The Science Delusion. 10 dogmas of modern science

[Oreoracle]

Would the “invisible foe” be those that promote pseudo science, push to abolish all traces of Christianity in the US, and justify child sacrifice and homosexual indoctrination of children?

What “pseudo-science” is mainstream education promoting?

We are by no means pushing to abolish Christianity. Almost all college students are required to take a philosophy class of some sort, in which religion (and Christianity in particular) is discussed extensively. It is also discussed a lot in sociology and politics courses. Students can opt for religious studies courses if they wish. What we don’t do is invoke God to explain why gravity works, for example.

Homosexual indoctrination? One doesn’t choose one’s sexuality. You can’t “recruit” homosexuals. The reason there appear to be more homosexuals than in years past is because it is now more acceptable for them to come out. There have always been a lot of homosexuals. I’m sorry if the truth unnerves you.

Child sacrifice? Correct me if I’m wrong, but the whole notion of human sacrifice originated with religion.

 

[Rin]

I think it is time to face the fact that most of the skeptics who appear on this forum ( including some who are Christian) are empiricist ideologues. This is evident by the tone of their responses but mostly their attitude toward Thomistic Philosophy and Divine Revelation.

To begin my theses one has to go back to the ancient Greeks, Muslims, Jews, and Thomas Aquinas. The assumption of the empiricists is that these men ( though in modern times women have become interested in Philosophy and Theology as well ), were unintelligent or backward. And by extension, anyone today who reveres them are equally backward. This attitude displays a gross prejudice and ignorance which is simply unwarranted. Anyone who has read them knows that these men and women represent some of the greatest intellects the world has known.

But the crescendo of the current debate began in the 17th century. It has been fueled by the fact that God has been outlawed from education at every level, the media, and the lecture circuits. Only those who represent the current secular world views are given any kind of a hearing. Religion, Theology, and Philosophy have been ostrecized from the public square, from civil discourse.

But there is a backlash against the long standing empicist attitude. First of all, many scientists, from the very beginning of the scientific revolution, have been, and are today, men and women of strong Religious conviction and philosophical persuasion. And more and more voices are being raised against the empiricist attitude. I can point to many authors giving voice to this new revolt. Here are several.

Bankrupting Physics by Alexandar Unzicker and Sheilla Jones, Cosmos and Transcendence by Wolfgang Smith, God and the Cosmologist
s by Stanley L. Jaki, the work of Dr. Anthony Rizzi, and Fr. Robert J. Spitzer of the Magis Center for Faith and Reason. All these people are scientists and the first two are non-believers ( which shows that even secular minded people are getting tired of the claims of empiricists).

And as for proof of Divine Revelation I refer the reader to the U-Tube video The Star of Bethelehem by Rick Larson, youtube.com/watch?v=zPHKg0M3mEo

Linus2nd

I agree to what you write here, though I haven’t watched the video, and of the names you mention, I’m only familiar with Jaki who I admire philosophically as well as scientifically.

However, it’s important to remember that Jaki’s criticism against the phenomenon we call scientism (which is what I think you mean by empiricism, or am I wrong?) also hits “theologism” (if that’s a word). The main fallacy of the scientism crowd is that they think natural sciences, which are only concerned with the material, can tell us something about the metaphysical. At the same time, the “theologism” crowd think theology, which is mainly concerned with the metaphysical, can tell us something about the material world. Both of those ideas constitute category mistakes.

Which is why I cringe just as much when I see the Christian (mainly Protestant) trying to use the Bible as a science textbook, as I do when I see the Atheist trying to use natural sciences to disprove God. Both fallacies are manifestations of ideology, defined as letting a particular science become the all-explaining/“omnipotent” science. Philosophy, however, transcends science, and can hence say something about other sciences, but philosophers should know their boundaries too - they tend to embarrass themselves when attempting to use quantum physics for philosophical purpose, for example. Note that I know less than I wish I did about quantum physics, but I have this from a physicist

I’m not sure if I’m one of the skeptics you were referring to, but either way, I certainly am a skeptic, toward science (at least!) as much as everything else. I’ve spent too much time with “brains in a vat”-style arguments to think of empirical science as definitive in any way. If I weren’t Catholic, I wouldn’t even believe in the existence of an external world. But when discussing science, I (do my best to) do so within the boundaries of science, since its domain doesn’t converge with theology, and not really with philosophy either. The ethics surrounding science surely does, but ethics of science isn’t science, it’s something that governs science. The same goes for methods of science - the current scientific method came into existence because of philosophy, and philosophy may very well (or probably will) be the discipline to change that at some point in the future.

Interestingly, my views make some Atheists (and even some Catholics) see me as a horribly conservative, superstitious and irrational person, while some religious see me as a horribly liberal, secularized closet atheist. Which is both entertaining and frustrating, but then I guess pleasing no one (or well… “few”, I guess - I know some like minded people) is better than pleasing everyone…

 

[Rin]

I say “imaginary” because I’ve been in college for a while now and I haven’t heard a professor ridicule religion even once. In fact, most of my professors have been religious.

I have the same experience - except my professors weren’t even religious. Actually, they were staunch, left-leaning Atheists, in many cases. Yet, I never heard them speak about religion with anything other than respect. Why? As respected scholars and scientists, they know that many of their peers are religious, and hence they’re fully aware that religion is not contrary to science as such. One of the up-and-coming physicists at my university, who took part in the experiments that led to last year’s Nobel prize, is a Dominican nun, even. That raises eyes in the mainstream media, but not among scientists.

The people I see who ridicule religion are either “internet Atheists” of the seemingly less educated kind, or professors (or lower level teachers) at less respected academic institutions. So my experience is pretty much that science is generally not disrespectful to religion. Perhaps except some parts of the humanities, which are generally not very respected in other circles either…

 

[Catolico65]

What “pseudo-science” is mainstream education promoting?

1. The Big Bang means the universe could not have been created.
2. Entropy is not a conflict with the singularity that caused the Big Bang.
3. Biological evolution is possible.
4. Homosexuality has been proven be science to be biological.
5. Preliminary scientific analysis with inconclusive associations are considered more valid than conflicting extensive conclusive and vetted research only because of a larger consensus.

We are by no means pushing to abolish Christianity

Repeating an assertion does not give it validity. Anyone who read the news in the US on a daily basis can see the results of attacks on our Christian heritage, especially in public institutions. For example, the concept of separation of church and state was derived from the 1st amendment and only addresses that the US should not have a National religion. Yet it is used today as a reason to remove all Christian references from the public venue, in direct contradiction to the wishes of the FF.

Homosexual indoctrination? One doesn’t choose one’s sexuality. You can’t “recruit” homosexuals. The reason there appear to be more homosexuals than in years past is because it is now more acceptable for them to come out. There have always been a lot of homosexuals. I’m sorry if the truth unnerves you.

You are a perfect example of the effects of the promotion of pseudo science. There is absolutely no definitive biological origin of homosexuality, in spite of the fact that the atheist and gay lobby have spent millions or billions trying to find it after more than 30 years. What has been established is that it cannot be genetic and that there are more ex homosexuals than homosexual. FACT.

Child sacrifice? Correct me if I’m wrong, but the whole notion of human sacrifice originated with religion.

Actually, it started with godless ideological systems, like yours. It continues to this day because of same, to the amount of 26,000,000 children sacrificed annually. More children are in fact murdered than all the people that die in wars and of starvation. So much for atheists being more humanist.

 

[Catolico65]

I have the same experience - except my professors weren’t even religious. Actually, they were staunch, left-leaning Atheists, in many cases. Yet, I never heard them speak about religion with anything other than respect. Why? As respected scholars and scientists, they know that many of their peers are religious, and hence they’re fully aware that religion is not contrary to science as such. One of the up-and-coming physicists at my university, who took part in the experiments that led to last year’s Nobel prize, is a Dominican nun, even. That raises eyes in the mainstream media, but not among scientists.

