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
"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
Comment