Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Not science, but rather ideology.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Not science, but rather ideology.

    Those of you that have been at TWeb for a while have heard me say it scores of times:
    "Much of what is today sold as science is actually ideology - belief! - sold to the masses as "science". And people believe it because it comes with the authoritative credentials of individuals and institutions."

    Look, it's all very simple: the average 'Joe' does not even comprehend a lot of the "science" that he hears about, much less critically analyze what it's saying and the ramifications.

    A recent article caught my eye ... here is that article:
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0630164012.htm

    The title of the article is "Evolution of life’s operating system revealed in detail"

    Right from the onset we see ideology, not science. You see, it was/is "EVOLUTION".
    The reader is not given an option ... "Evolution is how it happened ... now we will give you the details."

    Tell me, how would you feel about the following headline: "The Martian's Influence on Modern Art" ?
    Now wait ... WHAT Martian's? There are no Martians that I am aware of!
    Wouldn't that be your response. Yup, and I would agree.
    Now apply that same rationale to the "Evolution" headline.

    Let's continue with a few more excerpts. "The evolution of the ribosome, a large molecular structure found in the cells of all species, has been revealed in unprecedented detail in a new study." Note here how true science is intermixed with ideology. Watch ...

    Is the ribosome a "large molecular structure found in the cells of all species"? Yes, that is good, solid, verifiable science. Now, did it "Evolve"? NOT NECESSARILY!!! That is believed to be true by many but also NOT believed to be true by many others. Materialists, of course, do believe it - they have to ... they have no choice in the matter. But this is an ideological belief - not science!

    Many of those that do not believe it are just as equally 'qualified' -- PhDs and all that jazz -- but do not share the belief on scientific grounds. Heck, some of the nonbelievers of Evolution aren't even Theists.

    So again, we see how ideological beliefs are intermixed with real science. The unsuspecting/untrained in these things swallow the entire thing as "science".

    I'm almost out of time but this article contains many, many other examples illustrating the title of this thread. I will try to get back to this later. I'll end with the last sentence from the article: Loren Williams, the principal researcher, said: "We learned some of the rules of the ribosome, that evolution can change the ribosome as long as it does not mess with its core," Williams said. "Evolution can add things on, but it can't change what was already there."

    Once again we see ideological beliefs dominating the "science". First, Evolution is presupposed to be the mechanism at work - nothing else is allowed or considered. Second, she acknowledges that the "core" of the ribosome remains constant. Given what it does, does this not even suggest to her a common design? No, of course not, that's not allowed. Third, if, quote, "Evolution can add things but it can't change what was already there", wouldn't the obvious question be HOW DID THE "already there" GET THERE TO BEGIN WITH? It couldn't have been via Evolution since Evolution - by her own words - can only add to what was already there. In short, she is expressing a part of her metaphysical beliefs and hasn't even realized that her roof is suspended in mid-air.

    Anyway ... got'ta run for now.

    P.S. If you're going to post something here then be civil and rational. I'm looking to see if you have any worthwhile contributions / critiques of the thesis. Otherwise just stay away.

    Jorge

  • #2
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    Those of you that have been at TWeb for a while have heard me say it scores of times:
    "Much of what is today sold as science is actually ideology - belief! - sold to the masses as "science". And people believe it because it comes with the authoritative credentials of individuals and institutions."

    Look, it's all very simple: the average 'Joe' does not even comprehend a lot of the "science" that he hears about, much less critically analyze what it's saying and the ramifications.

    A recent article caught my eye ... here is that article:
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0630164012.htm

    The title of the article is "Evolution of life’s operating system revealed in detail"

    Right from the onset we see ideology, not science. You see, it was/is "EVOLUTION".
    The reader is not given an option ... "Evolution is how it happened ... now we will give you the details."

    Tell me, how would you feel about the following headline: "The Martian's Influence on Modern Art" ?
    Now wait ... WHAT Martian's? There are no Martians that I am aware of!
    Wouldn't that be your response. Yup, and I would agree.
    Now apply that same rationale to the "Evolution" headline.
    This is how I feel about your headline: creationism, which you support, is also "not science, but rather ideology." And you bringing up credentials isn't likely to get far considering how yours are viewed 'round here. I recommend you try formulating your arguments so they don't leave you quite so open to attack.
    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
    sigpic
    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Jorge View Post
      Right from the onset we see ideology, not science. You see, it was/is "EVOLUTION".
      The reader is not given an option ... "Evolution is how it happened ... now we will give you the details."
      Once again we see that the OP author has zero understanding of how science operates. Science - all science - builds upon previous work and previously verified results. Science isn't required to re-invent the wheel and re-verify all that came before with every new paper. Every paper describing a new form of TB isn't required to re-validate the germ theory of disease. Every new parachute design proposed isn't required to re-validate the theory of gravity.

      In the case of evolutionary theory we have over 150 years of positive supporting evidence from hundreds of different scientific disciplines. We have over 60 years of positive supporting evidence from genetics. There is no need at all for this latest work on ribosomes to re-validate the veracity of evolutionary processes.

      Tell me, how would you feel about the following headline: "The Martian's Influence on Modern Art" ? Now wait ... WHAT Martian's? There are no Martians that I am aware of! Wouldn't that be your response. Yup, and I would agree. Now apply that same rationale to the "Evolution" headline.
      If we had 1/10 as much evidence for Martians as we do for evolution it would be a perfectly valid statement. That fact that you continue to be willfully ignorant of the huge amount of positive evidence for evolution isn't science's problem.

      First, Evolution is presupposed to be the mechanism at work - nothing else is allowed or considered.
      Nothing else is considered because there in no evidence of any other processes or forces in play. You are free to provide your evidence if you claim there are other mechanisms or processes.

      Second, she acknowledges that the "core" of the ribosome remains constant. Given what it does, does this not even suggest to her a common design? No, of course not, that's not allowed.
      There is no evidence for an external Designer. You are free to provide your evidence if you claim there is one.

      Third, if, quote, "Evolution can add things but it can't change what was already there", wouldn't the obvious question be HOW DID THE "already there" GET THERE TO BEGIN WITH?
      Which is a question for another paper and another line of study. It doesn't change the validity of the work in this paper.

      You've been pushing this childish misunderstand if science for years now and haven't managed to convince a single person. Isn't it high time you took a science course and finally got a clue about how real science works?

      Comment


      • #4
        Here we go again. Jorge abandons threads with unanswered questions and starts another B.S. fest.

        Jorge -- do have ANY idea how scientific method works?

        In what sense is your version of Biblical Scientific Creationism, "science" by the standards of scientific method?

        If you push off the history of Earth and the Cosmos into a reading of Genesis 1 (which you can't even articulate unambiguously), this is NOT science in any way shape or form. If all of Earth's pre-6Ka history is a phenomenonlogical artifact of a miracle, then your view is NOT science. It's beyond the purview of science.

        If you would simply admit that FACT, I would respect your view. But as such you yammer and bluster and claim creation is scientific when 1) you can't explain HOW, and 2) as such can't explain in what sense it's science.

        If you're going to bring up miracles -- they are WELL-DEFINED in Scripture and have a TARGETED PURPOSE. E.g. Jesus turning water into wine at Cana. We can UNDERSTAND that as a miracle and CAN'T EXPLAIN IT SCIENTIFICALLY. No one in hisher right mind would try to do that.

        So WHY do you claim science when Earth and the Cosmos as they exist now can only be explained by a large set of miracles that have no purpose other than to deceive?

        Also, as is your want, you PROJECT tremendously.

        K54

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
          This is how I feel about your headline: creationism, which you support, is also "not science, but rather ideology." And you bringing up credentials isn't likely to get far considering how yours are viewed 'round here. I recommend you try formulating your arguments so they don't leave you quite so open to attack.
          You may wish to begin by educating yourself so as to not display your ignorance so loudly.

          Past, present or (I am sure) future, Biblical Creationism has never been promoted as science because that's not what it is. Anyone who has promoted it as science is wrong - got that? - wrong. To promote Biblical Creationism as science would be the same - equally wrong! - as promoting Theistic Evolutionism as science. I trust you 'got it'.

          What I have said, and now repeat, is that Biblical Creationism provides a worldview framework for interpreting observations (the same observations that we all have) in such a way that the observable world does indeed support the Biblical Creationist position. Stated in another way, when observations are not forced to be interpreted via the Materialistic worldview, we find that science certainly does support Biblical Creationism.

          As for my credentials - I do not consider the worthiness of an argument on the basis of credentials - be they mine or those of others - so you need to drop that nonsense.

          Finally, my arguments are quite solid, thank you very much. In fact, they are so solid that they've withstood decades of attacks. Certainly no one here has been able to do anything other than express personal, irrational incredulity and that doesn't count except in the bizarre world of certain people.

          Now you know better and so I'll expect no more of the erroneous beliefs that you've just spouted.

          Jorge

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Jorge View Post
            Past, present or (I am sure) future, Biblical Creationism has never been promoted as science because that's not what it is.

            Stated in another way, when observations are not forced to be interpreted via the Materialistic worldview, we find that science certainly does support Biblical Creationism.

            Jorge
            Leave it to Jorge to directly contradict himself in the span of two paragraphs.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
              Once again we see that the OP author has zero understanding of how science operates. Science - all science - builds upon previous work and previously verified results. Science isn't required to re-invent the wheel and re-verify all that came before with every new paper. Every paper describing a new form of TB isn't required to re-validate the germ theory of disease. Every new parachute design proposed isn't required to re-validate the theory of gravity.
              You write the above while saying that "the author has zero understanding of how science operates".
              With that you just moved into first place on the list for Mother Irony of Ironies.

              Evolution (with upper-case 'E') is ideology, not science. No one can demonstrate the "fact of Evolution" - that a single common ancestor gave rise to the millions of species of flora and fauna - this "fact" must be believed. Yes, this "fact" can be inferred but that inference is so chock full of holes that a huge number of scientists have disowned Evolution as a plausible explanation. That people like yourself do not wish to accept/acknowledge this is a psychological and/or spiritual condition.

              In the case of evolutionary theory we have over 150 years of positive supporting evidence from hundreds of different scientific disciplines. We have over 60 years of positive supporting evidence from genetics. There is no need at all for this latest work on ribosomes to re-validate the veracity of evolutionary processes.
              You're mixing aardvarks with bazookas plus you are not paying attention to what I've posted. The "supporting evidence" you speak of is a result of INTERPRETING the evidence in a certain way. Watch: I too see the same common structure in the ribosome amongst the species. Given what the ribosome does (primarily to read and translate DNA segments, then 'reproduce' the proteins that this DNA code represents) I personally would have predicted/expected for the Designer to have installed this common structure in virtually every living organism. In fact, I fail to see how this 'ribosome common core' could be missing from anything that is alive (certain viruses may be an exception).



              If we had 1/10 as much evidence for Martians as we do for evolution it would be a perfectly valid statement. That fact that you continue to be willfully ignorant of the huge amount of positive evidence for evolution isn't science's problem.
              You keep calling me "ignorant" never stopping to think that I know and understand this stuff far more than you ever have or will. Such a thought would keep you up a night so forget that I mentioned it.

              BTW, recall my OP warning. If you want to turn this into another one of your personal ad hominem attacks then just stay out of the thread. Thanks.


              Nothing else is considered because there in no evidence of any other processes or forces in play. You are free to provide your evidence if you claim there are other mechanisms or processes.
              Many thousands of books and papers over the last 25 years alone have been published that total obliterate your (ignorant) claim that "... there is no evidence of any other processes or forces at play". Ever heard of Intelligent Design Theory? How about the book that I co-authored (Without Excuse)? Both of those sources will keep you busy for months studying this "non-existent" evidence.


              There is no evidence for an external Designer. You are free to provide your evidence if you claim there is one.
              1. There are two and only two possibilities - there either is or there is not an external Designer.

              2. If the former is true then the debate is over.

              3. If the latter is true then this means that there must be a natural, guide-less mechanism and/or process that explains how inert mass-energy was able to 'create' life and then how that life was able to 'create' millions of distinct species.

