Not science, but rather ideology.

[oxmixmudd]

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

Jorge,

Why do you so consistently overreach to the point you destroy your arguments at the outset? You had a little nugget you could have run with. The quot at the end of your post, the one of about the core. You could have focused on that, perhaps brought in some other information concerning the lack of success determining a path for abiogenesis and had a post and thread that could have perhaps brought something substantive to your side of the table.

IOW, you could, using that element, make the point that this is something she believes, not something she can prove or something implied through the correct application of the scientific method.

As it is you DESTROYED any sense of competence, any sense of legitimacy with your opening volleys. Only the ignorant would try to say "Evolution is pure ideology" Jorge. There are these two substantial and consilient pillars that drive the FACT evolution has occurred, at least as far as what will be deduced by any direct application of the scientific method. And those pillars are: (1) radiometric dating and (2) the fossil distribution within the relative sediments.

From these two we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that a) life has a long (multiple millions of years) and varied history on the planet. b) life has evolved (changed) substantially over time. c) the form life has taken over time, possibly excepting certain mass extinctions, can be shown to be connected by time and a hierarchy.

HOW life changed is the only theoretical part. The rest is a solid as the Earth goes around the sun. So to claim acceptance of evolution as a given in the opening phrases is somehow proof of an ideologically driven position is just stupid. It is no more ideologically driven than research that determines the distances to the stars though measured parallax.

OTOH, to assume this unchanging core of the ribosome arrived through evolution is based on a belief, not objective fact. And there you could have had a go at a reasonable deduction that supported your perception of the world.

You are your own worst enemy Jorge.



Jim

[klaus54]

Jim,

Nice treatise, and you should also include bio-geography, embryology, and genetic hierarchies in the broad categories of evidence for biological evolution.

And it wouldn't hurt to throw in Plate Tectonics and Geologic History into the mix.

K54

[Jorge]

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.

Once again you people make claims that are as unfounded as they are untrue. No one - certainly not I - is "ignoring the evidence for evolution". There are two main differences regarding this "evidence" between myself and those like you: (1) I examine this "evidence" critically instead of swallowing it whole without any critical thinking, as if it were "Gospel Truth". (2) I separate the scientific facts from the ideological beliefs. By applying (1) and (2) one realizes that the "fact of Evolution" is an oxymoron.

But they are the same, conceptually.

I rest my case.

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.

As I have stated countless times here on TWeb, 'evolution' is a scientific fact - observable, testable and verifiable. On the other hand, 'Evolution' - i.e., the Evolutionary paradigm that is chock-full of beliefs - is not a scientific fact, it is part of a metaphysical system - Materialism.

Maybe my ability to explain all of this is lacking -- I do not believe that to be the case but let's just allow for that possibility. Nonetheless, my inability doesn't change the veracity of the claim.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Jorge,

Why do you so consistently overreach to the point you destroy your arguments at the outset? You had a little nugget you could have run with. The quot at the end of your post, the one of about the core. You could have focused on that, perhaps brought in some other information concerning the lack of success determining a path for abiogenesis and had a post and thread that could have perhaps brought something substantive to your side of the table.

IOW, you could, using that element, make the point that this is something she believes, not something she can prove or something implied through the correct application of the scientific method.

As it is you DESTROYED any sense of competence, any sense of legitimacy with your opening volleys. Only the ignorant would try to say "Evolution is pure ideology" Jorge. There are these two substantial and consilient pillars that drive the FACT evolution has occurred, at least as far as what will be deduced by any direct application of the scientific method. And those pillars are: (1) radiometric dating and (2) the fossil distribution within the relative sediments.

From these two we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that a) life has a long (multiple millions of years) and varied history on the planet. b) life has evolved (changed) substantially over time. c) the form life has taken over time, possibly excepting certain mass extinctions, can be shown to be connected by time and a hierarchy.

HOW life changed is the only theoretical part. The rest is a solid as the Earth goes around the sun. So to claim acceptance of evolution as a given in the opening phrases is somehow proof of an ideologically driven position is just stupid. It is no more ideologically driven than research that determines the distances to the stars though measured parallax.

OTOH, to assume this unchanging core of the ribosome arrived through evolution is based on a belief, not objective fact. And there you could have had a go at a reasonable deduction that supported your perception of the world.

You are your own worst enemy Jorge.

Jim

Yeah, I know that you would have liked it much more if I had focused solely on the part that left your personal beliefs intact while avoiding those parts that ruffle your ideological feathers. Sorry, that's not how I operate. It all works hand-in-glove, O-Mudd. Unlike yourself, I am quite able to realize that compartmentalization is not only disallowed here, it is dishonest. One aspect is connected to all the others - denying the veracity of God's Word in one Book undermines the ENTIRETY of God's Word.

