"A letter writer argued that scientists view the theories of creationists with disdain. While I don't know about this, it is true that creationism is not science for several very good reasons.
First, creationism cannot predict -- or rather it predicts anything and everything that is observed in nature."
False, science came out of a Christian culture because Nature was assumed to be invented and built by what the American Founders called the Architect. (George Washington) Therefore, it was assumed that humans ought to be able to "crack the Cosmic code." (Paul Davies ) In science and technology things are created, designed and invented and written down as blue-prints, this is all based on intelligent design. Many historians have noted that in other cultures science was still-born and did not progress. Perhaps if you adhere to philosophic naturalism you are too busy writing the mythological narratives of naturalism or worshipping Nature, instead of doing science on it.
"Evolution, on the other hand, has made many predictions concerning such things as species characteristics, predator-prey dynamics, and originary locations which later proved true, an essential quality of any scientific theory."
Creationism predicts the whole typological view of Nature by which things can be classified. The very reason that a bone fragment can be reconstructed is because it "fits" a certain type in the typology.
"Evolution" does not predict predator-prey dynamics, that is false. That dynamic is an argument against Darwin's constant struggle and survival of the fittest. What happens is, predators eat and reproduce to such an extent that a natural harmony comes to be. Only humans just keep on eating more and more, etc. Why this sort of natural harmony exists and the irony of predators not just running "wild" is a weakness of Darwinism, not a strength.
"Science starts with a hypothesis and works to prove it true, rejecting it if evidence cannot be found. Creationism starts with "truth" and works backward to defend it, but does not reject the initial assumption, regardless of the lack of evidence. For this reason, creationism is theology, not science."
There is nothing specifically wrong with beginning with the truth of the Bible. Given that the Bible is often validated, a meaning derived from it may well be true. So there are those who just stick with it and place it first. That does not mean they are wrong. That does not even mean that they are not doing science. It might mean that that belief, specifically, is not science, just as he says. It is not as if science is necessarily true or necessarily leads to truth. Those who place the Bible before science would say that it take precedence. That is not an unreasonable position, given that science is providing evidence that it actually can't provide some answers. That is its answer, in some sense, that sometimes it can't provide the answer. So it may be that if you really believe in science, you don't believe that science has all the answers.
But putting the Bible first is a difference between creationists and intelligent design. It seems that this letter writer might disagree with everything supernatural or transphysical, though.
"The car analogy misses the point. There are far more dissimilarities than similarities between cars and life. Plus, complexity alone does not prove an intelligent design. If it did, we would have to conclude that spiders are intelligent because of the complexity of the webs they spin."There is some irony in an apparent Darwinist quibbling over the distinction between the animate and inanimate. They were those who tried to break that distinction down by arguing that Life can come from non-life, as in abiogenesis in some primordial pool. That simply is not true. All the evidence demonstrates it. That is a big reason why a life-long atheist philosopher is having doubts.
He does not seem to understand ID theory. I'll write some more into this reply on that later.
But moving on,
"Finally, proponents of intelligent design fail to acknowledge that even if their arguments are correct, they don't point to an omnipotent Christian God, as they intend."
That's true. Despite all the attempts to call ID traditional creationism, there is a disctinction between ID and creationism. I would not be so quick to write biblically centered creationism off, although I used to a bit. As to the plain scientific facts like Life, i.e. the cell, it is the same design for every living thing. DNA, mRNA, etc. DNA is the blueprint and then messenger RNA carries the message, it is transcribed and so on. The cell is very, very complex and apparently specified to be so. It is no simple cob-web.
"If creationism is ever accepted as science, it will be because of the influence of politicians, not scientists."
Moderns have an inflated view of scientists thanks to technology, they seem to assume that scientists are responsible for technology and so, their high standard of life. So then science is good and must be verified as true through and through because all the good things of technology verify science and prove science. Wrong, neither science nor technology rely on mere data recording based on philosophic naturalism.
Technology relies on the economy, ingenuity, being creative(an element of creationism), design and invention(elements of ID), etc., not "random" things happening as per random mutation or Naure "selecting" things naturally as per natural selection, the very core of Darwinism. The mythological narrativs of Darwinism have little to nothing to do with technology.
"If that comes to pass (if I may speak ironically), God help the progress of real science."
Most likely, he is ignorant of history, philosophy and the history of ideas. He'd have to read a whole bibliography of books to correct his modernist view of "science" and "progress." But at least he wrote a serious minded letter. From what I've read, that's more than can be said for most Delawareans.
8 comments:
At least it was well written.
I was going to comment on something else but the comments section comes up blank. This,
""Butt boring" is a really strange phrase. What pattern of thought does it demonstrate? That's a sign I have no wish to divine!"
I know, I didn't even know it existed. It sounds embarrassing.
The things you learn from your little sister."adj. Really, really, very terribly boring."
"I know, I didn't even know it existed."
...glad to be so informative. Believe me, it is very embarrassing to be butt boring...because, well...i won't go into details.
