Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Probability

Expand Messages
  • Ed Garrett
    Drew, neither is evolutionism science. It is authoritarian dogma. Yet the AAAS says: Science Is Not Authoritarian It is appropriate in science, as elsewhere,
    Message 1 of 330 , Feb 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Drew, neither is evolutionism science. It is authoritarian dogma.

      Yet the AAAS says:
      "Science Is Not Authoritarian

      It is appropriate in science, as elsewhere, to turn to knowledgeable
      sources of information and opinion, usually people who specialize in
      relevant disciplines. But esteemed authorities have been wrong many
      times in the history of science. In the long run, no scientist,
      however famous or highly placed, is empowered to decide for other
      scientists what is true, for none are believed by other scientists
      to have special access to the truth."

      "Descent from a primitive ancestor" is asserted by science as
      authoritarian dogma. It is absolute fact, no criticism is
      possible. This in spite of its violation of common sense and the
      laws of the universe, not the least of which is the laws of
      probability.

      This in spite of the fact that it cannot be observed, only
      extrapolated from change in creatures. Even that change is not
      fully understood, but it is still unscientifically extrapolated
      into "descent from a primitive ancestor" and used to interpret all
      facts that come to light.

      This is not science, but religion.--Ed

      >It's nice to see that Flubber admits that creationism fails to cut
      it as science in both the mainstream scientific community and within
      the courtroom. Now that we've established that creationism isn't
      science, perhaps creationists will stop trying to have it taught in
      science classes under the label "intelligent design".

      Drew Smith
    • Dave Oldridge
      ... They were, however unscientific, not stupid. And when they wrote about talking snakes and trees with highly philosophical names, they knew they were
      Message 330 of 330 , Feb 25, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        On 24 Feb 2006 at 10:13, Leon Albert, Prof. of Anthrop wrote:

        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: Dave Oldridge
        > To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 2:41 PM
        > Subject: Re: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: Probability
        >
        >
        > On 13 Feb 2006 at 9:02, Leon Albert, Prof. of Anthrop wrote:
        >
        > > They have obviously learned this "art" WELL from their
        > > immersion in the Bible, a virtual textbook for learning HOW
        > to
        > > think both ILLOGICALLY and ANTI-SCIENTIFICALLY. It is thus
        > no
        > > wonder that Dave, with his own relatively high degree of
        > > scientific literacy, has also learned that one MUST read
        > the
        > > Bible HONESTLY, i.e., with a HUGE "grain of salt."
        >
        > Not so much a huge grain of salt, but just with an objective
        > idea
        > about what it is, exactly, that one is reading.
        > Leon: This is a distinction without a difference, Dave, since
        > "a huge grain of salt" is obviously a metaphor for having "an
        > objective idea about what it is, exactly, that one is reading"
        > when reading the Bible HONESTLY.
        >
        >
        > >When reading Charles Darwin's description of a barnacle
        > species,
        > I know that I'm reading a careful exposition of the actual
        > anatomy of a specimen. But when reading Genesis 2, with its
        > trees with philosophical names and a talking snake, I know
        > that
        > I'm reading some kind of allegory about the human condition,
        > not
        > a history about actual trees and a snake.
        >
        > Leon: While I agree that this is certainly a rational approach
        > to trying to have the Genesis religious mythology retain some
        > sensible SYMBOLIC meaning in a scientific world that obviously
        > contradicts its LITERAL interpretation, I would remind you that
        > the world that gave birth to this mythology was NOT OUR
        > scientific world, but instead was a world VERY FAR from it!
        > Thus, it is highly possible that the formulators of the Biblical
        > mythology DID originally understand it much more literally, even
        > though we may not INTERPRET it so today. It is well recognized

        They were, however unscientific, not stupid. And when they wrote
        about talking snakes and trees with highly philosophical names,
        they knew they were writing (and reading) allegory. It is latter-
        day reifiers of scripture who have tried to force this part of
        Genesis into a literal sense. Neither ancient Jews nor the
        ancient Church ever understood it this way.

        > in the analysis of literature that its interpretation by the
        > readers is not restricted to the meanings that the authors had
        > in mind. The same obviously holds true in spades with respect
        > to the Bible, where modern readers are separated from the
        > original "authors" by a chasm of psycho-cultural differences
        > that make the Grand Canyon look like a minor scratch on window
        > glass.

        True, but that does not mean we should make up theories about
        them that simply make them look stupid. Uninformed they may have
        been, but stupid, NOT!


        --

        Dave Oldridge
        ICQ 1800667
        VA7CZ
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.