              Be logical, okay? You cannot Evolve the millions of species unless you first have life - "prebiotic Evolution" is an oxymoron. Therefore, you MUST begin with that - you have no choice.

              4. In the case of life, no such mechanism-process is known. Hypotheses abound but no such mechanism-process has ever been observed. Therefore, this case remains strictly in the realm of belief - the person must believe that inert mass-energy may 'create' life.

              You disagree with that? Okay, then demonstrate how it happened - we want no hypotheses or imaginations, we want hard proof! Without that mechanism-process, the only alternative is (a) belief or (b) DESIGNER. Case closed, debate over, thank you.



              There really is no need to go further but just as a closing remark: in the case of speciation ('Evolution' of existing life), there exists a great deal of counter-evidence opposing the plausibility of such a directionless, guide-less purely natural mechanism. This is why so many Evolutionists have 'jumped ship'. This is why ex-Evolutionists such as Behe, Sanford, Kenyon, and many, many others eventually realized that they could no longer sustain their belief in Evolution. Of course, you are free to continue believing in Evolution, just don't call it science - it isn't science. Evolution is regarded as science because the scientific establishment has decreed it to be "the best (Materialistic) explanation available". Just as that same establishment once decreed Phlogiston Theory and The Geocentric Model and Blood Humors to be "the best explanations available".


              Which is a question for another paper and another line of study. It doesn't change the validity of the work in this paper.
              The paper contains some good science - I would agree with that. It's the intermixing of that good science with the religious ideology of Evolution that I'm criticizing here. I gave an example of that in the OP.

              You've been pushing this childish misunderstand if science for years now and haven't managed to convince a single person. Isn't it high time you took a science course and finally got a clue about how real science works?
              That I've not convinced a single person may reflect on my ability to make it clear but it may also reflect on the 'student'. I taught maths, stats and science for many years and one thing that I learned from my own experiences and observing my colleagues is that the best teacher in the world is totally powerless against a student that has no desire to learn. This is especially true in the case of ideology. The hedonistic Atheist, for example, that thoroughly enjoys his(her) "free" lifestyle - doing as (s)he pleases, pursuing his(her) lusts and desires without restraint - will NEVER learn the lessons of an alternative ideology where that "free" lifestyle must be abandoned only to be "shackled" by prohibitions. It has nothing to do with the validity of the lessons or the ability of the teacher; it has everything to do with fulfilling the personal desires of that person.

              Ergo, my 'failure' in getting these lessons across to certain folk here is easily explained.
              I sleep quite well, thanks you.

              Jorge

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                Here we go again. Jorge abandons threads with unanswered questions and starts another B.S. fest.

                Jorge -- do have ANY idea how scientific method works?

                In what sense is your version of Biblical Scientific Creationism, "science" by the standards of scientific method?

                If you push off the history of Earth and the Cosmos into a reading of Genesis 1 (which you can't even articulate unambiguously), this is NOT science in any way shape or form. If all of Earth's pre-6Ka history is a phenomenonlogical artifact of a miracle, then your view is NOT science. It's beyond the purview of science.

                If you would simply admit that FACT, I would respect your view. But as such you yammer and bluster and claim creation is scientific when 1) you can't explain HOW, and 2) as such can't explain in what sense it's science.

                If you're going to bring up miracles -- they are WELL-DEFINED in Scripture and have a TARGETED PURPOSE. E.g. Jesus turning water into wine at Cana. We can UNDERSTAND that as a miracle and CAN'T EXPLAIN IT SCIENTIFICALLY. No one in hisher right mind would try to do that.

                So WHY do you claim science when Earth and the Cosmos as they exist now can only be explained by a large set of miracles that have no purpose other than to deceive?

                Also, as is your want, you PROJECT tremendously.

                K54
                My previous posts here pretty much answer what you bring up - simply read.

                Do remember my "warning" in the OP. If you wish to practice your usual, then go do it elsewhere.