The people I see who ridicule religion are either “internet Atheists” of the seemingly less educated kind, or professors (or lower level teachers) at less respected academic institutions. So my experience is pretty much that science is generally not disrespectful to religion. Perhaps except some parts of the humanities, which are generally not very respected in other circles either…

With all due respect presenting anecdotal evidence as representative is not scientific to say the least. In fact it is nothing more than pseudo science, fact. There is a significant atheist/agnostic component among US professors and it increases in elite universities.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I would say all contemporary Catholic philosophers are critical of materialism (a couple good books on the subject are Real Essentialism by David Oderberg and Thought and World by James Ross). I’d say that materialism’s inability to account for the mind is a good reason to consider other theories, but isn’t a direct vindication of Christianity.

However, I don’t think that quantum mechanics is the place to locate consciousness. To say that quantum mechanics shows that matter is “conscious” is a bit of a confusion, IMO. Certain interpretations of quantum mechanics depend on a conscious observer, but it doesn’t follow that matter itself is “conscious.” (Similar issues are faced by those who try to locate free will in a “quantum brain,” as though replacing determinism with random events makes acts “free.”)

Agreed. Who is making that claim?

Linus2nd

 

[Oreoracle]

1. The Big Bang means the universe could not have been created.

We have never once talked about the creation of the universe in a science class. You could say that isn’t “proof” that it’s never taught that way, but the reality is that each of us can only offer our own anecdotal evidence. There is no “study” on what is taught in science classrooms verbatim, so we have only our personal experiences. And in my personal experience, this is patently false.

1. Entropy is not a conflict with the singularity that caused the Big Bang.

None of my teachers/professors have even mentioned entropy and the Big Bang in the same sentence. Entropy is often taught in a very restricted context with little application to the real world. (Most high schools don’t exactly have a laboratory to accurately test thermodynamical principles, after all.)

The only way you can know what’s going on in public schools is to actually be there. Fox News is just a tiny bit biased with their reporting.

1. Biological evolution is possible.

You’ve got me there. How dare we teach something which has enabled countless biological discoveries, motivated our understanding of medicine, and has literally mountains of evidence supporting it.

Intelligent design, on the other hand, has predicted nothing. It can only reiterate the discoveries for which evolution was already responsible.

1. Homosexuality has been proven be science to be biological.

No, any psychology textbook will readily admit that homosexuality is not caused entirely by one’s genes. We demonstrate this not with a holy book, but with science. Studies have been conducted on genetically identical twins that have differing sexualities, thus proving that there is a psychological component to homosexuality.

However, there are correlations with biological factors. Studies have shown that each son a mother has is more likely to be homosexual than the last. It shouldn’t be terribly surprising that biology plays a role. Sexuality only exists because of the sex drive, which is enabled by hormones. Shutting those hormones down would render someone asexual. If sexuality were merely spiritual, 4 year-olds would have sexual preferences.

1. Preliminary scientific analysis with inconclusive associations are considered more valid than conflicting extensive conclusive and vetted research only because of a larger consensus.

Such as?

Repeating an assertion does not give it validity. Anyone who read the news in the US on a daily basis can see the results of attacks on our Christian heritage, especially in public institutions.

Ah, the news! Do you know what those journalists do for a living? They get paid to find the absolute worst examples to write about. This world could have a homicide rate of one person per year, and that one death would be plastered on the news year-round. You cannot infer trends based on the frequency with which you hear stories in the news. You’re just hearing a whole bunch of handpicked anecdotes. The news is in the entertainment business.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Therefore, we are certainly in dangerous times where the scientific industry has sold itself to special interests, including their own prejudices, in order to make a buck and spread their unscientific theories.of advancing their personal agenda. This is what happens to a society when Christian values are replaced by something more expedient to the whims of unprincipled persons.

We have been living in these very dangerous times since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

When people tell me the future is going to be glorious for science, I ask them how glorious it can be when science has already put in human hands the method for achieving universal Armageddon.

