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, making the ludicrous leap from the relativity of space and time to the relativity of morality, all to the absolute horror of Einstein.
However, contrary to mainstream reporting, being a “close-minded creationist”is not seen by many honest thinkers and believers as the only credible option to Darwinism. That Man may, in some mysterious, miraculous fashion, have resulted from a physical evolution of primates over a period of many, many thousands or millions of years, that led him to the point of coming into the full possession of his sublime and spiritual humanity is by all accounts possible. Remote, but possible, and all the more miraculous for its remoteness.
It seems quite reasonable that no matter how slow a miracle may happen, it still remains a miracle. Says Chesterton: “The Greek witch may have turned sailors to swine with a stroke of the wand. But to see a naval gentleman of our acquaintance looking a little more like a pig every day, till he ended with four trotters and a curly tail, would not be any more soothing. It might be rather more creepy and uncanny.”
Mindless Responses From Viewers of London Exhibit
The New Zealand Herald reports the response of one particularly vapid visitor to the London zoo’s human exhibit. “It’s actually quite a powerful message,” she said. And if only she had stopped right there. But apparently she felt the urge to open her trap again, saying, “What if we are so successful in destroying our environment that one day the only place you could see human beings is in a zoo?”
Ha-ha! Knee-slapping fun. Well then—the question literally cries out to heaven—who…or what, on this blessed earth, other than another human being, is going to be putting humans on display in a zoo as an endangered species? After this “plague species”, Man, destroys his natural habitat, is it possible that the dolphins and other sea-creatures are going to construct subaqueous, ventilated cages and capture and display the endangered terrestrial species to the pitying aquatic world? Is this what this curious example of the environmentalist species was saying? It seems to be, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if she really believed it. So many strange things are believed today.
Chesterton was fond of pointing out that we currently live, not in the age of common sense, but the age of “uncommon nonsense”. The man of uncommon nonsense—only too often a scholar of great acclaim—puts men and women into a cage and believes that he has proved something sublime. While the man of common sense visiting the zoo in the hope of glimpsing an exotic animal blushes on seeing an exotic dancer instead and promptly goes home to soothe away the distressing feeling that the world has gone completely loony with a drink and a Sinatra record.
"A lot of people think humans are above other animals. When they see humans as animals, here, it kind of reminds us that we’re not that special,” said another visitor to the zoo, who was evidently suffering from temporary amnesia that caused him to forget the pyramids, the Panama canal, and the complete poetical works of Pope.
One opponent of mine, in response to a previous LifeSite article on DDT, concurred. “The problem isn’t with Nature, but with the human ego,” he said in what was unfortunately dead seriousness, “either that of individuals who claim that Nature can be managed and ultimately subordianted [sic] to man’s will through advances in technology, or that of Fundamentalist [expletive] like you who suggest that man is ultimately superior, stands alone outside of the rest of Nature and has some bizarre right of dominion over other living things.”
This is strangely discordant with Chesterton’s (and every man of common sense’s) belief that man is something truly extraordinary, that he is some mysterious way, “the measure of all things.”
Oh, but where to begin…where to begin.
I know. Go, right now, and buy, borrow or otherwise obtain a copy of Everlasting Man. And then read it. I guarantee you will be much the better for it.
But the unfortunate fact is that “evolution really is mistaken for explanation”, which G.K. Chesterton points in Everlasting Man, which is by far one of the best books on the question of Man, and which everybody ought to read immediately if they haven’t already. “It has the fatal quality of leaving on many minds the impression that they do understand it and everything else; just as many of them live under a sort of illusion that they have read Origin of Species.”
Much like the Big Bang theory, the theory of Darwinian evolution creates the dangerous aura of The Answer, when it isn’t anything of the sort. It’s exactly the same monstrous fallacy so many made of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, making the ludicrous leap from the relativity of space and time to the relativity of morality, all to the absolute horror of Einstein.
However, contrary to mainstream reporting, being a “close-minded creationist”is not seen by many honest thinkers and believers as the only credible option to Darwinism. That Man may, in some mysterious, miraculous fashion, have resulted from a physical evolution of primates over a period of many, many thousands or millions of years, that led him to the point of coming into the full possession of his sublime and spiritual humanity is by all accounts possible. Remote, but possible, and all the more miraculous for its remoteness.
It seems quite reasonable that no matter how slow a miracle may happen, it still remains a miracle. Says Chesterton: “The Greek witch may have turned sailors to swine with a stroke of the wand. But to see a naval gentleman of our acquaintance looking a little more like a pig every day, till he ended with four trotters and a curly tail, would not be any more soothing. It might be rather more creepy and uncanny.”
Mindless Responses From Viewers of London Exhibit
The New Zealand Herald reports the response of one particularly vapid visitor to the London zoo’s human exhibit. “It’s actually quite a powerful message,” she said. And if only she had stopped right there. But apparently she felt the urge to open her trap again, saying, “What if we are so successful in destroying our environment that one day the only place you could see human beings is in a zoo?”
Ha-ha! Knee-slapping fun. Well then—the question literally cries out to heaven—who…or what, on this blessed earth, other than another human being, is going to be putting humans on display in a zoo as an endangered species? After this “plague species”, Man, destroys his natural habitat, is it possible that the dolphins and other sea-creatures are going to construct subaqueous, ventilated cages and capture and display the endangered terrestrial species to the pitying aquatic world? Is this what this curious example of the environmentalist species was saying? It seems to be, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if she really believed it. So many strange things are believed today.
Chesterton was fond of pointing out that we currently live, not in the age of common sense, but the age of “uncommon nonsense”. The man of uncommon nonsense—only too often a scholar of great acclaim—puts men and women into a cage and believes that he has proved something sublime. While the man of common sense visiting the zoo in the hope of glimpsing an exotic animal blushes on seeing an exotic dancer instead and promptly goes home to soothe away the distressing feeling that the world has gone completely loony with a drink and a Sinatra record.
"A lot of people think humans are above other animals. When they see humans as animals, here, it kind of reminds us that we’re not that special,” said another visitor to the zoo, who was evidently suffering from temporary amnesia that caused him to forget the pyramids, the Panama canal, and the complete poetical works of Pope.
One opponent of mine, in response to a previous LifeSite article on DDT, concurred. “The problem isn’t with Nature, but with the human ego,” he said in what was unfortunately dead seriousness, “either that of individuals who claim that Nature can be managed and ultimately subordianted [sic] to man’s will through advances in technology, or that of Fundamentalist [expletive] like you who suggest that man is ultimately superior, stands alone outside of the rest of Nature and has some bizarre right of dominion over other living things.”
This is strangely discordant with Chesterton’s (and every man of common sense’s) belief that man is something truly extraordinary, that he is some mysterious way, “the measure of all things.”
Oh, but where to begin…where to begin.
I know. Go, right now, and buy, borrow or otherwise obtain a copy of Everlasting Man. And then read it. I guarantee you will be much the better for it.
D
dts
Guest
newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7915
Most scientific papers are probably wrong
Most published scientific research papers are wrong, according to a new analysis. Assuming that the new paper is itself correct, problems with experimental and statistical methods mean that there is less than a 50% chance that the results of any randomly chosen scientific paper are true.
John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece, says that small sample sizes, poor study design, researcher bias, and selective reporting and other problems combine to make most research findings false. But even large, well-designed studies are not always right, meaning that scientists and the public have to be wary of reported findings.
“We should accept that most research findings will be refuted. Some will be replicated and validated. The replication process is more important than the first discovery,” Ioannidis says.
In the paper, Ioannidis does not show that any particular findings are false. Instead, he shows statistically how the many obstacles to getting research findings right combine to make most published research wrong.
Massaged conclusions
Traditionally a study is said to be “statistically significant” if the odds are only 1 in 20 that the result could be pure chance. But in a complicated field where there are many potential hypotheses to sift through - such as whether a particular gene influences a particular disease - it is easy to reach false conclusions using this standard. If you test 20 false hypotheses, one of them is likely to show up as true, on average.
Odds get even worse for studies that are too small, studies that find small effects (for example, a drug that works for only 10% of patients), or studies where the protocol and endpoints are poorly defined, allowing researchers to massage their conclusions after the fact.
Surprisingly, Ioannidis says another predictor of false findings is if a field is “hot”, with many teams feeling pressure to beat the others to statistically significant findings.
But Solomon Snyder, senior editor at the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and a neuroscientist at Johns Hopkins Medical School in Baltimore, US, says most working scientists understand the limitations of published research.
“When I read the literature, I’m not reading it to find proof like a textbook. I’m reading to get ideas. So even if something is wrong with the paper, if they have the kernel of a novel idea, that’s something to think about,” he says.
Journal reference: Public Library of Science Medicine (DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124)
Related Articles
Most scientific papers are probably wrong
Code:
* 02:00 30 August 2005
* NewScientist.com news service
* Kurt KleinerJohn Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece, says that small sample sizes, poor study design, researcher bias, and selective reporting and other problems combine to make most research findings false. But even large, well-designed studies are not always right, meaning that scientists and the public have to be wary of reported findings.