                Jorge

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                  You may wish to begin by educating yourself so as to not display your ignorance so loudly.
                  Jorge, this is not a very civil response. If you're going to ask for civility, it helps to practice it yourself.
                  Past, present or (I am sure) future, Biblical Creationism has never been promoted as science because that's not what it is. Anyone who has promoted it as science is wrong - got that? - wrong. To promote Biblical Creationism as science would be the same - equally wrong! - as promoting Theistic Evolutionism as science. I trust you 'got it'.
                  Got it.
                  As for my credentials - I do not consider the worthiness of an argument on the basis of credentials - be they mine or those of others - so you need to drop that nonsense.
                  Then why did you bring up credentials?
                  Finally, my arguments are quite solid, thank you very much. In fact, they are so solid that they've withstood decades of attacks. Certainly no one here has been able to do anything other than express personal, irrational incredulity and that doesn't count except in the bizarre world of certain people.
                  That you find your arguments solid does not necessarily mean others do as well. I admire your persistence, but your arguments have indubitably been met with rather more than 'personal, irrational incredulity.' Some of your opponents have been more than happy to return the volume and vitriol you habitually dish out, but others have been much more reasoned in their opposition. Volume doesn't impress me. The conviction of your beliefs does not impress me. Reasoned argument I'm willing to listen to. Yelling makes me want to find something more interesting to do.
                  Now you know better and so I'll expect no more of the erroneous beliefs that you've just spouted.

                  Jorge
                  You might make a better impression if you pretended that you weren't lecturing children. That goes back to civility. People don't like being talked down to.
                  Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                  Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                  sigpic
                  I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                    Evolution (with upper-case 'E') is ideology, not science. No one can demonstrate the "fact of Evolution" - that a single common ancestor gave rise to the millions of species of flora and fauna - this "fact" must be believed. Yes, this "fact" can be inferred but that inference is so chock full of holes that a huge number of scientists have disowned Evolution as a plausible explanation. That people like yourself do not wish to accept/acknowledge this is a psychological and/or spiritual condition.
                    Yes, we know you're fond of making up your own private definitions that no one else on the planet uses or agrees with. Not very persuasive to anyone.

                    The "supporting evidence" you speak of is a result of INTERPRETING the evidence in a certain way.
                    Lame Creationist excuse no.27: "same evidence, different interpretation". Not all interpretations are equally valid. If there are multiple interpretations offered science goes with the one that is the most parsimonious, the most consilient with all the other available evidence. Under those guidelines there is no reason whatsoever to infer a Magic Designer POOFED everything into existence looking exactly like it had evolved over billions of years.

                    You keep calling me "ignorant" never stopping to think that I know and understand this stuff far more than you ever have or will.
                    Let's try a quick test. How was the Barringer Meteor Crater formed? By what multiple independent methods has the event been dated? What were the results of that dating?

                    Many thousands of books and papers over the last 25 years alone have been published that total obliterate your (ignorant) claim that "... there is no evidence of any other processes or forces at play"
                    Then why can't you or any other YEC present that evidence here?

                    Ever heard of Intelligent Design Theory?
                    There's no such thing as Intelligent Design Theory. There's Intelligent Design unsupported and unfalsifiable speculation.

                    How about the book that I co-authored (Without Excuse)?
                    Yes. That would be the one discussed in multiple threads here at TWeb in which you ran from all questions and criticisms.

                    Be logical, okay? You cannot Evolve the millions of species unless you first have life - "prebiotic Evolution" is an oxymoron. Therefore, you MUST begin with that - you have no choice.
                    Wrong. Evolution doesn't rest on abiogenesis any more than chemistry rests on the initial formation of atoms.

                    There really is no need to go further but just as a closing remark: in the case of speciation ('Evolution' of existing life), there exists a great deal of counter-evidence opposing the plausibility of such a directionless, guide-less purely natural mechanism. This is why so many Evolutionists have 'jumped ship'. This is why ex-Evolutionists such as Behe, Sanford, Kenyon, and many, many others eventually realized that they could no longer sustain their belief in Evolution.
                    Your "so many" are a handful of fringe loonies who only publish their "evidence" in popular press books written for ignorant laymen. Not one of them has the sack to even submit their IDiocy to any mainstream scientific journals.