I can imagine some future catastrophe followed by the universal cursing of those bright fellows who invented the first nuclear weapons. And Albert Einstein might be at the very top of that list upon whom the curse falls, since it was he who urged President Roosevelt to fund the building of the bomb.

hypertextbook.com/eworld/einstein.shtml

 

[Aloysium]

. . . You’ve got me there. How dare we teach something which has enabled countless biological discoveries, motivated our understanding of medicine, and has literally mountains of evidence supporting it.

Intelligent design, on the other hand, has predicted nothing. It can only reiterate the discoveries for which evolution was already responsible. . .

The hierarchy of growing complexity that we observe in life has not been explained by the degenerative process of random mutation. There is absolutely no evidence to support such a claim.

There are different characteristics displayed by people in different parts of the world, such as we see in the Inuit population where, compared to peiople from mediterranean, physiologically they sweat less on their trunk and more on the face, and have lessened finger capillary response to cold. This makes for better tolerance of cold environments. This is adaptation and has nothing to do with how it has come to be that you can understand, love and appreciate beauty: that you, yourself are actually here.

Sonny, regardless of what fantasies you have about it, science is a political and economic tool. It is fueled by money, and politics decides where the money goes. !0 billion is spent, I believe by the US government to fund basic research. Why do you think it does that? I’m going to tell you: it is to ultimately build better ways to kill and hence control people. Science is not progressing; divorced from morality has been leading us ever closer to completely destroying ourselves, hopefully it will not reach the point where that may not even matter.

 

[KyrieEleison17]

This is not an assumption of science, because science isn’t in the business of discussing purpose.

Bolded part is in fact a plain assumption.

Do you personally believe it is for something other than what we might call science or a science to determine objectively what a thing is or might be properly or primarily for? Are you saying the statement that ‘So-and-so should not put his hand into the fire because human hands are not meant for that’ is somehow a religious statement about which science has no place, authority, role or business? Are you saying such a statement is necessarily mere opinion that can not be grounded in scientific fact(s)?

This is like criticizing math for not telling you how to paint a beautiful picture.

But a lot about beautiful art can be understood in mathematical terms, as with music for similar reasons.

There’s no reason to think the mind persists after the brain’s demise.

The intellect must necessarily be immaterial otherwise you fall into all of the paradoxes of matter recognizing and containing matter and becoming conscious of itself.

The intellect should not be confused with the imagination or with memory though they are closely connected.

 

[RPRPsych]

As someone who subscribes enthusiastically to Bl. JP II’s Fides et Ratio, this thread distresses me.

Rupert Sheldrake is one of the many modern “scientific gurus” who are neither fish not flesh; they create a hodge-podge of science and “spirituality” and sell it to those who are, rightly, disgusted or disillusioned by pure materialism.

So far, so good. Pure materialism is a false premise. But we must also look more closely at what Sheldrake and his ilk are peddling - a mish-mash of science, New Age ideas, Eastern views of panpsychism / pantheism, and a light, “feel-good” version of Christianity (Sheldrake identifies as a “liberal Anglican” himself.)

Do I reject an atheistic and materialistic science? Yes, yes.

Do I also reject false New Age teachings and shoddy philosophy that the Church herself has rejected? Of course.

If we want a refutation of pure scientism, why not stick to Aquinas (or Gilson or Maritain)? Who needs this charlatan?

Sheldrake is the scientific equivalent of “Roman Catholic Womenpriests.”

 

[Catolico65]

We have never once talked about the creation of the universe in a science class. You could say that isn’t “proof” that it’s never taught that way, but the reality is that each of us can only offer our own anecdotal evidence. There is no “study” on what is taught in science classrooms verbatim, so we have only our personal experiences. And in my personal experience, this is patently false.

In spite of your experience the reality is the teaching of evolution is mandatory in many States.

Furthermore, please understand anecdotal evidence is not scientific fact nor necessarily representative.

None of my teachers/professors have even mentioned entropy and the Big Bang in the same sentence. Entropy is often taught in a very restricted context with little application to the real world. (Most high schools don’t exactly have a laboratory to accurately test thermodynamical principles, after all.)

I learned about entropy in my hs and college courses so it appears you have not studied physics… As far as your comment about entropy having very few “applications” in the real world that couldn’t be furthest from the truth. The fact is the 2nd law of thermodynamics is used all day long by many engineers in many applications.

The only way you can know what’s going on in public schools is to actually be there. Fox News is just a tiny bit biased with their reporting.

Promoting anecdotal evidence as representative is pseudo science.

You’ve got me there. How dare we teach something which has enabled countless biological discoveries, motivated our understanding of medicine, and has literally mountains of evidence supporting it.

My advice to you as a young adult is to not believe everything you are told, even in high school. The fact is mutation is a degenerative process and cannot create complexity. The theory that multi cellular animals could evolve from one celled bacteria has been refuted by numerous geneticists.

Intelligent design, on the other hand, has predicted nothing. It can only reiterate the discoveries for which evolution was already responsible.

Evolution is pseudo science. Investigate it yourself.

No, any psychology textbook will readily admit that homosexuality is not caused entirely by one’s genes. We demonstrate this not with a holy book, but with science. Studies have been conducted on genetically identical twins that have differing sexualities, thus proving that there is a psychological component to homosexuality.

Apparently you don’t read a lot of news nor take part in lots of debates because homosexuality is promoted as having a genetic origin constantly, including by many on this forum.

Nonetheless, I’m glad you recognize that the most up to date research shows that SSA is psychological in origin.

However, there are correlations with biological factors. Studies have shown that each son a mother has is more likely to be homosexual than the last. It shouldn’t be terribly surprising that biology plays a role. Sexuality only exists because of the sex drive, which is enabled by hormones. Shutting those hormones down would render someone asexual. If sexuality were merely spiritual, 4 year-olds would have sexual preferences.

Please be aware that studies involving significant populations show that for the majority of people interviewed of those that had SSA it gravitated toward heterosexual desires later on in their life. In fact, the data demonstrates that there are more ex homosexuals than homosexuals in existence.

Such as?

…many of your comments.

Ah, the news! Do you know what those journalists do for a living? They get paid to find the absolute worst examples to write about. This world could have a homicide rate of one person per year, and that one death would be plastered on the news year-round. You cannot infer trends based on the frequency with which you hear stories in the news. You’re just hearing a whole bunch of handpicked anecdotes. The news is in the entertainment business.

That’s funny that you claim I’m guilty of pseudo science after you spent your whole post doing just that.

Seriously, what you fail to understand is when expression of one’s religion are challenged they can establish a legal precedence that affects similar expressions in that State. In other words one case can make a huge impact, like Roe vs Wade.

 

[Catolico65]

We have been living in these very dangerous times since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

When people tell me the future is going to be glorious for science, I ask them how glorious it can be when science has already put in human hands the method for achieving universal Armageddon.

I can imagine some future catastrophe followed by the universal cursing of those bright fellows who invented the first nuclear weapons. And Albert Einstein might be at the very top of that list upon whom the curse falls, since it was he who urged President Roosevelt to fund the building of the bomb.

hypertextbook.com/eworld/einstein.shtml

My friend, no need to wait for the future. Immoral science has enabled us to kill 26,000,000 annually, MUCH more than all the people killed in wars and that die of starvation and worse have convinced the majority of people that it is morally ok. We are already in the future and it cannot get much worse.

 

[balto]

As someone who subscribes enthusiastically to Bl. JP II’s Fides et Ratio, this thread distresses me.

Rupert Sheldrake is one of the many modern “scientific gurus” who are neither fish not flesh; they create a hodge-podge of science and “spirituality” and sell it to those who are, rightly, disgusted or disillusioned by pure materialism.

So far, so good. Pure materialism is a false premise. But we must also look more closely at what Sheldrake and his ilk are peddling - a mish-mash of science, New Age ideas, Eastern views of panpsychism / pantheism, and a light, “feel-good” version of Christianity (Sheldrake identifies as a “liberal Anglican” himself.)

