OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 26, 2014, 03:55:01 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Origin of Species -- Origin into Schools  (Read 3779 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« on: November 10, 2009, 05:00:37 PM »

Quote
In November of 2009, we will be giving away more than 100,000 copies of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species at 100 top U.S. universities (other individuals and churches have purchased approximately 70,000 copies to also give to students). This will be the entire publication (304-pages). Nothing has been removed from Darwin’s original work. As usual with reprints of On the Origin of Species (there have been over 140 reprints), there will be an Introduction. My name will be on the cover (for those who think that we are somehow being deceptive). In one day, 170,000 future doctors, lawyers and politicians will freely get information about Intelligent Design (and the gospel) placed directly into their hands!
Quote
Are you defacing Darwin’s work?
Not at all. We have published his entire book. Nothing has been removed. The book that we will be giving to students is the complete edition. Charles Darwin said that both perspectives should be given, and we are giving both in a 50-page Introduction. Like Darwin, we want people to read the two points of view and make up their own minds.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #1 on: November 10, 2009, 05:07:44 PM »

I just want to know what world you have to live in to actually think people will read the 50 page introduction. Heck, I haven't even managed to get through the actual book in its entirety and that's actually a well written classic.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,363


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #2 on: November 10, 2009, 05:10:29 PM »

Quote
In November of 2009, we will be giving away more than 100,000 copies of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species at 100 top U.S. universities (other individuals and churches have purchased approximately 70,000 copies to also give to students). This will be the entire publication (304-pages). Nothing has been removed from Darwin’s original work. As usual with reprints of On the Origin of Species (there have been over 140 reprints), there will be an Introduction. My name will be on the cover (for those who think that we are somehow being deceptive). In one day, 170,000 future doctors, lawyers and politicians will freely get information about Intelligent Design (and the gospel) placed directly into their hands!
Quote
Are you defacing Darwin’s work?
Not at all. We have published his entire book. Nothing has been removed. The book that we will be giving to students is the complete edition. Charles Darwin said that both perspectives should be given, and we are giving both in a 50-page Introduction. Like Darwin, we want people to read the two points of view and make up their own minds.
Cool.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,206


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #3 on: November 10, 2009, 05:20:47 PM »

I read about four books in favor of Intelligent Design a few years ago, and I'm still not sure I totally understand it. I mean, I get the irreducible complexity and whatnot, but there are still things I have to ask questions about even after I've read probably a thousand pages of their literature. I don't mind people reading some religious philosophy if it'll get them to read about some science. What I dislike is that they are presenting ID as science rather than religious philosophy.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,363


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #4 on: November 10, 2009, 05:22:08 PM »

I read about four books in favor of Intelligent Design a few years ago, and I'm still not sure I totally understand it. I mean, I get the irreducible complexity and whatnot, but there are still things I have to ask questions about even after I've read probably a thousand pages of their literature. I don't mind people reading some religious philosophy if it'll get them to read about some science. What I dislike is that they are presenting ID as science rather than religious philosophy.
Just as I dislike people presenting materialism as science rather than philosophy.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,206


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #5 on: November 10, 2009, 05:34:21 PM »

Well, I would say that there is a difference in that materialism isn't a religious philosophy, though you may very well disagree.
Logged
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #6 on: November 10, 2009, 06:16:49 PM »

Quote
In November of 2009, we will be giving away more than 100,000 copies of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species at 100 top U.S. universities (other individuals and churches have purchased approximately 70,000 copies to also give to students). This will be the entire publication (304-pages). Nothing has been removed from Darwin’s original work. As usual with reprints of On the Origin of Species (there have been over 140 reprints), there will be an Introduction. My name will be on the cover (for those who think that we are somehow being deceptive). In one day, 170,000 future doctors, lawyers and politicians will freely get information about Intelligent Design (and the gospel) placed directly into their hands!
Quote
Are you defacing Darwin’s work?
Not at all. We have published his entire book. Nothing has been removed. The book that we will be giving to students is the complete edition. Charles Darwin said that both perspectives should be given, and we are giving both in a 50-page Introduction. Like Darwin, we want people to read the two points of view and make up their own minds.
Weird. I don't really trust people who have been using tactics such as putting warning labels on biology textbooks to publish an unaltered version of Darwin's book.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,363


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #7 on: November 10, 2009, 07:17:24 PM »

Well, I would say that there is a difference in that materialism isn't a religious philosophy, though you may very well disagree.
You are right.  Its not religious. However, it is faith-based anti-religion.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2009, 07:18:32 PM by Papist » Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,206


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #8 on: November 10, 2009, 07:27:31 PM »

Quote
You are right.  Its not religious. However, it is faith-based anti-religion.

I think many scientists, perhaps a majority, use a naturalistic methodology when it comes to science, but are not anti-religion in their personal lives. It's perhaps a hard line to walk, but many Christian scientists seem to walk it.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,363


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #9 on: November 10, 2009, 07:29:37 PM »

Quote
You are right.  Its not religious. However, it is faith-based anti-religion.

I think many scientists, perhaps a majority, use a naturalistic methodology when it comes to science, but are not anti-religion in their personal lives. It's perhaps a hard line to walk, but many Christian scientists seem to walk it.
I don't think they are actively anti-religion but that does not mean that materialism does not oppose religion in a general sense nor does it mean that materialism is not faith based.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #10 on: November 10, 2009, 07:35:54 PM »

Quote
You are right.  Its not religious. However, it is faith-based anti-religion.

I think many scientists, perhaps a majority, use a naturalistic methodology when it comes to science, but are not anti-religion in their personal lives. It's perhaps a hard line to walk, but many Christian scientists seem to walk it.
I don't think they are actively anti-religion but that does not mean that materialism does not oppose religion in a general sense nor does it mean that materialism is not faith based.

I think you over-analyze by assuming everyone cares about metaphysical truths just because you do. The job of science is to describe the world through observation, if something is not subject to observation the assumption isn't that it's not real, just that it's irrelevant.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,363


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #11 on: November 10, 2009, 07:45:03 PM »

Quote
You are right.  Its not religious. However, it is faith-based anti-religion.

I think many scientists, perhaps a majority, use a naturalistic methodology when it comes to science, but are not anti-religion in their personal lives. It's perhaps a hard line to walk, but many Christian scientists seem to walk it.
I don't think they are actively anti-religion but that does not mean that materialism does not oppose religion in a general sense nor does it mean that materialism is not faith based.

I think you over-analyze by assuming everyone cares about metaphysical truths just because you do. The job of science is to describe the world through observation, if something is not subject to observation the assumption isn't that it's not real, just that it's irrelevant.
That is anti-religious in its assumptions.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #12 on: November 10, 2009, 07:52:42 PM »

Quote
You are right.  Its not religious. However, it is faith-based anti-religion.

I think many scientists, perhaps a majority, use a naturalistic methodology when it comes to science, but are not anti-religion in their personal lives. It's perhaps a hard line to walk, but many Christian scientists seem to walk it.
I don't think they are actively anti-religion but that does not mean that materialism does not oppose religion in a general sense nor does it mean that materialism is not faith based.

I think you over-analyze by assuming everyone cares about metaphysical truths just because you do. The job of science is to describe the world through observation, if something is not subject to observation the assumption isn't that it's not real, just that it's irrelevant.
That is anti-religious in its assumptions.

Not anti-religious, just non-religious...the metaphysical may or may not exist, but it's simply not the domain of science, investigating it is not the job scientists are paid to do.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,363


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #13 on: November 10, 2009, 07:53:33 PM »

Quote
You are right.  Its not religious. However, it is faith-based anti-religion.

I think many scientists, perhaps a majority, use a naturalistic methodology when it comes to science, but are not anti-religion in their personal lives. It's perhaps a hard line to walk, but many Christian scientists seem to walk it.
I don't think they are actively anti-religion but that does not mean that materialism does not oppose religion in a general sense nor does it mean that materialism is not faith based.
I think you over-analyze by assuming everyone cares about metaphysical truths just because you do. The job of science is to describe the world through observation, if something is not subject to observation the assumption isn't that it's not real, just that it's irrelevant.
That is anti-religious in its assumptions.

Not anti-religious, just non-religious...the metaphysical may or may not exist, but it's simply not the domain of science, investigating it is not the job scientists are paid to do.
I'm not talking about science. I am talking about the philosophy of materialism.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2009, 08:02:31 PM by Papist » Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,206


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #14 on: November 10, 2009, 07:54:51 PM »

I've been thinking for 20 minutes now what to post in this thread, and I don't have much. One thing that I think is important here is what Papist mentioned (or at least implied) about materialism being "faith based". This seems to be a basic assumption in anti-materialist arguments, this idea that "it takes faith to be a materialist". But where does that leave us, since most scientific/metaphysical naturalists would disagree?
« Last Edit: November 10, 2009, 07:55:07 PM by Asteriktos » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #15 on: November 10, 2009, 07:58:02 PM »

I've been thinking for 20 minutes now what to post in this thread, and I don't have much. One thing that I think is important here is what Papist mentioned (or at least implied) about materialism being "faith based". This seems to be a basic assumption in anti-materialist arguments, this idea that "it takes faith to be a materialist". But where does that leave us, since most scientific/metaphysical naturalists would disagree?

It leaves me wondering why would think about posts for that long before making them...it's a lot more fun if you just say the first thing that pops into your head and watch the chaos ensue. Wink
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,206


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #16 on: November 10, 2009, 08:02:42 PM »

Well, generally I post what first comes to mind, and then I spend 20 minutes editing and re-editing the post. Sometimes I think out what to say though. But either way I spend way too much time on posts, I agree Grin
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,363


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #17 on: November 10, 2009, 08:03:53 PM »

I've been thinking for 20 minutes now what to post in this thread, and I don't have much. One thing that I think is important here is what Papist mentioned (or at least implied) about materialism being "faith based". This seems to be a basic assumption in anti-materialist arguments, this idea that "it takes faith to be a materialist". But where does that leave us, since most scientific/metaphysical naturalists would disagree?
Well metaphysical naturalists would be wrong since they do, indeed, have to make a leap of faith in order to adopt materialism.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,206


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #18 on: November 10, 2009, 08:08:41 PM »

Quote
Well metaphysical naturalists would be wrong since they do, indeed, have to make a leap of faith in order to adopt materialism.