“We should accept that most research findings will be refuted. Some will be replicated and validated. The replication process is more important than the first discovery,” Ioannidis says.
In the paper, Ioannidis does not show that any particular findings are false. Instead, he shows statistically how the many obstacles to getting research findings right combine to make most published research wrong.
Massaged conclusions
Traditionally a study is said to be “statistically significant” if the odds are only 1 in 20 that the result could be pure chance. But in a complicated field where there are many potential hypotheses to sift through - such as whether a particular gene influences a particular disease - it is easy to reach false conclusions using this standard. If you test 20 false hypotheses, one of them is likely to show up as true, on average.
Odds get even worse for studies that are too small, studies that find small effects (for example, a drug that works for only 10% of patients), or studies where the protocol and endpoints are poorly defined, allowing researchers to massage their conclusions after the fact.
Surprisingly, Ioannidis says another predictor of false findings is if a field is “hot”, with many teams feeling pressure to beat the others to statistically significant findings.
But Solomon Snyder, senior editor at the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and a neuroscientist at Johns Hopkins Medical School in Baltimore, US, says most working scientists understand the limitations of published research.
“When I read the literature, I’m not reading it to find proof like a textbook. I’m reading to get ideas. So even if something is wrong with the paper, if they have the kernel of a novel idea, that’s something to think about,” he says.
Journal reference: Public Library of Science Medicine (DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124)
Related Articles
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
I don’t either. Neither does evolutionary theory. Most people who think they hate evolution, don’t know very much about it.
In America, thanks to the efforts of the Seventh-Day Adventists, who successfully sold their ideas to many fundamentalists, there is still a substantial minority of Americans who don’t accept evolution.
All of science is inference. That’s how it works. Scientists make inferences from evidence. Science is inductive, and never actually “proves” anything.
D
dts
Guest
The Barbarian:
I guess we can stipulate that evolution is unproven. Especially, since it is dependent on sooooo many inferences.
J
john_doran
Guest
The Barbarian:
and what counts as “observation with the senses”? looking through a telescope? electron microscope? if i see tracks in a cloud-chamber, am i observing muons, say, with my senses? or when i hear a click on a geiger counter? or when a computer displays a certain number as the number of reactions that have occurred in the depths of a tank of heavy water, can i say that i have observed neutrinos with my senses?
and what’s the “it” we need sensually to observe? is it the event or object in question? if so, then cloud chambers, geiger counters, and detectors of any kind are disqualified as sources of legitimate scientific knowledge. what about so-called scientific laws? those are obviously not directly observable. and what is a “law”, anyway?
and what about unique historical events? those, obviously, are neither repeatable nor observable. where does that leave evolution, considered as a hypothesis about the biological history of our planet? or the origin of life? and what happens to cosmological models of the early universe?
look, there has been gallons and gallons of ink spilled in the last century in an attempt to resolve the demarcation problem - i.e. the problem of determining what differentiates science from non-science; it’s not as easy as you might think. and it’s certainly not something that can be solved simply by defining it away…
The Barbarian:
does that mean that string theory, brane theory and loop quantum gravity, for example, aren’t science? we cannot now (and very likely will never be able to) perceive phenomena in the planck domain.
and what counts as “observation with the senses”? looking through a telescope? electron microscope? if i see tracks in a cloud-chamber, am i observing muons, say, with my senses? or when i hear a click on a geiger counter? or when a computer displays a certain number as the number of reactions that have occurred in the depths of a tank of heavy water, can i say that i have observed neutrinos with my senses?
and what’s the “it” we need sensually to observe? is it the event or object in question? if so, then cloud chambers, geiger counters, and detectors of any kind are disqualified as sources of legitimate scientific knowledge. what about so-called scientific laws? those are obviously not directly observable. and what is a “law”, anyway?
and what about unique historical events? those, obviously, are neither repeatable nor observable. where does that leave evolution, considered as a hypothesis about the biological history of our planet? or the origin of life? and what happens to cosmological models of the early universe?
look, there has been gallons and gallons of ink spilled in the last century in an attempt to resolve the demarcation problem - i.e. the problem of determining what differentiates science from non-science; it’s not as easy as you might think. and it’s certainly not something that can be solved simply by defining it away…
The Barbarian:
whatever the root etymology of the word may be, metaphysics is in fact the study of the most general (or fundamental) features of reality - of those properties the world necessarily possesses; the ways in which it cannot be different than it is.
D
dts
Guest
nytimes.com/2005/08/31/national/31religion.html?ei=5070&en=ae0133badfda431f&ex=1126152000&emc=eta1&pagewanted=print
New York Times
August 31, 2005
Teaching of Creationism Is Endorsed in New Survey
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
In a finding that is likely to intensify the debate over what to teach students about the origins of life, a poll released yesterday found that nearly two-thirds of Americans say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools.
The poll found that 42 percent of respondents held strict creationist views, agreeing that “living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.”
In contrast, 48 percent said they believed that humans had evolved over time. But of those, 18 percent said that evolution was “guided by a supreme being,” and 26 percent said that evolution occurred through natural selection. In all, 64 percent said they were open to the idea of teaching creationism in addition to evolution, while 38 percent favored replacing evolution with creationism.
The poll was conducted July 7-17 by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. The questions about evolution were asked of 2,000 people. The margin of error was 2.5 percentage points.
John C. Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum, said he was surprised to see that teaching both evolution and creationism was favored not only by conservative Christians, but also by majorities of secular respondents, liberal Democrats and those who accept the theory of natural selection. Mr. Green called it a reflection of “American pragmatism.”
“It’s like they’re saying, ‘Some people see it this way, some see it that way, so just teach it all and let the kids figure it out.’ It seems like a nice compromise, but it infuriates both the creationists and the scientists,” said Mr. Green, who is also a professor at the University of Akron in Ohio.
Eugenie C. Scott, the director of the National Center for Science Education and a prominent defender of evolution, said the findings were not surprising because “Americans react very positively to the fairness or equal time kind of argument.”
“In fact, it’s the strongest thing that creationists have got going for them because their science is dismal,” Ms. Scott said. “But they do have American culture on their side.”
This year, the National Center for Science Education has tracked 70 new controversies over evolution in 26 states, some in school districts, others in the state legislatures.
President Bush joined the debate on Aug. 2, telling reporters that both evolution and the theory of intelligent design should be taught in schools “so people can understand what the debate is about.”
Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican leader, took the same position a few weeks later.
Intelligent design, a descendant of creationism, is the belief that life is so intricate that only a supreme being could have designed it.
The poll showed 41 percent of respondents wanted parents to have the primary say over how evolution is taught, compared with 28 percent who said teachers and scientists should decide and 21 percent who said school boards should. Asked whether they believed creationism should be taught instead of evolution, 38 percent were in favor, and 49 percent were opposed.
More of those who believe in creationism said they were “very certain” of their views (63 percent), compared with those who believe in evolution (32 percent).
The poll also asked about religion and politics, government financing of religious charities, and gay men and lesbians in the military. . . [continued]
New York Times
August 31, 2005
Teaching of Creationism Is Endorsed in New Survey
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
In a finding that is likely to intensify the debate over what to teach students about the origins of life, a poll released yesterday found that nearly two-thirds of Americans say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools.
The poll found that 42 percent of respondents held strict creationist views, agreeing that “living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.”
In contrast, 48 percent said they believed that humans had evolved over time. But of those, 18 percent said that evolution was “guided by a supreme being,” and 26 percent said that evolution occurred through natural selection. In all, 64 percent said they were open to the idea of teaching creationism in addition to evolution, while 38 percent favored replacing evolution with creationism.
The poll was conducted July 7-17 by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. The questions about evolution were asked of 2,000 people. The margin of error was 2.5 percentage points.
John C. Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum, said he was surprised to see that teaching both evolution and creationism was favored not only by conservative Christians, but also by majorities of secular respondents, liberal Democrats and those who accept the theory of natural selection. Mr. Green called it a reflection of “American pragmatism.”
“It’s like they’re saying, ‘Some people see it this way, some see it that way, so just teach it all and let the kids figure it out.’ It seems like a nice compromise, but it infuriates both the creationists and the scientists,” said Mr. Green, who is also a professor at the University of Akron in Ohio.
Eugenie C. Scott, the director of the National Center for Science Education and a prominent defender of evolution, said the findings were not surprising because “Americans react very positively to the fairness or equal time kind of argument.”
“In fact, it’s the strongest thing that creationists have got going for them because their science is dismal,” Ms. Scott said. “But they do have American culture on their side.”
This year, the National Center for Science Education has tracked 70 new controversies over evolution in 26 states, some in school districts, others in the state legislatures.
President Bush joined the debate on Aug. 2, telling reporters that both evolution and the theory of intelligent design should be taught in schools “so people can understand what the debate is about.”
Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican leader, took the same position a few weeks later.
Intelligent design, a descendant of creationism, is the belief that life is so intricate that only a supreme being could have designed it.
The poll showed 41 percent of respondents wanted parents to have the primary say over how evolution is taught, compared with 28 percent who said teachers and scientists should decide and 21 percent who said school boards should. Asked whether they believed creationism should be taught instead of evolution, 38 percent were in favor, and 49 percent were opposed.
