Re: Rant on "Some thoughts abouth thinking"

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 19:30:05 -0400, Jerry Avins wrote:

> Eric Jacobsen wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 17:49:47 -0400, Jerry Avins <jya@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>Eric Jacobsen wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>>>Seriously, though, it's a pretty good example of a topic where the
>>>>issue of "thinking" is more or less at the core. I don't see it as
>>>>challenging ID as a philosophy (which I personally think is as good as
>>>>any), just whether it belongs in a science classroom or not.
>>>
>>>Spoilsport!
>>
>>
>> It's not usually like me to not play out the gag more, but I caved in
>> this case. Sorry... ;)
>
> My needling is a cover-up for a heavy heart. It's not a question of good
> science or bad science. The heart of the issue is "what *is* science?"
> There are assertions which, if shown to be true, would discredit
> evolution. That makes evolution a theory. As far as I know, there are no
> such assertions for intelligent design. If it's not a theory, it's not
> science, even if it happens to be true.

Most of the more level-seeming complaints against "science", and evolution
in particular are that "it doesn't explain [such and such]"[1]. That hardly seems
surprising, given that one of the premises of scientific research is that
there are things that can't currently be explained. I think that part of
the anti-science movement is a rejection of "we don't know" as an answer
to any question. The trouble is, that the alternative proposed: "God made
it so" has no useful or predictive value (even if, as you say, it turns
out to be true...)

[1]: The only argument against a scientific theory accepted by scientists
is "here's some evidence that is inconsistent with that theory".

> Over half the voters in this
> country take Owlet's position, and in the modern technological world
> such an anti-scientific outlook in a democracy must lead to its decline.
> A dictatorship can survive it. Look to China or Indonesia for supremacy
> in technology (and stem cell cures) in the relatively near future.

Indonesia is now a democracy, and seemingly a fairly robust one at that,
fwiw.

Cheers,

--
Andrew

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Young Earth Creationist Arguments. Do they realize how they look?
    ... scientists though, ... I don't 'believe' in evolution, I merely accept it as the best ... I suppled a SCIENTIST who believes in the Creation. ... then show that there indeed are true scientists who do ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Young Earth Creationist Arguments. Do they realize how they look?
    ... scientists though, ... The only people who 'believe' that evolution is 'wrong' are those ... I suppled a SCIENTIST who believes in the Creation. ... then show that there indeed are true scientists who do ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Just who is immoral in the evolution debate?
    ... > the evolution THEORY. ... aspects of reality and then tryto find evidence to support or refute ... The mechanism behind evolution is a theory with less support, ... for the most part scientists aren't like that. ...
    (soc.religion.christian)
  • Re: News: Evolution Exposed on the Big Screen
    ... theory of evolution. ... FALSEHOOD #1 ... robust and thoroughly tested theories in any field of science. ... Evolutionary scientists, far from being an "elite group", have far ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A Challenge to Evolutionists
    ... FALSEHOOD #1 ... Scientists are generally as sane as anyone else. ... Evolutionary theory represents mainstream science ... Among the declarations that ran through the thread was that evolution ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading