Disproof? What am I trying to disprove?
I don’t recall saying anything about objective truth, if there’s even such a thing.
No. God doesn’t do that. that is man’s bailiwick, and he does it too well.
I get so tired of this bunk - let’s put and end to it - here is the evo hero Jerry Coyne.
A side question. Are we in the post modern period regarding science?
For one thing Buffalo, the thread is about criticisms of science, not just Evolution, although I note that you seem to think IDvolution is important.
I think the problem is just missing the scales involved here. If Jerry Coyne’s view is that evolutionary theory’s commercial utility is modest with respect to other discoveries, I agree, and suggest that’s not the least bit surprising. Electro-magnetism, for example, is a force that when discovered and modeled as such has led to a series of technical and commercial revolutions; this is physics that has broad and multifarious commercial applications, even from a point where we only understand it in a primitive or basic sense.
What do you mean by that?
Book no, but the best article I have ever read as to the dangers of science as a source of absolute knowledge and of Catholic teaching is to be found in The Cambridge Companion to Galileo Cambridge University Press, 1998. It is by Marcello Pera, professor of philosophy, on leave, at the university of Pisa, Italy, at the time a Senator of the Italian Republic. It is called : The god of theologians and the god of astronomers. In it he shown that to place Catholic belief on science, such as Pope Pius XII did with the Big Bang, means one puts Catholic dogmas at the mercy of scientific credibility. As science is an ever changing exercise, what happens to Catholic belief depending on it? This danger also came to pass when churchmen took the word of philosophers and astronomers over that of the Church with regard to the Copernican heresy. Others examples are that the literal interpretation of Scripture have been dumped in favour of other scientific theories that are themselves now being exposed as nonsense. (Google in May’s new book on Evolution) In other words the interpretations of Genesis are now embroiled in the scientific rebuttals of numerous scholars and millions of people worldwide. What were once absolute literal interpretations of origins and dogmas such as A First Parent, Adam and Eve, Original Sin and the need for a Redeemer (Jesus Christ) have become the subject of doubt to many by way of popes entertaining scientific theories on origins.
In my opinion, the kind of truth you are looking for is simply not found in any of the empirical sciences. Regardless of how sophisticated or powerful natural science might be, it can only give us contingent truth.
Recently, a philosophy professor commented that we are in the post modern period of philosophy. It seemed as if he were referring to a new grouping of philosophers. I simply wondered about science being in some kind of category. No big deal.
Rightly or wrongly (I’m sure you’ll let me know
) I took from your point the following.
Capitalism morphs with the changing times… ROTFL!!!
Moral Relativism Alert!!!
What do you think about distributism?
Didn’t say it was good, just that it’s organic is all. Jeepers it’s not like I invented it, own any shares or have any money.
I’m an unabashed moral relativist. The only people who deal in moral absolutes are the raving despots, fundamentalist bampots and the indoctrinated beyond redemption.Moral Relativism Alert!!!
Socialism in it’s uncorrupted form is simply the idea that each of us has a duty of care over each other. To use Stalin or Mao Tse Tung as examples of socialists is akin to characterizing all religious people as Abu Hamza or Gerry Falwell.