Do I reject an atheistic and materialistic science? Yes, yes.

Do I also reject false New Age teachings and shoddy philosophy that the Church herself has rejected? Of course.

If we want a refutation of pure scientism, why not stick to Aquinas (or Gilson or Maritain)? Who needs this charlatan?

Sheldrake is the scientific equivalent of “Roman Catholic Womenpriests.”

Thank you for your common sense . Although I do think that this thread highlights an important issue with scientific investigation these days that is not really a problem with science per se. The problem is that science seems to have become wedded to a materialistic philosophy of metaphysics such that scientific realities are used to justify materialism against theism when science is incapable of answering the question either way. The debate between materialism and theism, a debate of critical importance, is not a scientific one. A great challenge of 21st century science is to free itself from materialist assumptions.

 

[KyrieEleison17]

We are already in the future and it cannot get much worse.

Oh it most certainly can!

 

[Usagi]

Dr Sheldrake provides the data in his book of the measurements of the Speed of Light throughout history and shows that it at times has varied.

*Mar. 25, 2013 — Two forthcoming European Physical Journal D papers challenge established wisdom about the nature of vacuum. In one paper, Marcel Urban from the University of Paris-Sud, located in Orsay, France and his colleagues identified a quantum level mechanism for interpreting vacuum as being filled with pairs of virtual particles with fluctuating energy values. As a result, the inherent characteristics of vacuum, like the speed of light, may not be a constant after all, but fluctuate.

… As a result, there is a theoretical possibility that the speed of light is not fixed, as conventional physics has assumed. But it could fluctuate at a level independent of the energy of each light quantum, or photon, and greater than fluctuations induced by quantum level gravity. The speed of light would be dependent on variations in the vacuum properties of space or time. The fluctuations of the photon propagation time are estimated to be on the order of 50 attoseconds per square meter of crossed vacuum, which might be testable with the help of new ultra-fast lasers.Leuchs and Sanchez-Soto, on the other hand, modelled virtual charged particle pairs as electric dipoles responsible for the polarisation of the vacuum.

They found that a specific property of vacuum called the impedance, which is crucial to determining the speed of light, depends only on the sum of the square of the electric charges of particles but not on their masses. If their idea is correct, the value of the speed of light combined with the value of vacuum impedance gives an indication of the total number of charged elementary particles existing in nature. Experimental results support this hypothesis.*

Science Daily: Speed of Light May Not Be Fixed, Scientists Suggest; Ephemeral Vacuum Particles Induce Speed-Of-Light Fluctuations

If confirmed, that would just be a perfectly scientific discovery that the “rules/laws” are more complicated than we thought. That happens all the time. Otherwise we could just stop doing science and be like “Welp, we’re done. We know everything there is to know.”

Plus, the idea was never that the speed of light never changes. We know that it slows down in denser media like air or water. If it turns out that vacuum is not as uniform as we assumed and that c fluctuates there as well, then we would just adjust the wording of the statement about the speed of light in vacuum.

The important things are that there is nothing faster than light in a vacuum (or the fastest possible speed of light in a vacuum, if it turns out that speed isn’t always constant) and that unlike every other speed, the speed of light in a vacuum measures the same regardless of the position and movement of the observer. And even THAT is only vital to the continued value of one particular model, the theory of relativity. That model has served us well over the past century-and-a-bit, but if it turns out there are places where it breaks down, well, we’ll get to work on a new model. That’s how we got relativity in the first place, after all – the previous model broke down under unusual circumstances and a broader one was needed.

None of that would destroy science. That kind of churn of progress is what science does.

Now, is there politics within science? Of course. Are there individuals and institutions that would probably oppose certain radical reinterpretations and drag out the time it would take for their acceptance? Sure. Einstein had a rival in Germany who wound up going full Nazi because the best way to discredit Einstein was to lean on his Jewish heritage rather than his actual findings. These things happen when people get involved. People have lied and killed and bribed to become Pope, too, because people sometimes suck that way and even the best systems of ideas are subject to that suckiness.

