Re: Genetic link between Reptile and Human hearts

On 9 Sep, 04:26, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 8, 5:03 pm, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Sep 8, 2:40 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip>

What does puzzle me is why you don't rant about godless Newtonism
(gravity and celestial mechanics) or godless Daltonism (chemistry) or
godless Maxwellism (electromagnetic theory).

<snip>

C'mon on, Ray. It's a perfectly good question. I bet you can't answer
it in any way that makes sense.

Baron Bodissey
That remains to be seen, as the cat said who voided into the sugar
bowl.
        – Jack Vance

I have answered before.

I have never denied modern science, all of the various disciplines, to
deny Naturalism.

And Newton was a Creationist. ALL of his scientific work was done
under the presupposition of direct Divine power causing existence.


Even if it were true, it does not show in his theories, and for
science, that is all that counts. We can programme a computer with
Newton's theory and it will correctly calculate the flight of a bullet
say. But the computer has arguably no concept of god. An atheists, a
Christian and a polytheist can use his theory to predict how a
billiard ball will roll, and they will all come to the same result,
all the time. So he may have been a creationist, but his theory
isn't.

The motivations and personal interpretation that a scientists has when
developing his theory are of interest to the historian of science
only. They matter for science if and only if the theory as formulated
makes explicit use of these concepts. The degree by which a theory can
be implemented on a machine that has no contextual ideas about
culture, religion etc is a good test for its naturalistic nature - if
anything non-natural would be necessary for the theory, a computer
could not "comprehend" it. It also shows why none of these theories ,
Darwin's or Newton's, make _any_statement about God, either
affirmative or negative. It is not in the theoretical vocabulary of
either theory, and that is why a computer can understand them.
Global, cross cultural acceptance is another test. Religious
affiliation is almost always determined by your social and cultural
environment. If you are born in a Christian country, you are likely to
be a Christian, if born is an Islamic country, a Muslim etc. Science
by contrast is global and cross cultural. Even at height of the cold
war, scientists could communicate efficiently with each other across
the Iron curtain where ideologues could not. Netwon's and Darwin's
theories (or rather, their modern successors) are taught, understood
and applied the same way in Berlin, Boston, Bombay, Bejing and
Beirut in a way religion is not. This is because the cultural,
historical and religious context is unnecessary to understand the
former, but not the latter. Again a good indicator that as scientific
theories, they are naturalistic.

Scientists may have all sorts of reasons when they develop their
theory, some good, some bad, most indifferent. Some may want to
improve the world, others want to destroy it, and others yet are happy
merely to describe it. Their theory can have very different meaning
for them,personally. For some it may disprove gods, for others is may
prove their existence, and for the majority, it simply means a sense
of personal achievement and a nagging puzzle solved, or simply a job
for which they are paid is done. They may get their inspiration from
listening to music, reading science fiction or religious texts, from
eating too much cheese for dinner and as a result dreaming about
monkeys dancing in a circle. None of this matters for anyone but a
historian of science. The scientific theory abstracts from the context
of its discovery and stands and falls on its own - which is also why
we are no coming to a point where again, culture and context- free
machines such as computer can come up with new theories of their own,
which are just as valid as human discovered ones.


Science converted to Naturalism with the rise of Darwinism, 1859-1879.

Ray

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: NBC VENTING
    ... > belief in 2005 then I will happily condemn religion as superstitious ... Weird Science on the Religious Right ... "Condoms are full of holes" ... scientists at Columbia University showed that by saying appropriate ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)
  • Dover decision Redux
    ... endorsement of religion. ... mere re-labeling of creationism, ... position, ID is not science. ... scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not ...
    (talk.origins)
  • The Quran and Modern Science
    ... Based upon extracts from the video The Truth. ... RELIGION and SCIENCE have always been considered to be twin sisters by Islam ... Professor Moore presented his findings to scientists at ...
    (soc.culture.iranian)
  • Re: Challenge to evolutionists
    ... acceleration of the universe was found? ... "Science any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical ... this is no more than religion. ... "Scientists maintain that scientific investigation must adhere to the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • The Quran and Modern Science
    ... Based upon extracts from the video The Truth. ... RELIGION and SCIENCE have always been considered to be twin sisters by Islam ... Professor Moore presented his findings to scientists at ...
    (soc.culture.pakistan)