padib said:
Yet it is taugh in textbooks at school and considered the only possible truth. |
Abiogenesis is taught at school as the only possible truth? If so you have a crappy school as I have said that we do not know mechanisms of the origin of life very well.
If you meant evolution then you are once again engaged in a straw man by claiming that not knowing how life came to be (abiogenesis) means we don't know how it evolved from there (evolution). It also is not taught as the only possible truth but as the most likely explanation given the evidence we have.
Of course you would prefer to replace it with having creationism in textbooks and teaching it in school as the only possible truth and wouldcall it an improvement even though you do not have the evidence supporting it.
| padib said: Alternate views are vehemently repressed and considered indoctrination, even harmful. Which is truly indoctrinating? Who is sitting on Gallileo's seat in the 21st century? Who is wearing the papal robe, crown and scepter? |
Nope, actually most of those theories that are today accepted in science first started as alternate theories. The reason they got accepted (even those proposed by religious people like the big bang) was because they were supported by evidence.
If you are teaching explanations supported by evidence you are not teaching a belief but how the world appear to us, thus not indoctrinating.
| padib said: Who is wearing the papal robe, crown and scepter? |
Benedict the XVI's, whose church incidentally has no problem with evolution or the big bang.
| padib said:
Yes, it is he, Mr. Science Naturalist. |
You seem to work under the delusion that the underdog challengin the prevailing theory is always right.
It was not because Galileo and other scientists were underdogs that they were right, it was because supported by evidence.
Had Galileo been pope and scientist at the same time and done the same work he would have been just as right as he was as an underdog.
|
padib said: The problem with Mr. Science Naturalist is that he bears the wrong last name. See, science is naturalistic in function, but not limited to a Naturalistic (human) viewpoint. |
I agree, science is naturalistic because, not being able to experiment upon spiritual matters, nature is the only thing it can experiment on. Conversely, this means that any non natural means injected in science makes it non scientific.
As for its viewpoint, I would say that science doesn't have one, not being an thinking being, but scientists do. And their view point can range from purely naturalistic to religious like your link to christian thinkers in science amply demonstrate.
|
padib said: It is naturalistic in that it attempts to demonstrate things with a naturalistic framework: all things revolving around the world around us and its governing laws. |
Correct. Which again means that non-natural means like an out-of-the-universe designer is not science.
|
padib said: It is absolutely compatible with a believe in the metaphysical. |
What is?
Science? Nope, as you proved yourself with your link.
The naturalistic viewpoint? Nope, as nothing prevents you from using that viewpoint when doing science and taking a different viewpoint in different aspects of your life, like the persons in the list you linked to do.
|
padib said: As a matter of fact, many God-fearing people discovered said naturalistic laws. Must I name them? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science |
true, I never claimed that only atheist can practice science. The common point between them being that when engaged in science they do not try to make their religious beliefs butt in.
|
padib said: To deny this proves the elementary nature of the Anti-Creationist propaganda, viewpoint and community. Why subject yourself to such baseness? You can be an evolutionist, but why subscribe to such an ignorant sub-position of its mainstream viewpoint? |
I never denies the ability of religious people to practice science. A lot of religious people, which are creationist by definition, think that the teory of the big bang and the theory of evolution are the best explanations we have for how we got here; they just believe that said process were started by god.
So, given how many creationists accept evolution and the big bang, how can it be anti-creationist? Just because the world does not support you particular creationist view point does not mean thast science is out to get you.
|
padib said: You can be an evolutionist, but why subscribe to such an ignorant sub-position of its mainstream viewpoint? |
And what ignorant position is that? The position that those advancing a competing theory should have evidence supporting it better than the incumbant theory? How is a request for evidence ignorant? Oh yeah, when the evidence goes against your religious belief.
|
padib said: As a person of faith, here's how it works: you have things you read in your book, and then you use science to see if it all makes sense. |
Which is not a scientific approach:
|
padib said: And presto! You've become a legitimate, religious scientist. |
Nope, you are still a religious person but you still aren't a scientist as you do not follow the scientific method. One isn't a scientist merely by claiming to be. One is a scientist by practicing science.
|
padib said: Now what's the problem this time? What christian thinker is less a scientist than those we have today, because of his faith? |
No, because he lets his faith interfere with his practice of science. If he is able to separate the two; practicing science when studying scientific topics and practicing his faith when not then he can be a scientist. If he cannot separate the two then he is no scientist but merely a believer parading as one.
|
padib said: I will admit that being an atheist normally helps to push the envelope, but an honest believer should do the same, if not more. |
I agree that a believer can do the same. For example Newton's belief in alchemy inspired him in his formulation of the theory of universal gravitation. Where it helps being atheist is when the evidence points against a particular religious belief as if you hold said belief you are more likely to want to fudge the results to be in accord with your beliefs.
|
padib said: If God really is who he claimed to be, He should definitely be up to proving himself and his handywork by contradiction. |
You assume that he wants to prove himself. If the world was created by god he created it in a way that does not show his existence, which would then be a strong indication that he does not want to prove himself. Maybe he would prefer you not to prove him through science but for you to have faith in him.
|
padib said: Then again, some atheists are backward thinkers. They want to close the envelope because they are afraid the foundations of their belief will be shaken. |
it is not because their beliefs will be shaken, it is because the evidence does not point towards it. When the evidence pointed towards a universe with a beginning many scientists accepted it despite it supporting the possibility of the universe being created.
You also fail to explain all those scientist who believe in god and accept evolution and the big bang. Are those rejecting your version of creationism because they are afraid it will force them to believe in a god they already believe in or are they rejecting it because the evidence disproves it.
|
padib said: I can understand it, but is it appreciated in the debate? Is it fair to call yourself transparent and open-minded when that is your position? |
My position is that you should support your position with evidence just like we do.
Is it not fair and open-minded of scientists to hold you to the same standard of evidence to which they hold themselves up?
How is it fair and open minded of you to insist that those standards which scientists hold themselves up to and that are the bedrock of science, should be waivered for you just so you can pretend that your religious beliefs are scientific?
Are you claiming that the NFL is not fair and open minded because they won't let me play Gridiron Football with Basketball rules?
Is it unfair if a team lose a NFL match because their players were trying to dribble and consequently fell on their face?
Because that is what young earth creationists do. They claim to be playing/practicing science, ignore its rules and then complain that scientist do not take them seriously.
Man up and either start doing science or stop pretending you are and accept that your religious belief is just that, a belief. But stop whining like a little boy that they won't let you play with the ball when you don't want to follow the rules of the game.
"I do not suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it"