But your bizarre assertions about the speed of light, the Big Bang (an idea proposed by a Catholic priest and originally suspect for being TOO CLOSE to Genesis), and evolution are nonsense and fly in the face of even a high-school understanding of science.

Usagi

 

[Oreoracle]

In spite of your experience the reality is the teaching of evolution is mandatory in many States.

The section you quoted was a response to claims you made about how the universe came to be, i.e., cosmology, not evolution.

Furthermore, please understand anecdotal evidence is not scientific fact nor necessarily representative.

Journalistic tripe on the news is perfectly reliable, though?

I learned about entropy in my hs and college courses so it appears you have not studied physics… As far as your comment about entropy having very few “applications” in the real world that couldn’t be furthest from the truth.

I question your reading comprehension. I said it is taught with few applications. This is done with many concepts in high school and introductory college courses. For example, integrals are taught as if they merely represent area under a curve or volume under a surface. Their applications obviously extend far beyond that.

My advice to you as a young adult is to not believe everything you are told, even in high school.

But if Fox News tells me that those atheistic scientists are being really, really naughty, I should accept that unquestioningly? Gotcha. I’ll keep your, err…“wisdom” in mind.

Apparently you don’t read a lot of news nor take part in lots of debates because homosexuality is promoted as having a genetic origin constantly, including by many on this forum.

You made a claim about mainstream science in classrooms, not debaters or forum members. You were wrong. Admit it and move on.

Nonetheless, I’m glad you recognize that the most up to date research shows that SSA is psychological in origin.

What a simplistic worldview. Everything is either all in your head or genetically predetermined. Lord forbid (pun intended) that there be a middle ground.

Please be aware that studies involving significant populations show that for the majority of people interviewed of those that had SSA it gravitated toward heterosexual desires later on in their life. In fact, the data demonstrates that there are more ex homosexuals than homosexuals in existence.

It seems more likely to me that sexual preference exists on a continuum rather than discrete categories. Bisexuality attests to this.

Seriously, what you fail to understand is when expression of one’s religion are challenged they can establish a legal precedence that affects similar expressions in that State. In other words one case can make a huge impact, like Roe vs Wade.

Then cite a Supreme Court case that proves how we evil atheists are abolishing Christianity.

 

[Area_Man]

If confirmed, that would just be a perfectly scientific discovery that the “rules/laws” are more complicated than we thought. That happens all the time. Otherwise we could just stop doing science and be like “Welp, we’re done. We know everything there is to know.”

Plus, the idea was never that the speed of light never changes. We know that it slows down in denser media like air or water. If it turns out that vacuum is not as uniform as we assumed and that c fluctuates there as well, then we would just adjust the wording of the statement about the speed of light in vacuum.

The important things are that there is nothing faster than light in a vacuum (or the fastest possible speed of light in a vacuum, if it turns out that speed isn’t always constant) and that unlike every other speed, the speed of light in a vacuum measures the same regardless of the position and movement of the observer. And even THAT is only vital to the continued value of one particular model, the theory of relativity. That model has served us well over the past century-and-a-bit, but if it turns out there are places where it breaks down, well, we’ll get to work on a new model. That’s how we got relativity in the first place, after all – the previous model broke down under unusual circumstances and a broader one was needed.

None of that would destroy science. That kind of churn of progress is what science does.

Now, is there politics within science? Of course. Are there individuals and institutions that would probably oppose certain radical reinterpretations and drag out the time it would take for their acceptance? Sure. Einstein had a rival in Germany who wound up going full Nazi because the best way to discredit Einstein was to lean on his Jewish heritage rather than his actual findings. These things happen when people get involved. People have lied and killed and bribed to become Pope, too, because people sometimes suck that way and even the best systems of ideas are subject to that suckiness.

But your bizarre assertions about the speed of light, the Big Bang (an idea proposed by a Catholic priest and originally suspect for being TOO CLOSE to Genesis), and evolution are nonsense and fly in the face of even a high-school understanding of science.

Usagi

:clapping:

The title of this thread tells me that someone is trying to make a straw man out of “modern science.”