                    Ergo, my 'failure' in getting these lessons across to certain folk here is easily explained.
                    I sleep quite well, thanks you.
                    Most self-deluded fools generally do.
                    Last edited by HMS_Beagle; 07-02-2014, 02:53 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                      The title of the article is "Evolution of life’s operating system revealed in detail"

                      Right from the onset we see ideology, not science. You see, it was/is "EVOLUTION".
                      The reader is not given an option ... "Evolution is how it happened ... now we will give you the details."

                      Tell me, how would you feel about the following headline: "The Martian's Influence on Modern Art" ?
                      Now wait ... WHAT Martian's? There are no Martians that I am aware of!
                      Wouldn't that be your response. Yup, and I would agree.
                      Now apply that same rationale to the "Evolution" headline.
                      The difference is that evolution is accepted as mainstream science due to the overwhelming evidence. On the other hand, the evidence suggests there are no martians - certainly not of a sophistication to have had an influence on art, modern or not.

                      That you choose to ignore the evidence for evolution does not mean it is not science.
                      Let's continue with a few more excerpts. "The evolution of the ribosome, a large molecular structure found in the cells of all species, has been revealed in unprecedented detail in a new study." Note here how true science is intermixed with ideology. Watch ...

                      Is the ribosome a "large molecular structure found in the cells of all species"? Yes, that is good, solid, verifiable science. Now, did it "Evolve"? NOT NECESSARILY!!! That is believed to be true by many but also NOT believed to be true by many others. Materialists, of course, do believe it - they have to ... they have no choice in the matter. But this is an ideological belief - not science!
                      But they are the same, conceptually.

                      There is an abundance of evidence showing the ribosome is a large molecular structure found in the cells of all species. There is an abundance of evidence showing evolution happened.

                      That you choose to ignore the evidence for evolution does not mean it is not science.
                      My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                        My previous posts here pretty much answer what you bring up - simply read.

                        Do remember my "warning" in the OP. If you wish to practice your usual, then go do it elsewhere.

                        Jorge
                        You mean the post where you contradict yourself within the span of two paragraphs? You claimed Creationism is never presented as science yet science supports Biblical Creationism.

                        Boys and Girls, may I present to you.... Jorge!

                        K54

                        Originally posted by Jorge
                        Past, present or (I am sure) future, Biblical Creationism has never been promoted as science because that's not what it is. Anyone who has promoted it as science is wrong - got that? - wrong. To promote Biblical Creationism as science would be the same - equally wrong! - as promoting Theistic Evolutionism as science. I trust you 'got it'.

                        What I have said, and now repeat, is that Biblical Creationism provides a worldview framework for interpreting observations (the same observations that we all have) in such a way that the observable world does indeed support the Biblical Creationist position. Stated in another way, when observations are not forced to be interpreted via the Materialistic worldview, we find that science certainly does support Biblical Creationism.
                        Last edited by klaus54; 07-02-2014, 09:38 PM. Reason: p.s.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Jorge
                          ...
                          Stated in another way, when observations are not forced to be interpreted via the Materialistic worldview, we find that science certainly does support Biblical Creationism.
                          ...
                          Please explain how observations, and I mean the VAST MAJORITY of them, can be forced into a "Biblical Creationist" worldview? They just so happen to fit into a "materialist" worldview quite nicely and consiliently.

                          You DO know what "consilient" means, right?

                          Don't look now, but your fly is op..., err... I meaning you're PROJECTING big time again.

                          Oh, and if you can't supply an unambiguous Genesis interpretation, you're just whistling Dixie anywho.

                          You've been caught in Biblical/Scientific pincer maneuver but are unwilling to surrender. And you're nearly out of ammo and vittles.

                          K54

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                            Those of you that have been at TWeb for a while have heard me say it scores of times:
                            "Much of what is today sold as science is actually ideology - belief! - sold to the masses as "science". And people believe it because it comes with the authoritative credentials of individuals and institutions."

                            Look, it's all very simple: the average 'Joe' does not even comprehend a lot of the "science" that he hears about, much less critically analyze what it's saying and the ramifications.