~Bertie
"...creationism is not science for several very good reasons."Perhaps this author has forgotten Bacon,Galileo, Newton, Lord Kelvin, etc.; all of whom held that the heavens were divinely made. Heck, Darwin himself was not trained as a scientist. What was it again? Oh yeah, theology. Anyways, ignorant as I am of history, I have read enough to realize that many of the 'first causes,' in the advancement of science, have themselves believed in what this man now mocks. Specifically Bacon. And he is thought to be the "father of Modern Science," or "...the Scientific Method," if I am not much mistaken. But of course Bacon must have been a boob to think so foolishly.
Though I read with great frequency, I seldom make any observations. Often none are required. But, and in order to show that I do read, I have commented. There is, however, something about you that I cannot figure out. It is: How in the heck do you find the time to research so many, many things? Are you a billionaire? Are you a robot? Have you at your disposal the resources of The Library of Congress? Certainly your memory must be photographic.
(My personal theory is that you are Elvis, returned from alien captivity, and now aware that there is more to life than rock-n-roll, babes, and bologna. As such, you have taken over the body of an otherwise normal windsurfer, and are using it to accomplish your now philosophic endeavors. Granted his imprisoned mind sometimes revolts. This explains the caustic nature of the productions. But Mr. "King," if I may, as you have once again entered, and not left the building, I submit that you are much more than a Hound dog. And, as your readers love you tender, please do not be cruel to their hearts, which are true.)
Okay, that was just silliness. As pertains to the other questions though, answer any or none as you please.
Carl
"Perhaps this author has forgotten Bacon,Galileo, Newton, Lord Kelvin, etc.;"
Perhaps the author is but ignorant, butt ignorant.
Note, the observations of science validate the old typological view, are predicted by it, it has the explanatory power that Darwinism lacks. It is the precise inversion of what that author said.
Example, from the biochemical level:
"Thousands of different sequences, protein and nucleic acid, have now been compared in hundreds of different species but never has any sequence been found to be in any sense the lineal descendant or ancestor of any other sequence. Anyone who doubts this need only consult the sequence difference matrices given in Dayhoff’s standard reference book Atlas of Protein Structure and Function, available in any major library.
It is now well established that the pattern of diversity at a molecular level conforms to a highly ordered hierarchic system. Each class at a molecular level is unique, isolated and unlinked by intermediates. Thus molecules, like fossils have failed to provide the elusive inter mediates so long sought by evolutionary biology. Again, the only relationships identified by this new technique are sisterly. At a molecular level, no organism is “ancestral” or “primitive” or “advanced” compared with its relatives. Nature seems to conform to the same non-evolutionary and intensely circumferential pattern that was long ago perceived by the great comparative anatomists of the nineteenth century. [I.e., natural theology is validated by scientific observation.]
One of the most remarkable features of these new biochemical discoveries is undoubtedly the way in which the pattern of molecular diversity seems to correspond to the predictions of typology. With very few exceptions the members of each defined taxa are always equally divergent whenever an outgroup comparison is made. Perhaps the only finding which does not seem to flow naturally from the typological model is that the degree of morphological divergence often does not seem to agree with the degree of molecular divergence. For example, the degree of molecular divergence among frogs, which are all morphologically very similar, is as great as that between mammals, which are morphologically very diverse. Similarly, the proteins of conifers are as equally divergent as those of the flowering plants, a group which appears to be far more divergent than the conifers at a morphological level. But despite those anomalies, all in all, the basic axioms of typology, that all the members of each type conform to type, that intratype variation is limited and type specific, so that when outgroup comparisons are made the subgroups of the type stand equidistant from more distantly related groups, hold universally throughout the entire realm of nature."
(Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
By Michael Denton :290)
"How in the heck do you find the time to research so many, many things? Are you a billionaire? Are you a robot? Have you at your disposal the resources of The Library of Congress? Certainly your memory must be photographic."
I don't watch much TV. Maybe that's it. Simple, eh?
Well, I guess you could also say that I know what I'm doing as far as research and computers. This blog isn't all I keep up with. It doesn't take as long as you might think.
Funny, I don't get a grant from the State like evolutionists do to sit around creating mythological narratives all day long. Yet for all that, their ideas are crushed, easily enough. Leftists do seem to wonder how also, and I like to keep them guessing.
So maybe I should show you a few tricks of the trade through email, since you are an intellectual ally and they are the intellectual enemy. But the last post on your blog was impeccable, you already know what you're doing.
Sheesh, once I get rid of this DSL things will go smoother.
I might even be offline a few days, though. That stinks. Or would noting stink in a negative way be prejudiced and intolerant of flatulent people? Oh well, it does stink.
"So maybe I should show you a few tricks of the trade through email, since you are an intellectual ally and they are the intellectual enemy."
I would be happy to learn more tricks. vonnoh *at* c-a-n *dot* net
"But the last post on your blog was impeccable, you already know what you're doing."If I had a quote section, where I quoted 'what folks are saying about me,' I'd put that one in. Very kind of you.
Surprisingly, to me that is, you made no mention of my theory that you might be the "king." Are you indeed Elvis reincarnated??!! LOL
"Or would noting stink in a negative way be prejudiced and intolerant of flatulent people?"Those type of people are merely full of hot air.
Carl
"Are you indeed Elvis reincarnated??!!"
All I know about Elvis is that he became a decent musician, got famous, got fat and did drugs, then died.
I suppose one could say that toward the end he was more and more incarnated. That's a lot of incarnation. Maybe for some people, being incarnated once is enough.
Post a Comment