We cannot sing praises to almighty God at one moment only to essentially call Him a liar moments later. We cannot embrace the Bible as God's Holy Word in certain sections that we agree with only to trash other sections either because we do not agree or because the Bible does not agree with Harvard, MIT or Princeton. That you do not wish to accept these things does not make me "my own worst enemy". Try looking in a mirror.

Jorge

[klaus54]

Jorge,

The biggest problem for your form of creationism is that you have NO THEORY that fits the vast majority of the data. You never presented one, nor have I ever seen one presented.

You totally have the scenario BACKWARDS. You have an IDEOLOGY, namely some "literal" interpretation of the Genesis stories that you either can't or won't articulate. And YOU try to FORCE some data into this IDEOLOGY.

That you won't acknowledge these simple facts indicates you are either profoundly stupid, ignorant of what science and ideology means, or are a despicable prevaricator intent upon deceiving the less informed churchy types.

If you want to shut me up 1) give your unambiguous, plain, straightforward, direct reading of the Genesis stories, and 2) a testable theory that fits both the IDEOLOGY in (1) as well as the vast majority of evidence for Evolution/Deep Time/Deep History.

Put up or shut up.

K54

P.S. If it's impossible for you to shut up, AT LEAST ADMIT THAT (Jorgian) CREATIONISM IS NOT SCIENCE.

[HMS_Beagle]

Once again you people make claims that are as unfounded as they are untrue. No one - certainly not I - is "ignoring the evidence for evolution". There are two main differences regarding this "evidence" between myself and those like you: (1) I examine this "evidence" critically instead of swallowing it whole without any critical thinking, as if it were "Gospel Truth". (2) I separate the scientific facts from the ideological beliefs. By applying (1) and (2) one realizes that the "fact of Evolution" is an oxymoron.

Jorge with his made up custom definitions again.

As I have stated countless times here on TWeb, 'evolution' is a scientific fact - observable, testable and verifiable. On the other hand, 'Evolution' - i.e., the Evolutionary paradigm that is chock-full of beliefs - is not a scientific fact, it is part of a metaphysical system - Materialism.

Maybe my ability to explain all of this is lacking -- I do not believe that to be the case but let's just allow for that possibility. Nonetheless, my inability doesn't change the veracity of the claim.

Jorge

What's lacking is any evidence that there are two distinct and different forms of evolution as you keep squawking. You made it up whole cloth and not a single person in the scientific community agrees with your nonsense. You can blither the same bogus bovine scat until the cows come home and it won't magically become true.

[HMS_Beagle]

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?

Bumped for Jorge who was going to demonstrate how he understands science so much better than me.

[Jorge]

Bumped for Jorge who was going to demonstrate how he understands science so much better than me.

A muskrat understands science much better than you, Beagle Boy.
Why you would think that I'd waste my time proving the obvious escapes me.

Jorge

[klaus54]

A muskrat understands science much better than you, Beagle Boy.
Why you would think that I'd waste my time proving the obvious escapes me.

Jorge

Boys and Girls,

How many Jorge non-answers does this make? You can includes ones from the old site. Maybe several thousand?

Jorge: Give your unambiguous plain simple clear direct literal reading of the Genesis stories.

Then:

1) Give a scientific theory of your Genesis interpretation that includes the vast majority of the physical evidence.

OR

2) Admit there is no such thing as Biblical Scientific Creationism.

In trying to address (1) you might want to refute some of the well-known evidences of Deep Time, such as HMS_B's example of terrestrial meteor craters.

K54

[HMS_Beagle]

A muskrat understands science much better than you, Beagle Boy.
Why you would think that I'd waste my time proving the obvious escapes me.

Jorge

A muskrat certainly has bigger cajones than you do Jorge.

Thanks though for running from yet another challenge where your bluff was called.

[Duragizer]

I thought Jorge was from Mars.

Nah. He's from another universe entirely.

[Jorge]

Nah. He's from another universe entirely.

I'll agree with that - thanks!

Hey, I preferred your other "avatar" pic - the one with the giant 'S' across your chest.
That 'S', as we all know, stood for 'Stupid'. Truth in advertising is a good thing.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Thanks though for running from yet another challenge where your bluff was called.

I do have to agree that I "run" from you. I simply cannot stand
being in the presence of what you represent - dishonesty and all that.

Jorge

[klaus54]

I see you gave up on this thread and started another, but not before leaving a trail of stink.

Most folks just whimper and silent disappear when their attempts at argument get thrashed, but not ye olde Black Knight.

Getting ready to dive into the new one. 'Need to get my dose of Schadenfreude for the day.

K54

[Duragizer]

I'll agree with that - thanks!

Hey, I preferred your other "avatar" pic - the one with the giant 'S' across your chest.
That 'S', as we all know, stood for 'Stupid'. Truth in advertising is a good thing.

Jorge

Get some new material.