                            A recent article caught my eye ... here is that article:
                            http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0630164012.htm

                            The title of the article is "Evolution of life’s operating system revealed in detail"

                            Right from the onset we see ideology, not science. You see, it was/is "EVOLUTION".
                            The reader is not given an option ... "Evolution is how it happened ... now we will give you the details."

                            Tell me, how would you feel about the following headline: "The Martian's Influence on Modern Art" ?
                            Now wait ... WHAT Martian's? There are no Martians that I am aware of!
                            Wouldn't that be your response. Yup, and I would agree.
                            Now apply that same rationale to the "Evolution" headline.

                            Let's continue with a few more excerpts. "The evolution of the ribosome, a large molecular structure found in the cells of all species, has been revealed in unprecedented detail in a new study." Note here how true science is intermixed with ideology. Watch ...

                            Is the ribosome a "large molecular structure found in the cells of all species"? Yes, that is good, solid, verifiable science. Now, did it "Evolve"? NOT NECESSARILY!!! That is believed to be true by many but also NOT believed to be true by many others. Materialists, of course, do believe it - they have to ... they have no choice in the matter. But this is an ideological belief - not science!

                            Many of those that do not believe it are just as equally 'qualified' -- PhDs and all that jazz -- but do not share the belief on scientific grounds. Heck, some of the nonbelievers of Evolution aren't even Theists.

                            So again, we see how ideological beliefs are intermixed with real science. The unsuspecting/untrained in these things swallow the entire thing as "science".

                            I'm almost out of time but this article contains many, many other examples illustrating the title of this thread. I will try to get back to this later. I'll end with the last sentence from the article: Loren Williams, the principal researcher, said: "We learned some of the rules of the ribosome, that evolution can change the ribosome as long as it does not mess with its core," Williams said. "Evolution can add things on, but it can't change what was already there."

                            Once again we see ideological beliefs dominating the "science". First, Evolution is presupposed to be the mechanism at work - nothing else is allowed or considered. Second, she acknowledges that the "core" of the ribosome remains constant. Given what it does, does this not even suggest to her a common design? No, of course not, that's not allowed. Third, if, quote, "Evolution can add things but it can't change what was already there", wouldn't the obvious question be HOW DID THE "already there" GET THERE TO BEGIN WITH? It couldn't have been via Evolution since Evolution - by her own words - can only add to what was already there. In short, she is expressing a part of her metaphysical beliefs and hasn't even realized that her roof is suspended in mid-air.

                            Anyway ... got'ta run for now.

                            P.S. If you're going to post something here then be civil and rational. I'm looking to see if you have any worthwhile contributions / critiques of the thesis. Otherwise just stay away.

                            Jorge
                            Ideological gavitationalists:-

                            Gravity plays a role in keeping cells small


                            There is true physics and physics falsely called. The above kind of stuff should not be taught in schools and darn those pesky ideologues who try to sneak their metaphysics into true physics. Physics began to slide from its path of true wisdom when those biologists began to get involved in this most purest of sciences.

                            Next thing, gravitationalists will be telling us that a force due to gravity causes rain to fall. This is in clear contradiction to the clear word of the Bible. You can bet your bottom dollar that when this happens, gravitational theory will be guilty of making bombs fall and millions of folk will be killed, thanks to this most vilest of ideas. Jumping of cliffs will no longer be safe, because of the introduction of such an unGodly idea.


                            I think we should all back Jorge on this, and form a committee to ensure that gravity never gets taught to the ears of our dearest of citizens, the children of our junior schools.
                            Last edited by rwatts; 07-02-2014, 11:06 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                              On the other hand, the evidence suggests there are no martians ....
                              I thought Jorge was from Mars.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by shunyadragon, 10-17-2020, 05:11 PM
                              7 responses
                              37 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by shunyadragon, 10-09-2020, 09:25 PM
                              0 responses
                              22 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by rogue06, 10-09-2020, 03:29 PM
                              6 responses
                              51 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by shunyadragon, 10-07-2020, 12:11 PM
                              0 responses
                              10 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by Sherman, 10-06-2020, 03:31 PM
                              40 responses
                              255 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Working...
                              X