What would you say they have faith in? What is their leap of faith?
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,363


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #19 on: November 10, 2009, 08:10:36 PM »

Quote
Well metaphysical naturalists would be wrong since they do, indeed, have to make a leap of faith in order to adopt materialism.

What would you say they have faith in? What is their leap of faith?
Faith in the idea that there is no such thing but the material.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #20 on: November 10, 2009, 08:22:35 PM »

Quote
Well metaphysical naturalists would be wrong since they do, indeed, have to make a leap of faith in order to adopt materialism.

What would you say they have faith in? What is their leap of faith?
Faith in the idea that there is no such thing but the material.

Or do they just make the judgment that since we can't interact with and affect that which is not material, it's simply irrelevant regardless of questions of existence?
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,363


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #21 on: November 10, 2009, 08:23:25 PM »

Quote
Well metaphysical naturalists would be wrong since they do, indeed, have to make a leap of faith in order to adopt materialism.

What would you say they have faith in? What is their leap of faith?
Faith in the idea that there is no such thing but the material.

Or do they just make the judgment that since we can't interact with and affect that which is not material, it's simply irrelevant regardless of questions of existence?
First you don't know that you don't interact with it. And if theists are right, its quite relevant.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,206


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #22 on: November 10, 2009, 08:25:09 PM »

I wouldn't say that lack of belief in something other than the natural is the same as making a leap of faith that there is nothing other than the natural. For example, would you say that you make a leap of faith in there being no leprechauns running OC.net? Or would you simply say that there is no evidence for such a belief, and thus you lack a belief in such a thing? But perhaps you consider the evidence for God to be so obvious that you believe naturalists must close their eyes to avoid the evidence? If so, I must say that that is something else I wouldn't agree with, as I think the evidence for God is very weak, and I totally understand how people can look at all the evidence available to us, and come to the conclusion that there is no God.
Logged
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #23 on: November 10, 2009, 08:38:24 PM »

Banana-man is at it again I see.   Roll Eyes
Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,206


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #24 on: November 10, 2009, 08:39:57 PM »

Oh, I can't tell you how many nightmares bananas gave me when I was an atheist Tongue
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,685


« Reply #25 on: November 10, 2009, 08:53:41 PM »

I was told once that methodological naturalism is equivalent to atheism. If you rejected methodological naturalism, I'm not sure what the implications for science are, however. Methodological naturalism seems to be a statement of what science IS, so without naturalism, I'm not sure science could exist. This would be hard to reconcile with the strong evidence for scientific endeavor in Orthodox Christian societies such as Byzantium and Tsarist Russia.

I think you could reword the statement to say scientists should be able to entertain the null hypothesis even if the null hypothesis has no clear naturalistic explanation. Thus, the null hypothesis in evolutionary theory is the idea that all species arose spontaneously and are not genetically related. This is the position of the Intelligent Designers, I think, or at least some of them. There IS a tendency of evolutionary biologists to indulge in blatant speculation wherever a solid evolutionary account for a particular species or piece of anatomy is not forthcoming. Their justification is simply that it MUST have evolved by natural selection, simply because they will not entertain any other explanation. If you allowed for the null hypothesis, however, you can say 'we can't see how such a thing can have evolved by natural selection, so we will allow that this thing may have arisen spontaneously'. A good example is the elephant's trunk, or the giraffe's neck. It is not at all clear how such things, unique in the animal kingdom, can confer a solid selective advantage. Darwinists say that they must have conferred such an advantage, simply because they exist, and Darwinism is the only scientifically legitimate theory for how biological things come into existence. This is asserted despite the fact that a selective advantage is not evident for any supposed intermediate stages between the fully formed feature in question, say the elephant's trunk, and the most nearly related anatomical homologue, say the upper lip of the elephant's closest relative, the hyrax.

Questions, comments?
« Last Edit: November 10, 2009, 09:05:17 PM by Jonathan Gress » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #26 on: November 10, 2009, 09:22:04 PM »

Quote
Well metaphysical naturalists would be wrong since they do, indeed, have to make a leap of faith in order to adopt materialism.

What would you say they have faith in? What is their leap of faith?
Faith in the idea that there is no such thing but the material.

Or do they just make the judgment that since we can't interact with and affect that which is not material, it's simply irrelevant regardless of questions of existence?
First you don't know that you don't interact with it. And if theists are right, its quite relevant.

If we interact with it, then it is, by definition, part of the observable universe, thus the domain of the material world. We will observe and quantify it and it will be within the realm of science. If we can't interact, it is irrelevant to our current situation...regardless of what happens in some future life, it has no bearing on the here and now; so it would be most reasonable to ignore it when dealing with the real world we currently live in.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #27 on: November 10, 2009, 09:31:14 PM »

I was told once that methodological naturalism is equivalent to atheism. If you rejected methodological naturalism, I'm not sure what the implications for science are, however. Methodological naturalism seems to be a statement of what science IS, so without naturalism, I'm not sure science could exist. This would be hard to reconcile with the strong evidence for scientific endeavor in Orthodox Christian societies such as Byzantium and Tsarist Russia.

