It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: UniFinity
And a good scientist would do as you say, but there is more. A good scientist would take any opinion into account weather it is outside his beliefs or comfort zone and work with all the tools at his disposal. They are not biased.
The discussion is science that can be backed up by evidence and pseudo science which has no evidence.
The Paley argument only addressed the idea of an intelligent designer. Paley never compared intelligent design to evolution because the concept of evolution and natural selection only came about with Darwin.
Well, it's not personal opinion, it is based on physical evidence.
I understand that many BELIEVE that acknowledging evolution as science is a personal choice, but it isn't.
If somebody does not, then I feel the person should be consistent with this view toward all science instead of cherry picking certain fields to be at odds with due to scripture conflicts.
I think this is kind of why you posted the questions, because science is based on evidence and creation is based on opinion, so you can't really have a debate on the subject, you can only correct the misunderstandings of science.
As I mentioned early on...
Our friend Noinden, for example, would say that mystical intuition is the royal road to the truth. He or she is hardly the most effective propagandist for that viewpoint, but Rumi and St. John of the Cross do a pretty good job.
I have no problem with that whatsoever. It's the fallacious cherry picking that grinds my gears, so to speak.
Obviously there is no scientific foundation for Creationist belief.
A much more dangerous kind of Creationist is the kind that tries to make the gaps themselves bigger.
there is no scientific foundation for Creationist belief.
Creationists created science.
"Science" does that for me i.e. Dark Matter, Dark Energy, the Multiverse.
I think you're absolutely wrong with regard to empirical evidence. In the behavioral sciences perhaps a priori evidence, or evidence that's based on pure logic and reasoning, works. In the hard sciences, it simply doesn't work.
Remember it was the philosophers who thought the Earth was flat. Aristotle was the first who said the Earth was probably spherical
And it was Pythagoras who demonstrated that Earth must be a sphere.
Rationality is a perspective, not a gene.
there will be no clear victor until long after time has crushed all memory of us
originally posted by: Astyanax
Obviously there is no scientific foundation for Creationist belief...
"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone." ~ paleontologist T.L. Moor
There are several fundamental characteristics that identify a field of study as being "scientific".
• Genuine science is objective and invites scrutiny and investigation. It does not ridicule the critics of its conclusions, but instead silences their criticisms by setting forth the evidence from which those conclusions are drawn.
• Genuine science seeks the truth that explains the observed evidence. It does not prejudice the investigation by ruling out, from the start, hypotheses that may very well provide the best explanation for the observed evidence.
• Genuine science rejects any hypothesis that consistently fails to fit observed scientific evidence. It does not persistently assume that the fault lies in the evidence rather than in the hypothesis itself.
On all three counts, the commonly-accepted "Theory of Evolution" fails the test of being scientific. With the passing years, proponents of this failed theory are behaving more and more like religious dogmatists in their unwillingness to submit the foundations of their theory to open inquiry and discussion. Instead, they heap scorn and ridicule on their critics, insisting that anyone who has the audacity to question the truth of their sacred theory must be either stupid, insane or evil.
At the heart of the problem is the fact that Evolution, disguised as a viable scientific theory, is actually a tool of religious propaganda and cultural domination, used by those who hold to the religion of Naturalism.
When the Evolutionist says that life originated without the intervention of a supernatural Being, he is making a religious assertion, not a scientific one. The fact that he may be a scientist by profession, or that he conducts his science in light of this presuppostion does not change the fact that it is a religious claim. It is no more "scientific" than the Creationist's assertion of an intervening Creator.
“… the general scientific world has been bamboozled into believing that evolution has been proved. Nothing could be further from the truth …” ~ Dr. Samuel L. Blumenfeld
Modern media often refers to the creation/evolution debate as a conflict between “science and religion.” In fact, there is no science to support evolution. The word science refers to knowledge gained through observation. A scientist (through experimentation) observes events as they happen, and then chronicles the details of those events.
The evolutionist has faith that these things happened, but he has not seen them and neither does he have any way of proving them. Therefore, the Evolution vs. Creation debate is not a matter of science vs. religion – but rather, religion vs. religion.
Science has so thoroughly discredited Darwinian evolution that it should be discarded. ~ Australian biologist Michael Denton
"`Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.' A tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling. ~ T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission
Evolution is positively anti-science. Science deals with things that are testable, observable, and demonstrable and evolution has none of those qualities. To call evolution "science" is to confuse fairy tales with facts. True, evolution has been mixed with science for the last thirty years, but that does not mean that it is the same as science.
Beer is often advertised during sporting events but the two subjects have no logical connection, and evolution has no more to do with science than beer has to do with sports.
Cult of Evolutionism