More of those who believe in creationism said they were “very certain” of their views (63 percent), compared with those who believe in evolution (32 percent).
The poll also asked about religion and politics, government financing of religious charities, and gay men and lesbians in the military. . . [continued]
S
Steve_Andersen
Guest
dts quoting NYT:
not too long ago polls would have shown that flat earth or geocentric ideas should be taught in the schools
dts quoting NYT:
dts quoting NYT:
dts quoting NYT:
dts quoting NYT:
would they say the same for math or thermodynamics?
what makes people think that in one partiular subject that everyone’s opinion suddenly is a good as that of people who spend their lives studying it?
while it is an interesting statistic, once again, what does an opinion poll have to do with science?
not too long ago polls would have shown that flat earth or geocentric ideas should be taught in the schools
dts quoting NYT:
sometimes I fear for the future:crying:
dts quoting NYT:
we are often our own worst enemy
dts quoting NYT:
the fact that these two recieved graduate degrees from Yale and Harvard respectively makes me wonder what $40,000 a year in ivy covered halls buys these days
dts quoting NYT:
would they say the same for math or thermodynamics?what makes people think that in one partiular subject that everyone’s opinion suddenly is a good as that of people who spend their lives studying it?
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
“George Will: It’s about cultural anxiety. It’s about a sense of being marginalized, and disrespected by certain groups. It’s a worry about the coarsening of the culture. All of these may be to varying degrees legitimate worries. They have absolutely nothing to do with the scientific puzzle of explaining the mechanism that produced us.”
Indeed they have not. Those who want ID taught, so as to be fair, are making the same mistake as is made when people expect the Church to teach or allow certain things - because what is true, and what is untrue, have to be treated differently. Evolution is a fact - the Resurrection is a fact. Creationism, is an error - saying that Christ was not raised, is an error. The fair approach, is to avoid teaching the errors, and to teach the truths. What is unfair, and exceedingly so, is to treat error and fact in the same way. ##
S
Steve_Andersen
Guest
Well, in the old days we would make predictions as to how things would work if there were such things as molecules and then design experiments to test it out. This is evident in everything from the nylon in your socks to the red dye #3 in your hot dogs.
Nowadays, of course, with SEMs and other tools we can actually see the molecules…and even atoms too. Most molecules associated with biochemistry are pretty big …relatively speaking
no biggie
(It would of course be impolite to repeat that the geometry and energy states of those visible molecular structures play a huge roll in the deterministic process of evolution that shoots the “statistically impossible” argument that adherents to ID use to shreds…so I won’t mention that )
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
john doran:
That may depend on the philosophical school which is closest to your approach to entities
Fruitful ideas are a bit more elusive - insights that come when one is not at one’s instruments, but when one is in one’s bath, or asleep, might be prompted by consideration of a problem which is at some stage a properly scientific one; but they need not be. They may even be from outside the scope of properely scientific thinking.
I don’t think these questions of method are insoluble - ISTM that however uncertain some of the details of the replies to these questions may be, there is a core of certainty in any valid reply which makes it a proper pbject of knowledge, & useful. Something can be a law, and be used as a law, without all the epistemological issues which arise from apprehending it as a law being settled. In fact, if were not so, it would follow that only a particular philosophical approach to apprehending the world and the phenomena in it, would be compatible with being properly scientific; and the making of philosophical judgements is not a properly scientific pursuit. ##
That may depend on the philosophical school which is closest to your approach to entities
Maybe “observation with the senses” can be understood as any act or process in which the senses are employed at any stage.
Geiger counters have to be heard. The SETI project involves human agents who are using their senses.Fruitful ideas are a bit more elusive - insights that come when one is not at one’s instruments, but when one is in one’s bath, or asleep, might be prompted by consideration of a problem which is at some stage a properly scientific one; but they need not be. They may even be from outside the scope of properely scientific thinking.
I don’t think these questions of method are insoluble - ISTM that however uncertain some of the details of the replies to these questions may be, there is a core of certainty in any valid reply which makes it a proper pbject of knowledge, & useful. Something can be a law, and be used as a law, without all the epistemological issues which arise from apprehending it as a law being settled. In fact, if were not so, it would follow that only a particular philosophical approach to apprehending the world and the phenomena in it, would be compatible with being properly scientific; and the making of philosophical judgements is not a properly scientific pursuit. ##
That doesn’t mean that nothing useful or valid can be said about the problem. It would be a great pity to give up thinking about this issue, merely because it is not as yet resolved. Maybe a change of method is called for ?
- Status