Ahh! anti-science! Got it.
They are anti-evolution.
The DI includes YEC in their “big tent.” Attacking one branch of science leads to attacking other branches as well.
1 Like
The disagreements in what the rules are tend to be pretty esoteric and only affect the frontiers of science. There is no disagreement whatsoever about the basics of mathematics or measurement – how differential and integral calculus works, what error bars are and what they signify, and so on and so forth. Nor is there any debate that findings have to be reproducible and the procedures have to be documented.
The whole point that I’m making is don’t exaggerate the extent or significance of discrepancies, disagreements and debates in science. Yes, science has rough edges. No, scientists don’t know everything. Yes, there are unanswered questions. Yes, confirmation bias and peer pressure are a factor that has to be taken into consideration. But that doesn’t give you a free pass to reject anything and everything about science that you don’t like. That is why I hammer home the point about what happens in industry, engineering and the workplace. These are the kinds of environments where the need to make sure that things work as intended roots out the rough edges, confirmation bias, peer pressure, flaky peer review and the like.
Could you perhaps be so kind as to post a summary of the video with timestamps to the key points that he makes please?
3 Likes
I would totally agree.
That would take some time as there are 13 videos in the series.
It’s what we would call in the UK as being ‘stitched up like a kipper’. If you don’t believe in evolution you can’t be kosher. Not only that- it’s a case of guilt by association. Sounds like the Stasi. Is this how it all works?
If you attack science in one fundamental foundational building block, you attack all. Yes. Have you stopped beating your wife by the way?
1 Like
An assault on evolution is an assault on biology, since evolution is the underlying principle of biology.
But there’s more: At the Intelligent Design debate I attended in NYC, it was revealed that the ID movement doesn’t have a position on the age of the earth, because some in ID leadership are YEC. But philosopher of science Robert T. Pennock explained that the sciences are integrated. You can’t simply snap off parts you don’t agree with!
1 Like
I think this is called begging the question. It’s merely a circular argument.
What question? What argument?
An assault on rationality is an assault on faith.
1 Like
The question (as per usual) is ‘Why?’
It is irrational to assert that asking a question or taking a different viewpoint necessitates an assault on faith. Who’s faith for example? Any particular faith? Or faith in general i.e. faith in the abstract?
People have faith in all kinds of things and the reasons are not always rational. Like reading someones palms or predicting the future by looking at tea leaves.
You are the one who made a personal (ad hominem) attack on me for my faith. Why? Purely because someone has a different faith to you and you don’t like the idea. You don’t like the idea so you have to make it personal. You can’t stand anyone who believes differently to you and so you have to either disrespectfully shut them up or shut them down.
I have to respond in this ‘personal’ way- because it was you who first made it personal. I prefer not to engage in these personal kinds of arguments. They are distasteful in the extreme and frankly quite pointless.
Furthermore it’s easy to lob your verbal hand grenades form your bunker of
anonymity and then disappear again. At least people can see who I am. I’ve put my real name up there. If you really have the courage of your convictions then do the same.
Why what?
Why question science?
Faith as in Hebrews 11:1
The substance, i.e. the demonstration of hope, is not in denying eternal self-sufficient nature, denying abiogenic and biogenic evolution, denying reality. The substance is measured by what goes in my name space.
Having a counterfactual belief about (material) reality, nature is not faith. Stating that is not ad hominem. As is nothing above that I have said whatsoever. The leap of faith does no harm to nature whatsoever. Faith is strengthened by steel manning nature.
If you choose to take you personally here, that is contrived. Is that ad hominem?
I will always give an answer according to faith and prefer Paul’s universalism to my full name, Martin Peter Clarke.
…
The initial question was related to Beaglelady’s initial assertion regarding evolution. And no I don’t think it is wrong to question science.
Hebrews 1.11 has nothing to do with evolution. The context is ‘faith according to Christ’.
No one is denying reality, or the ‘existence’ of reality, material or otherwise. The issue is that you believe that your perception of reality the only valid perception. You are then taking that perception (constructed outside of scripture) and imposing it on to scripture to make it say what you want it to say.
Biological evolution and its precursor abiogenesis are part of reality.
1 Like
That is only your ‘belief’ about reality.
Of course it is okay to question science. But to do so you should have positive evidence for any new hypothesis. Is there any positive evidence for intelligent design? And btw, how old would you say the earth is?
No, they are facts of nature, reality. Belief does not enter in to it. I no more believe in them than I do in cake, quantum mechanics, carrots, relativity, dogs, insurance companies, stellar nucleosynthesis, Volkswagens, Henry VIII.
1 Like
Using what type of question?
It doesn’t necessarily follow that I personally should have any new positive evidence for a hypothesis in order to question the validity of evolution. All I need is a doubt and this is what I have. So I don’t equate ‘science’ with a body of unassailable facts or with theories about ‘evolution’. Or believe that the human mind is necessarily invested with the powers equal to the task. For some people science and evolution seem to be coterminous which I don’t readily accept. So I believe it wrong to label someone as unreasonable because they do not accept evolution as the only explanation for how life in all of its abundance got here.
Neither am I proposing any ‘scientific’ evidence for for the movement which has become known as ‘Intelligent Design’. This does not prevent me from viewing arguments on either side of the debate. Neither would I disqualify anyone as being ‘anti-science’ on the basis their affiliations or faith positions. Let the process of scientific enquiry speak for itself and be judged on its own merits. Let the arguments be opposed by the counter-arguments.
Regarding the age of the earth, I remain agnostic. I don’t have enough verifiable information to definitively say either from science or the Bible. When I studied Geology, I believed in an ancient earth of billions of years as well as Darwinian evolution. When I became a Christian I became more convinced of a young earth but always retained doubts because of my geological training. The strata of the earth with its fossils etc. ‘looks’ old from a naturalistic perspective. From a philosophically supernaturalistic perspective, however, it could possibly be young. So I can’t in honesty rule out either. So the point of divergence as I see, is the vast gulf between naturalism and supernaturalism. Some people here, I believe, find ways of marrying the two, which is interesting.
What I have found fruitful for myself is to investigate the a priori philosophical basis for evolution and geology and read more widely in the so-called ‘soft sciences’ and question the belief in the power of the human mind to unravel these mysteries. This I would recommend. I also feel it is a good process for dismantling my own unhelpful assumptions. Also for an understanding of the relationship between faith and reason. This is still an ongoing enquiry.
I retain the outlook that some things are perhaps beyond finding out. Believing that people who claim to be wise may actually be fools. In this present life at least.
Thanks for asking.
How about yourself?
Being scientific isn’t foolish… Doubting science isn’t wise…
1 Like
Scientific questions.
1 Like