*Dogma: **a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
*
There are no dogmas in science. There is no person or group in science with the authority to make dogmatic proclamations. Nothing in science is incontrovertibly true. There is no idea in science that is not allowed to be tested, retested or challenged. All scientific knowledge (also called scientific theories) is tentative and is always subject to questioning, further research and, when necessary, revision.

 

[Oreoracle]

The hierarchy of growing complexity that we observe in life has not been explained by the degenerative process of random mutation. There is absolutely no evidence to support such a claim.

…This makes for better tolerance of cold environments. This is adaptation and has nothing to do with how it has come to be that you can understand, love and appreciate beauty: that you, yourself are actually here.

Incredulity is not evidence against evolution. Science was never intended to answer metaphysical questions such as “Why do we exist?”, “Why is there something rather than nothing?”, etc.

Sonny, regardless of what fantasies you have about it, science is a political and economic tool. It is fueled by money, and politics decides where the money goes.

Incidentally, this is true of churches as well. Experimentation costs money. Imagine that!

Bolded part is in fact a plain assumption.

No, it isn’t. The scientific method requires that a claim be falsifiable to be considered a hypothesis. That is, we have to be able to conceive of an observation which would disprove the claim. One cannot do this with claims about “purpose”. In general, anything involving subjectivity doesn’t lend itself very well to science. This is why psychology is still considered a “soft” science.

Are you saying the statement that ‘So-and-so should not put his hand into the fire because human hands are not meant for that’ is somehow a religious statement about which science has no place, authority, role or business? Are you saying such a statement is necessarily mere opinion that can not be grounded in scientific fact(s)?

The assertion that human life is valuable and should not be endangered is subjective. Consider the fact that we raise other sentient beings for the sole purpose of slaughtering them later. We also consent to let comatose humans be taken off their life support. Clearly the value of life, while popularly supported, is subjective. We think human life is valuable because we are human.

If aliens visited us and applied the very same rationalizations we make about slaughtering animals, we would be in serious trouble, and the aliens would be no more hypocritical than we are.

But a lot about beautiful art can be understood in mathematical terms, as with music for similar reasons.

Right, but it cannot explain why art is beautiful. This is because math is not in the business of aesthetics. “Beauty” is philosophical talk.

The intellect must necessarily be immaterial otherwise you fall into all of the paradoxes of matter recognizing and containing matter and becoming conscious of itself.

I don’t see the paradox in asserting that matter is conscious of matter.

 

[KyrieEleison17]

The scientific method requires that a claim be falsifiable to be considered a hypothesis.

This is one of the sad consequences I think of the parting of ways between science and philosophy. This assertion is biased in favour of scepticism. You cannot reason under the assumption that everything requires demonstration or can be controverted. At some point you need a basis for proceeding: i.e., something that is not falsifiable or subject to demonstration, otherwise you would have an infinite regress and it would be impossible to prove or demonstrate anything. There must be at least one self-evident principle.

In trying to deny the claim that you assumed that science wasn’t in the business of determining the purpose of things, you appeal to another dubious assumption (i.e. that everything proposed in science must be theoretically falsifiable, with the curious exception of the assertion itself, which is quite falsifiable, as science would be impossible if we could never get off home plate).

That is, we have to be able to conceive of an observation which would disprove the claim. One cannot do this with claims about “purpose”.

Are you seriously pretending to believe that to claim, for example, that a human hand is not intended for being roasted in a fire somehow can not be demonstrated or grounded in reasons and observations? I think that is beyond silly. Why don’t we use our eyes to taste things? Is the question “What are eyes meant for?” necessarily unsolvable? Is not the answer, “in order to see,” obvious? Or why do living things mate? For what purpose? Is there no answer to this question or is it simply that scientists are necessarily incapable of answering it? But then I feel compelled to ask just what exactly the scientist is supposed to be for.

Again. Are you saying we can’t concern ourselves in science with purposes because you can’t falsify a claim to the effect that my tongue is meant for seeing things?