Your being paranoid again. It wouldn’t matter if every scientist in the world is atheist, fact is that science is an objective reality that is not affected by our religious beliefs. If a Scientologist told you the sky was blue, are you gonna disagree just because of his religion?Am I to believe if a biologist with an a priori worldview as an atheist performs research and finds data opposed to his worldview will advance it? Hardly. He will kill it or try to work a conclusion that works to his existing worldview. So this means that the papers that get to peer review are biased. The emerging picture is one that is suspect.
Call me paranoid. If a scientist keeps telling you trees are blue you will eventually believe him.Your being paranoid again. It wouldn’t matter if every scientist in the world is atheist, fact is that science is an objective reality that is not affected by our religious beliefs. If a Scientologist told you the sky was blue, are you gonna disagree just because of his religion?
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
Should we think that the a prior commitment has nothing to do with the claims that this scientist makes?It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
Can we conclude that scientists are willing to lie in order to make money?After all, we want our grants funded by the government, and our schoolchildren exposed to real science instead of creationism. Liberal religious people have been important allies in our struggle against creationism, and it is not pleasant to alienate them by declaring how we feel. This is why, as a tactical matter, groups such as the National Academy of Sciences claim that religion and science do not conflict. But their main evidence — the existence of religious scientists — is wearing thin as scientists grow ever more vociferous about their lack of faith.
Evolution is taking things out of scope. There is no definitive data that points common ancestry from slime on a rock. This is all speculative corollary ideologies.I have indeed challenged that. I provided you plenty of examples of other areas of science, philosophy, and theology where some people took things well beyond their scope.
Let’s be clear about this. Science can *never *be objective. God is objective, Jesus and the cross are objective, our Catholic faith is objective (it was revealed by God who is Truth). Observations of natural phenomena can never be objective since it varies from person to person. Take a look at this, if a tree falls and no one hears it, does it make a sound? No, someone has to make that observation for it to make a sound.Science is objective, philosophy is theory unless proven otherwise. Learn the difference.
Good grief, your totally in reality denial. “Slime on a rock”?! “Observations of natural phenomena can never be objective”?! I seriously hope you are never allowed to teach children anything (or allowed near them) last thing I need is my kid coming home with you telling them that 1 plus 1 is 3!Evolution is taking things out of scope. There is no definitive data that points common ancestry from slime on a rock. This is all speculative corollary ideologies.
Let’s be clear about this. Science can *never *be objective. God is objective, Jesus and the cross are objective, our Catholic faith is objective (it was revealed by God who is Truth). Observations of natural phenomena can never be objective since it varies from person to person. Take a look at this, if a tree falls and no one hears it, does it make a sound? No, someone has to make that observation for it to make a sound.
EDIT: Not to mention, the point of scientific endeavor is to lead the human mind to deeper questions. Since when did we turn this into boastful arrogance to say we know everything there is to know and turn this into yet another dogmatic fundamentalism? I really sense you know nothing about science.
Your martyr syndrome is really funny but sad. Please provide actual evidence that all scientists are conspiring against God… oh wait, that’s right, you can’t, because it’s not real except in your messed up head!The majority of the US population does not accept evolution:
cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml
The ongoing social tension is designed to “push the numbers” in the direction of increased agnosticism on its way to increased atheism. As Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution allows one to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”
“Science” is increasingly used to justify all kinds of immoral behaviors. Second, science is being used to create an atmosphere of indifference regarding issues of ethics and morality. The media is assuring us that “only religious people” are against embryonic stem cell research cell. After all, we’re told, embryos don’t have fingers and toes. By denying the scientifically provable fact that we all started life as a human embryo - what other facts are being ignored or denied? Are people just going to accept this denial because a bunch of scientists are cutting up human embryos and telling us it’s for our greater good?
Pick up a copy of The Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis. In it, man is reduced to a commodity.
And yes, science is a job and just like all human beings, some scientists may be tempted and some actually do fudge the results to keep that job. And I write this with all due respect to the scientists who have helped mankind.
Peace,
Ed
Oh I see, so ONE scientist who is an atheist is supposed to convince me to throw science down the gutter and embrace primitive superstitions. Bravo, Ed, you just won the “tried but failed again” award.This university professor, a Biologist, will tell you what he knows and what his interactions with other scientists tell him:
youtube.com/watch?v=EczOQ1mV5aU
Peace,
Ed
Fraud in scienceOh I see, so ONE scientist who is an atheist is supposed to convince me to throw science down the gutter and embrace primitive superstitions. Bravo, Ed, you just won the “tried but failed again” award.
We are getting somewhere. Even an avowed evolutionist can hit on the truth.Ironic you posted “The great betrayal”, considering that author is a believer in evolution. And no one denies that scientists are human and can lie or be caught engaging in backdoor deals, that is all the more reason we need to separate the scientific community from government and extremist “creationist” think tanks.
That’s why we need to stop creationist politicians from forcing children at public schools to worship their young-earth-theory golden calf.We are getting somewhere. Even an avowed evolutionist can hit on the truth.
There is much politics, greed and corruption in science - do you agree?
As I said before - only empirical science in the science classroom. That means the philosophy of evolution is out.That’s why we need to stop creationist politicians from forcing children at public schools to worship their young-earth-theory golden calf.
Evolution has scientific backing and facts behind it. Do you deny gravity and Earth being round as well?As I said before - only empirical science in the science classroom. That means the philosophy of evolution is out.
Let me give you another example, if a person goes and examines a rock, can that person acquire the same observation as someone who is blind? Clearly the blind one will base it on touch, taste, texture, perhaps even weight. For something to be objective, you must know everything there is to know, and hopefully, you can see clearly this is not the case.Good grief, your totally in reality denial. “Slime on a rock”?! “Observations of natural phenomena can never be objective”?! I seriously hope you are never allowed to teach children anything (or allowed near them) last thing I need is my kid coming home with you telling them that 1 plus 1 is 3!
All those facts are speculative. That’s what we are trying to get you to understand.Evolution has scientific backing and facts behind it.
Some Darwinian scientists assert that evolutionary theory necessarily eliminates belief in God – that it is atheistic.As I said before - only empirical science in the science classroom. That means the philosophy of evolution is out.
A priori conclusions.Evolution has scientific backing and facts behind it. Do you deny gravity and Earth being round as well?