Re: Evolution Deniers


"al" <almond@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dns9bm$8cb$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
snipping

>
> But why do you feel that "modern science is crap"? Is it because it
>> contradicts what you want to believe?
>
> No dana it's observation.

Where have you made such an observation? You seem to be claiming that
science is "crap" because you don't like what it's telling you.

>
> Ok, let's hear your "very good reasons".
>
> Do you want me to dig out all my old posts?

No, just present your "very good reasons".

>
> But some reasons for rejecting evolution ARE unscientific
>
> The whole point of my posting on this ng is to illustrate that what
> science
> is perceived to be and what it actually is are poles apart.

But why should we accept what you claim it "actually is"? You seem to be
biased against science, and don't have much personal experience with it.

> Everything in
> print these days refers to things having to be scientific to be reliable.

"Everything"? Even given the exaggeration, I don't think that even a large
majority of articles in print claim that things have to be scientific to be
reliable. That's an assumption some people seem to make, but it's not
really what anyone in science claims.


> What I am trying to illuminate is the fact that this is not necessarily
> the
> case. If science was used for its true purpose then I would have no
> complaint.

What do you think the "true purpose" of science is, or should be?

>
> Example: Your religious views are based on faith and are therefore
> unscientific and invalid.

I have heard the first part said, (ie) that faith based view are not
scientific, but I haven't heard anyone seriously claiming that faith based
views are invalid. Valid and scientific are not the same thing.


> Yes, they are invalid for scientific use, but they are not invalid from
> other perspectives.

Which, of course science recognizes. Scientists don't claim that all
perspectives are scientific, or should be.

> Because science rejects any suggestion of the supernatural all reference
> to
> it will be debunked and you will be ridiculed if you mention it.

Only if you try to make that suggestion a scientific statement. No one is
going to ridicule you for accepting supernatural beliefs on faith.


> This even
> though it is admitted by psychology (science) that prayer and faith have
> are
> of value to mental health.

Yes, but that's another kettle of fish entirely. The "placebo" effect is
well known in medicine, even if it's not well understood.

>
> Our origins are an accident and we do not represent any special position
> in
> the animal kingdom other than being more aggressive in our dominance at
> the
> top of the food chain. This a clear devaluation of the human psyche and in
> MHO a recipe for disaster

This is a basic misunderstanding of what science tells us. Science does
not say that human origins are an "accident". Any "special position" in
the animal kingdom is a human conceit, but if you feel you are special,
who's to tell you that you aren't? As for the "being more agressive" and
"dominance at the top of the food chain" don't really reflect scientific
though on the matters. You are complaining about public perceptions, often
based on misunderstandings of pop science popularizations. Such terms as
"food chain" and "dominance" aren't really used much in science in
describing the human condition.

In my opinion, the human psyche has exactly the amount of value one chooses
to give to it. Our finding out about the way nature works doesn't devalue
it in the least. Why it woluld be a "recipie for disaster" is anyone's
guess.

>
> Moreover, a written account of oral traditions passed down over many
> generations is not even as reliable as eyewitness testimony.
>
> How many times has this statement been shown to be false?

In my experience, never. Oral traditions are generally unreliable.
Physical evidence is much more reliable.


> I'm thinking of Troy at the moment, it was called a myth?

And most of the story about Troy is a myth. That a city like Troy existed
does not mean the whole set of myths about the Trojan war are true.

> And all the other myths, when they have been evaluated by science and
> found
> to be irrefutably true, what then?

Since many myths have been evaluated, and found to be lacking in scientific
evidence, why should we be concerned?


> Science will claim them for its own. Intellectual dishonesty?

If there is physical evidence that supports an oral tradition, then it's
more credible than an oral tradition with no evidence. It still doesn't
make it science.

DJT

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Wild kettle and oxen
    ... The groups name is archaeology, ... science, the scientific analyses are of no discussion value anyway. ... before and some here have religious faith, ... need to be solely about god, they can be about tribal myths of origin ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Expelled....Liberals Exposed....
    ... science or the way scientists think. ... this fanatic faith in your religion of "science" does NOT make ... Religion, at least some of them, ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: Fallout 3 no longer banned in Australia
    ... based on the axioms we've accepted from science. ... changed its mind many times through its short life & each time it's refined ... Faith is not just about finding some truth in order to invalidate ... are so many scientists with differing or even opposing POVs on this topic, ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg)
  • Re: Evolutionhas been of no use to mankind...
    ... Concentrate on real science in the health ... >> faith hinders scientific thought one more time, ... I believe this involves more than just teaching the facts of Nature as ... genetically engineered by scientists who use the evolutionary ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution Deniers
    ... >>> You may have a right to your opinion. ... >>> Scientists are very good at interpreting the data they collect. ... >>> But science is correct when it talks about missing data. ... What is your faith based ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading