"Real" ringworlds

[Krsqk]

Originally posted by Loser:
A mini-essay on science, faith, and Southern Baptists

I agree that creationism is a theory of faith. I also say that evolutionary theory (macroevolution, abiogenesis, etc.) is a theory of faith--that is, a theory which by definition places itself outside of the realm of science. It is not scientific theory, but naturalistic theory. As such, it has no claim to the respectability of science.

By "evolutionist," I do not refer just to the scientists, but their promoters, the textbook authors, the professors, etc.--in general, those who believe in evolution (as "creationist" usually means "one who believes in creation"). The public could do a better job of looking past the surface--they could also look deeper into politics, but few will do that. It is because of this that political deception is widely effective. I place the major blame in two places--textbook authors, who should have a grasp of the difference between science and theory; and teachers/professors who do know the difference, but often blur over the distinctions, especially in lower level science classes. I realize that a 100-level course isn't going to delve into molecular biology; but it's not too much to ask to say, "This is how we think it happened, but there's room for disagreement." The professors who are out to destroy their freshmen students' faith are pushing an agenda, not teaching science.

[edit] Note: This is to Loser's first essay, not the one immediately below.

[ May 19, 2003, 18:23: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Ruatha:
Yes, but they agree that they can't be sure of everything and that they don't have all the answers

Not really. (link)

[ May 19, 2003, 18:51: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

[Krsqk]

In order to stay mostly on topic, I will respond to your faith/Bible/etc. points via PM/email.

Some creationists, just like some evolutionists (and if there are any other competing families of theories, some of those people, too) will concoct an ad hoc pseudo-knowledgeable reply to temporarily silence any question for which they do not have a better answer. It is difficult, without tone of voice, to distinguish between such a response and a purely theoretical, "This-might-be-the-answer" response. (I would also note that "sinner" isn't a derogatory term in Biblical Christianity, so that isn't a good indicator of the tone.)

I agree that "Well, maybe God did it" doesn't fit well into logical argument. Evolution theory has an equivalent--"Given enough time, it's possible." This is not based on observation, but is merely conjecture. The problem with attempting to fit origins debate into logical structure is that neither one can be logically proved. Creation relies on faith in supernatural process; evolution relies on faith in natural process. As one creationist put it (not referring to you and me), "I believe 'In the beginning, God'; you believe 'In the beginning, dirt.'" Sure, it's a cutesy saying meant to make evolution sound silly and isn't meant to prove anything; but the heart of it is correct--it's a debate between the natural and the supernatural.

Mopping up a few loose ends:[*]Again, I wasn't referring to your comments on Bible-belt Christians, but to Ruatha's. I agree that many people don't think through the consequences of their political desires, instead focusing on short-term convenience.
[*]Intellectual debate without believing the ideas being debated is fine and good, as far as that goes. Emotional detachment is not a requirement of cognitive engagement, though. Vehement argument against an idea is not a sign of close-mindedness, but of passion.

There is faith, and it is a good thing. And there are matters provable by Science, and it is a good thing.

I won't tell you the planets and stars all move out of love for the Prime Mover if you don't tell me science favors a naturalistic origin of the universe.

[Ruatha]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ruatha:
Yes, but they agree that they can't be sure of everything and that they don't have all the answers

Not really. (link)

---

So?
I don't see anyone there stating that they have all the answers?
You must point me more clearly where to look, I might be a bit tired tonight!

[Fyron]

In all the times I have discussed creation/evolution with evolutionists, I have not been accused of being closed-minded about science; but I have been accused of being closed-minded because I would not accept macroevolution and origins theory as more scientific than creation. That reflects a mindset of superiority and a refusal to distinguish between belief and science.

The problem is that Creationist hypotheses are based off of what some arbitrary random person says (either alive today or written in some book (or other piece of literature)). Scientific origin hypothesis are based off of what some random arbitrary person says based off of actual fact and evidence from the real world. Most of them are probably completely wrong, but at the least they have a rational (logic-based, not other meanings) basis. Most Creationist hypotheses do not have a rational basis, but one that requires divine revelation, and so can not be considered valid from a rational stand point. Yes, there are some that use logic and reason as their basis, but those are drifting away from religious viewpoints and getting into philosophical ones (which almost never rule out science (in part or in whole) as a lot of religious hypotheses tend to do), and they do not characterize Creationism in general. The vast majority of Creationists ignore any sort of rational (logic-based, not other meanings of the word) approach. This is what causes you to think scientists have some sort of superiority attitude. Any hypothesis that does not have a sound logical basis can be safely dismissed without a second thought. Most scientific hypotheses that are concocted fall under this Category too. It is only the ones that stand up to bombardment by the scientific community as a whole that can be translated into theories.

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Ruatha:
So?
I don't see anyone there stating that they have all the answers?
You must point me more clearly where to look, I might be a bit tired tonight!

Perhaps I should have elaborated more. It isn't so much that they are saying they have all the answers; rather, the page points out a tendency on the part of the scientific community to silence those who disagree with conventional wisdom by means other than rational debate, which would imply that the silencers believe they have all the answers (to the major questions, at least).

[Loser]

Originally posted by Krsqk:
[edit] Note: This is to Loser's first essay, not the one immediately below.

Actually, it was my third in this thread. I encourage everyone who can to go back a few pages and give my other Posts, one of which was very essay-like, a read. While you all are back there, catch up on the thread as a whole. This is the sort of thread that can revisit issues.

Perhaps you should say "essay before Last"...

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
It isn't so much that they are saying they have all the answers; rather, the page points out a tendency on the part of the scientific community to silence those who disagree with conventional wisdom by means other than rational debate, which would imply that the silencers believe they have all the answers (to the major questions, at least).

Yes, they are human. And humans are subject to politics. And humans should spend research money, money from the government, from the people, with some responsibly.

Crack-science serves only to line the pocketbooks of crack-scientists. If I found out that my tax dollars were paying the bills for some clipboard jockey filing reports on something that Science has proven (really, really proven) will not work I would not be pleased. I might write a letter. I might just vote.

Originally posted by Krsqk:
"I believe 'In the beginning, God'; you believe 'In the beginning, dirt.'"

I like 'In the beginning, dirt.'! That pretty much sums up a health secular outlook.

The big difference, here, between Creationism and the Theory of Evolution is that evolution can be proven. I'm not saying it has been proven, but it is possible... given enough time...

I went over this in my first big post in this thread. We don't have to wait for things to change, either. We just have to look for the right footprints. How will you find footprints of God? Don't give me some spiritual wise-crack, either. Give me something we can prove.

[edited for lag]

[ May 19, 2003, 19:40: Message edited by: Loser ]