I think you could reword the statement to say scientists should be able to entertain the null hypothesis even if the null hypothesis has no clear naturalistic explanation. Thus, the null hypothesis in evolutionary theory is the idea that all species arose spontaneously and are not genetically related. This is the position of the Intelligent Designers, I think, or at least some of them. There IS a tendency of evolutionary biologists to indulge in blatant speculation wherever a solid evolutionary account for a particular species or piece of anatomy is not forthcoming. Their justification is simply that it MUST have evolved by natural selection, simply because they will not entertain any other explanation. If you allowed for the null hypothesis, however, you can say 'we can't see how such a thing can have evolved by natural selection, so we will allow that this thing may have arisen spontaneously'. A good example is the elephant's trunk, or the giraffe's neck. It is not at all clear how such things, unique in the animal kingdom, can confer a solid selective advantage. Darwinists say that they must have conferred such an advantage, simply because they exist, and Darwinism is the only scientifically legitimate theory for how biological things come into existence. This is asserted despite the fact that a selective advantage is not evident for any supposed intermediate stages between the fully formed feature in question, say the elephant's trunk, and the most nearly related anatomical homologue, say the upper lip of the elephant's closest relative, the hyrax.

Questions, comments?

One comment, the assumption of an intelligent designer is simply not acceptable to science because it's not falsifiable. When you come up with objective and repeatable experiments that can prove or disprove the existence of an intelligent designer, then we can talk; what you can't do is use the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam to introduce an intelligent designer. You also can't set up the false dichotomy between Darwinian evolution and intelligent design and assume that difficulties encountered in the former automatically imply the latter as you haven't disproved the possibility of other mechanisms we simply have not discovered yet. What you're advocating is dogma, not science.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,685


« Reply #28 on: November 10, 2009, 10:49:24 PM »

I was told once that methodological naturalism is equivalent to atheism. If you rejected methodological naturalism, I'm not sure what the implications for science are, however. Methodological naturalism seems to be a statement of what science IS, so without naturalism, I'm not sure science could exist. This would be hard to reconcile with the strong evidence for scientific endeavor in Orthodox Christian societies such as Byzantium and Tsarist Russia.

I think you could reword the statement to say scientists should be able to entertain the null hypothesis even if the null hypothesis has no clear naturalistic explanation. Thus, the null hypothesis in evolutionary theory is the idea that all species arose spontaneously and are not genetically related. This is the position of the Intelligent Designers, I think, or at least some of them. There IS a tendency of evolutionary biologists to indulge in blatant speculation wherever a solid evolutionary account for a particular species or piece of anatomy is not forthcoming. Their justification is simply that it MUST have evolved by natural selection, simply because they will not entertain any other explanation. If you allowed for the null hypothesis, however, you can say 'we can't see how such a thing can have evolved by natural selection, so we will allow that this thing may have arisen spontaneously'. A good example is the elephant's trunk, or the giraffe's neck. It is not at all clear how such things, unique in the animal kingdom, can confer a solid selective advantage. Darwinists say that they must have conferred such an advantage, simply because they exist, and Darwinism is the only scientifically legitimate theory for how biological things come into existence. This is asserted despite the fact that a selective advantage is not evident for any supposed intermediate stages between the fully formed feature in question, say the elephant's trunk, and the most nearly related anatomical homologue, say the upper lip of the elephant's closest relative, the hyrax.

Questions, comments?

One comment, the assumption of an intelligent designer is simply not acceptable to science because it's not falsifiable. When you come up with objective and repeatable experiments that can prove or disprove the existence of an intelligent designer, then we can talk; what you can't do is use the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam to introduce an intelligent designer. You also can't set up the false dichotomy between Darwinian evolution and intelligent design and assume that difficulties encountered in the former automatically imply the latter as you haven't disproved the possibility of other mechanisms we simply have not discovered yet. What you're advocating is dogma, not science.

If every unexplained biological feature is assumed to have evolved by Darwinian natural selection, no matter what the positive evidence for it, isn't that also the hallmark of an unfalsifiable, and hence unscientific theory?
Logged
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: I'm Greek and proud of it, damn it!
Posts: 6,247



« Reply #29 on: November 10, 2009, 11:07:33 PM »

I just want to know what world you have to live in to actually think people will read the 50 page introduction. Heck, I haven't even managed to get through the actual book in its entirety and that's actually a well written classic.

Just read the book.  Don't get preconceived notions beforehand (though I'm sure the readers already have them) and just read the original work.  Why is everyone obsessed with introductions to books?
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #30 on: November 10, 2009, 11:26:17 PM »

I was told once that methodological naturalism is equivalent to atheism. If you rejected methodological naturalism, I'm not sure what the implications for science are, however. Methodological naturalism seems to be a statement of what science IS, so without naturalism, I'm not sure science could exist. This would be hard to reconcile with the strong evidence for scientific endeavor in Orthodox Christian societies such as Byzantium and Tsarist Russia.

I think you could reword the statement to say scientists should be able to entertain the null hypothesis even if the null hypothesis has no clear naturalistic explanation. Thus, the null hypothesis in evolutionary theory is the idea that all species arose spontaneously and are not genetically related. This is the position of the Intelligent Designers, I think, or at least some of them. There IS a tendency of evolutionary biologists to indulge in blatant speculation wherever a solid evolutionary account for a particular species or piece of anatomy is not forthcoming. Their justification is simply that it MUST have evolved by natural selection, simply because they will not entertain any other explanation. If you allowed for the null hypothesis, however, you can say 'we can't see how such a thing can have evolved by natural selection, so we will allow that this thing may have arisen spontaneously'. A good example is the elephant's trunk, or the giraffe's neck. It is not at all clear how such things, unique in the animal kingdom, can confer a solid selective advantage. Darwinists say that they must have conferred such an advantage, simply because they exist, and Darwinism is the only scientifically legitimate theory for how biological things come into existence. This is asserted despite the fact that a selective advantage is not evident for any supposed intermediate stages between the fully formed feature in question, say the elephant's trunk, and the most nearly related anatomical homologue, say the upper lip of the elephant's closest relative, the hyrax.

Questions, comments?

One comment, the assumption of an intelligent designer is simply not acceptable to science because it's not falsifiable.

GiC, I love you to pieces and I share your anti-.... ahem, anti-tautological-clericalist approach to things, and I don't care one bit about the "intelligent design" nonsense, but let me tell you that according to the famous statement of Duhem-Quine, NOTHING is "falsifiable." The whole robust tree of Kuhn paradigm shift philosophy rose from this statement. Good old Lakatos tried to mend things, and it seems that he didn't quite succeed. Who "knows," what this thing called "science" is... (not that I don't love it...)

What you're advocating is dogma, not science.

And here, hear, hear. I don't like it when people presume that science is dogmatic. Yet, no one really knows what science is except that it is not dogmatic...
Logged

Love never fails.
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,685


« Reply #31 on: November 10, 2009, 11:31:41 PM »

Heorhij, your last post didn't make a whole lot of sense. Are you agreeing with him or me or what are you saying?
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,206


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #32 on: November 10, 2009, 11:34:29 PM »

Quote
Why is everyone obsessed with introductions to books?

What do you mean? Who is obsessed with introductions to books? I know a person who refuses to even read introductions/prefaces. *shrugs* To each their own. I've found that intros that long (50 pages) are usually tedious reading, but again, to each their own. Smiley

EDIT--Actually, now that I think about it, I've probably never even read a 50 page introduction. Probably a few 35-40 page intros would be more in the ball park.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2009, 11:36:17 PM by Asteriktos » Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #33 on: November 10, 2009, 11:47:59 PM »

Heorhij, your last post didn't make a whole lot of sense. Are you agreeing with him or me or what are you saying?

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with you or him - I am just trying to say that this argument, "science is made up of what is falsifiable," has been ripped and gutted and chewed on and spit out by philosophers of science many times over. Smiley
Logged

Love never fails.
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #34 on: November 10, 2009, 11:51:09 PM »

I read about four books in favor of Intelligent Design a few years ago, and I'm still not sure I totally understand it. I mean, I get the irreducible complexity and whatnot, but there are still things I have to ask questions about even after I've read probably a thousand pages of their literature. I don't mind people reading some religious philosophy if it'll get them to read about some science. What I dislike is that they are presenting ID as science rather than religious philosophy.

Materialism/Philosophical Naturalism is also a philosophy, and it goes back 500 years before the birth of Christ, and so, the way I see it, is that they are both philosophies. To say that one is science while the other is not is no different than a protestant thinking that what they believe is Scripture only, while what we believe is tradition. When the truth is, we both believe in tradition. The difference is, we have a different interpretation of Scripture. And in Science, we have a different interpretation of the evidence.

For everything must be glued together in narrative form. So the question is, what narrative are you gonna have?

Will you have "everything is choas"? Or will you have "everything is design"? Or a mixture of both?

If everything is chaos, then design is an illusion. If everything is design, then chaos is an illusion. If it's a mixture of both, then it's gonna give our brains a headache just thinking about it.....for there will be alot of things to sort out.


Back in the day....500 years before Christ, people believed in "Revolution" or spontaneous generation.....or something like that. But people thought we came from all sorts of things....from dragon teeth to who knows what. In modern times, some think we came from the backs of chrystals. But the main difference between ancient Materialism/Naturalism and modern is the concept of time. Back then, they didn't have the belief of millions to billions of years......I'm talking about the Greeks and Romans, and not other cultures like China, India and some tribes in Africa.

So what changed was the idea of time, so instead of "spontaneous generation", you had "evolution" over hundreds of millions and billions of years.

So an aspect of Materialism/Naturalism is old, while another aspect of it is new. But both ID and Materialist evolution contain a measure of philosophy.










ICXC NIKA

I'm willing to be corrected about the issue of spontaneous generation as well as what the ancient western materialist/Naturalists believed.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2009, 12:11:02 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,206


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #35 on: November 10, 2009, 11:52:35 PM »

Heorhij

As you indicated, there really isn't an accepted definition of science. But if you had to give at least a description of science (and the methodology used), what would you say?
« Last Edit: November 10, 2009, 11:52:59 PM by Asteriktos » Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #36 on: November 10, 2009, 11:53:11 PM »

Heorhij, your last post didn't make a whole lot of sense. Are you agreeing with him or me or what are you saying?

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with you or him - I am just trying to say that this argument, "science is made up of what is falsifiable," has been ripped and gutted and chewed on and spit out by philosophers of science many times over. Smiley

Thanks for saying this Heorhij! I really appreciate the honesty.








ICXC NIKA
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,206


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #37 on: November 11, 2009, 12:02:20 AM »

I read about four books in favor of Intelligent Design a few years ago, and I'm still not sure I totally understand it. I mean, I get the irreducible complexity and whatnot, but there are still things I have to ask questions about even after I've read probably a thousand pages of their literature. I don't mind people reading some religious philosophy if it'll get them to read about some science. What I dislike is that they are presenting ID as science rather than religious philosophy.

Materialim/Philosophical naturalism is also a philosophy, it goes back 500 years before the birth of Christ, and so, the way I see it is that they are both philosophies. To say that one is science while the other is not is no different than a protestant thinking that what they believe is Scripture, while what we believe is tradition. When the truth is, we both believe in tradition. The difference is, we have a different interpretation of Scripture. And in Science, we have a different interpretation of the evidence.

For everything must be glued together in narrative form.
ICXC NIKA

Well, I agree with you in part. That's why I said earlier in this thread "Well, I would say that there is a difference in that materialism isn't a religious philosophy, though you may very well disagree." I think the distinction between a religious philosophy and a secular philosophy is an important one. True, science is not aphilosophical, there is a philosophy behind it (or underlying it). I would also agree with you about the history of naturalism; as it so happens, I just got done reading a book on atheism in the west which explored to some extent the ancient Greek naturalists. Nonetheless, despite the true remarks of Heorhij, I think there still has to be some type of testable, repeatable standard in science. Science can do repeatable testing natural phenomena. It can perhaps even do repeatable testing with things like prayer. But how can science delve into something supernatural like the existence of God? It seems to me that some things are simply beyond the scope of science, and are the domain of religion or straight-up philosophy. Actually what I find strange is that both atheists like Dawkins/Stenger and theists would disagree with me on that. Well, maybe I'll change my mind, we'll see. Smiley
Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #38 on: November 11, 2009, 12:15:51 AM »

I read about four books in favor of Intelligent Design a few years ago, and I'm still not sure I totally understand it. I mean, I get the irreducible complexity and whatnot, but there are still things I have to ask questions about even after I've read probably a thousand pages of their literature. I don't mind people reading some religious philosophy if it'll get them to read about some science. What I dislike is that they are presenting ID as science rather than religious philosophy.

Materialim/Philosophical naturalism is also a philosophy, it goes back 500 years before the birth of Christ, and so, the way I see it is that they are both philosophies. To say that one is science while the other is not is no different than a protestant thinking that what they believe is Scripture, while what we believe is tradition. When the truth is, we both believe in tradition. The difference is, we have a different interpretation of Scripture. And in Science, we have a different interpretation of the evidence.

For everything must be glued together in narrative form.
ICXC NIKA

Well, I agree with you in part. That's why I said earlier in this thread "Well, I would say that there is a difference in that materialism isn't a religious philosophy, though you may very well disagree." I think the distinction between a religious philosophy and a secular philosophy is an important one. True, science is not aphilosophical, there is a philosophy behind it (or underlying it). I would also agree with you about the history of naturalism; as it so happens, I just got done reading a book on atheism in the west which explored to some extent the ancient Greek naturalists. Nonetheless, despite the true remarks of Heorhij, I think there still has to be some type of testable, repeatable standard in science. Science can do repeatable testing natural phenomena. It can perhaps even do repeatable testing with things like prayer. But how can science delve into something supernatural like the existence of God? It seems to me that some things are simply beyond the scope of science, and are the domain of religion or straight-up philosophy. Actually what I find strange is that both atheists like Dawkins/Stenger and theists would disagree with me on that. Well, maybe I'll change my mind, we'll see. Smiley

What does repeatable testing have to do with the rejection of ID or any other philosophy? In my mind, repeatable testing is neutral, and is something that all humans can do no matter the Religion or non-religious philosophy.

So in my mind Science should be inter-faith instead of a-religious. Infact, this is what secularism in general should be. It should mean "inter-faith" or the inclusion of mutliple faiths, instead of "anti-religious or a-religious". In the early years of secular America, it was about the inclusion of multiple christian denominations, instead of what the colonies had before......which was a state church. Now in modern times, secularism means "anti-religious" or a-religious, and people want to make science "anti-religious / a-religious" as well when it shouldn't be.


It shouldn't be.

I won't comment about science and the existence of God, for that would lead down another rabbit trail.





ICXC NIKA
« Last Edit: November 11, 2009, 12:30:37 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,685


« Reply #39 on: November 11, 2009, 12:20:03 AM »

I can see some of the problem with ID. If God is all-powerful, then really any account for how species originated is compatible with God. Species might have evolved from common ancestors, they might have arisen individually out of the mud, they might have dropped in from outer space, I mean, ANYTHING.

Darwinian theory is at least specific in claiming that species have a common ancestor. So whatever account we come up with must be compatible with that scenario. The problem is that Darwinists have made a religion out of the theory, so if stuff turns up that doesn't really fit they just throw up their hands and say 'well this is only theory we got, so suck it up'. It would be nice if we could at least allow for outer space or something.
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #40 on: November 11, 2009, 12:21:05 AM »

Heorhij

As you indicated, there really isn't an accepted definition of science. But if you had to give at least a description of science (and the methodology used), what would you say?

Well, perhaps, as my authority in this matter, Alan F. Chalmers, seems to say, "science" is a very heterogenous area of human activity where people try to comprehend the world around them, using their own, intrinsic, human tools: curiosity, logic, sensual organs, critical thinking, and other things. There are certain things that science "is not." It differs from religious constructions in that it does not accept the notion that there is any "revelation," any one kind of statement that can explain or describe or predict things. It rejects any authority - if under "authority" we understand purely emotional attributes like "great," "venerable," "pious," "inspired," etc.

Yet, it is indeed difficult to build a "positive" model of what science is. The naive 17th century notion that science, as opposed to other human endeavors, is "something derived from facts" is very easily refuted by acknowledging that "facts" themselves are necessarily theory-laden. The more sophisticated claim by Karl Popper that science is something not as much based on "facts" as something based on the criterion of "falcifiability" also does not hold water (see the huge literature on the so-called Duhem-Quine postulate). A yet another take on science made by T. Kuhn, that science is an arbitrary, voluntaristic flow of shifting "paradigms" has also been severely criticised. Later theories, like the theory of "research programs" (by I. Lakatos), or the theory of "new instrumentalism" (by D. Mayo), have also been received very critically and could not defend themselves from accusations in logical inconsistency.

Most strikingly, philosophers cannot even agree on the most basic thing: does science address something that is "real," as opposed to "merely serving as a tool for science's own advancement." Some philosophers of science who were also great scientists, like Ernst Mach, claimed that philosophically, there is never any confidence that a "thing" science talks about is real when it is not directly observable. Mach and other philosophers of science who had similar views, declared that "an unobservable thing X is always, necessarily, merely a tool for propagation of a theory Y, and never anything more than that." This direction in philosophy of science was called "anti-realism" or "instrumentalism."
Logged

Love never fails.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,206


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #41 on: November 11, 2009, 12:27:39 AM »

Quote
What does repeatable testing have to do with the rejection of ID or any other philosophy? In my mind, repeatable testing is neutral, and is something that all humans can do no matter the Religion or non-religious philosophy.

ID is not compatible with science. You can be an IDist and a scientist at the same time, that is true. However, you can't prove what ID wants to prove through science. How can you do a repeatable test regarding the existence of an "Intelligent Designer"? If by ID you mean a space alien, then it's possible. If ID means God, then it's not. I mean, based purely on what we know now, go ahead and conduct a test like that, and then get back to me and tell me who independently has repeated the test. Tell me about the assumptions and biases that you have identified that might taint the test, tell me what your hypothesis is, how you will set up the test, how you will conduct it, what other variables there are to control for, etc.?
« Last Edit: November 11, 2009, 12:32:00 AM by Asteriktos » Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #42 on: November 11, 2009, 12:35:56 AM »

Quote
What does repeatable testing have to do with the rejection of ID or any other philosophy? In my mind, repeatable testing is neutral, and is something that all humans can do no matter the Religion or non-religious philosophy.

ID is not compatible with science. You can be an IDist and a scientist at the same time, that is true. However, you can't prove what ID wants to prove through science. How can you do a repeatable test regarding the existence of an "Intelligent Designer"? If by ID you mean a space alien, then it's possible. If ID means God, then it's not. I mean, based purely on what we know now, go ahead and conduct a test like that, and then get back to me and tell me who independently has repeated the test. Tell me about the assumptions and biases that you have identified that might taint the test, tell me what your hypothesis is, how you will set up the test, how you will conduct it, what other variables there are to control for, etc.?

How can you prove that Aliens exist? What do people who moniter radio telescopes look for in regards to "intelligent life"? What do they look for? What signs do they look for? ID also uses.......I want to say "Information theory", but I need to double check just to make sure.

But this is pretty much what ID is doing. Pretty much the same principle. So I must disagree with you.








ICXC NIKA
« Last Edit: November 11, 2009, 12:39:51 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,206


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #43 on: November 11, 2009, 12:36:26 AM »

Heorhij

As you indicated, there really isn't an accepted definition of science. But if you had to give at least a description of science (and the methodology used), what would you say?

Well, perhaps, as my authority in this matter, Alan F. Chalmers, seems to say, "science" is a very heterogenous area of human activity where people try to comprehend the world around them, using their own, intrinsic, human tools: curiosity, logic, sensual organs, critical thinking, and other things. There are certain things that science "is not." It differs from religious constructions in that it does not accept the notion that there is any "revelation," any one kind of statement that can explain or describe or predict things. It rejects any authority - if under "authority" we understand purely emotional attributes like "great," "venerable," "pious," "inspired," etc.

Yet, it is indeed difficult to build a "positive" model of what science is. The naive 17th century notion that science, as opposed to other human endeavors, is "something derived from facts" is very easily refuted by acknowledging that "facts" themselves are necessarily theory-laden. The more sophisticated claim by Karl Popper that science is something not as much based on "facts" as something based on the criterion of "falcifiability" also does not hold water (see the huge literature on the so-called Duhem-Quine postulate). A yet another take on science made by T. Kuhn, that science is an arbitrary, voluntaristic flow of shifting "paradigms" has also been severely criticised. Later theories, like the theory of "research programs" (by I. Lakatos), or the theory of "new instrumentalism" (by D. Mayo), have also been received very critically and could not defend themselves from accusations in logical inconsistency.

Most strikingly, philosophers cannot even agree on the most basic thing: does science address something that is "real," as opposed to "merely serving as a tool for science's own advancement." Some philosophers of science who were also great scientists, like Ernst Mach, claimed that philosophically, there is never any confidence that a "thing" science talks about is real when it is not directly observable. Mach and other philosophers of science who had similar views, declared that "an unobservable thing X is always, necessarily, merely a tool for propagation of a theory Y, and never anything more than that." This direction in philosophy of science was called "anti-realism" or "instrumentalism."

Thank you very much. Thanks especially for the names, I will try to follow up a bit in my personal reading. I've read Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and a book of essays critiquing Kuhn, but I'm mostly in the dark when it comes to these matters. Thank you also for the description of science, for at least as far as it will get us. Smiley I should probably bow out of the thread until I've thought more about these matters.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2009, 12:37:25 AM by Asteriktos » Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #44 on: November 11, 2009, 12:51:54 AM »

Heorhij

As you indicated, there really isn't an accepted definition of science. But if you had to give at least a description of science (and the methodology used), what would you say?

Well, perhaps, as my authority in this matter, Alan F. Chalmers, seems to say, "science" is a very heterogenous area of human activity where people try to comprehend the world around them, using their own, intrinsic, human tools: curiosity, logic, sensual organs, critical thinking, and other things. There are certain things that science "is not." It differs from religious constructions in that it does not accept the notion that there is any "revelation," any one kind of statement that can explain or describe or predict things. It rejects any authority - if under "authority" we understand purely emotional attributes like "great," "venerable," "pious," "inspired," etc.

Yet, it is indeed difficult to build a "positive" model of what science is. The naive 17th century notion that science, as opposed to other human endeavors, is "something derived from facts" is very easily refuted by acknowledging that "facts" themselves are necessarily theory-laden. The more sophisticated claim by Karl Popper that science is something not as much based on "facts" as something based on the criterion of "falcifiability" also does not hold water (see the huge literature on the so-called Duhem-Quine postulate). A yet another take on science made by T. Kuhn, that science is an arbitrary, voluntaristic flow of shifting "paradigms" has also been severely criticised. Later theories, like the theory of "research programs" (by I. Lakatos), or the theory of "new instrumentalism" (by D. Mayo), have also been received very critically and could not defend themselves from accusations in logical inconsistency.

Most strikingly, philosophers cannot even agree on the most basic thing: does science address something that is "real," as opposed to "merely serving as a tool for science's own advancement." Some philosophers of science who were also great scientists, like Ernst Mach, claimed that philosophically, there is never any confidence that a "thing" science talks about is real when it is not directly observable. Mach and other philosophers of science who had similar views, declared that "an unobservable thing X is always, necessarily, merely a tool for propagation of a theory Y, and never anything more than that." This direction in philosophy of science was called "anti-realism" or "instrumentalism."

Thank you very much. Thanks especially for the names, I will try to follow up a bit in my personal reading. I've read Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and a book of essays critiquing Kuhn, but I'm mostly in the dark when it comes to these matters. Thank you also for the description of science, for at least as far as it will get us. Smiley I should probably bow out of the thread until I've thought more about these matters.

You are very welcome. I am actually very flattered that people find my posts on this matter to be of any use. I am not any kind of expert there, it's just that I've read a book by Alan F. Chalmers, titled, "What Is This Thing Called Science?" (If you like, I'll give you the bibliographical coordinates of this book tomorrow - don't have it at hand right now). Chalmers is himself a scientist, a physicist-experimenter, and he seems to be very witty, sharp, and knowledgeable in the history and philosophy of science.

All that said, in matters that explain things addressable by our sensual organs and critical thinking, like natural phenomena, human biology, etology, sexuality, etc, I trust science, no matter how contradictory it is by its mere nature. Only in matters that cannot be addressed by our physical senses and critical thinking, like the nature of God, the dual nature of Jesus Christ, the Resurrection, the Life Everlasting, etc., I prefer to trust the Church rather than science.
Logged

Love never fails.
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.208 seconds with 71 queries.