Well, here I go- flip-flopping again. You know how we liberals are....
When I said that the boycott by science groups of the debates in Kansas sounded like an Internet hoax, I was right that it sounded that way. But, sadly, those groups really did opt out of the public discussion. I can see how they might see the debates as bizarre, especially considering that Kansas was essentially holding a mock trial to determine the possibility of metaphysics.
But, Lee is absolutely right that we can deduce from their "boycott" that they see one interpretation of the data as being above any sort of discussion, and therefore that they are rigidly doctrinaire in their thinking. What do we call them? Science fundamentalists?
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Carlton-
I am starting to believe that you and I think on the same wavelength. As soon as I formulate some point of discussion or question, you beat me to it. I think that is awesome and it cracks me up man. Thanks again for your integrity and consistency in this last post...I am glad you found the Post article.
Okay, first a couple points of contention before my questions to further the conversation:
-According to my research, the point that advocates of intelligent design are trying to make with school boards such as the Kansas school board is not that they want ID taught in its fullness in the classroom. “Why is that,” you might ask…well, basically ID is still a young movement in the scientific world and, as a result, supporters (for the most part) recognize that it has not yet matured as a science and there needs to be more investigation before it is taught full-blown in a classroom. So the debate (as far as curriculum is concerned) is mostly about presenting evolution as a theory, identifying where it may not answer all the scientific questions, and teaching the science of evolution…not the doctrine of Evolution (aka Scientific Fundamentalism, right?).
-You mentioned, ”the nature of faith is that it requires us to believe in something without evidence.” I would have to disagree heartily. That would be the definition of stupidity, not faith. Faith is believing something without conclusive evidence. I have a measure of faith every time I get in the car and assume I will make it to where I am driving. I have faith that you will probably answer this comment. I have faith that God exists and that Jesus Christ was resurrected from the dead. None of these three things require me to have “faith” as you define it…why? Because I drive places all the time and survive; I could look at stats on how successful drivers are in arriving at their destinations unharmed; I know that you are the kind of guy that enjoys thinking and carrying on good, challenging conversation; I can see evidence for God in the world (as you have said); there is no evidence strong enough to disprove the existence of God; belief in God is philosophically and logically reasonable; and because the disciples knew Jesus, knew He died, saw Him resurrected, and died to preach that gospel (among others). Faith is reasonable, and ID is a real science that helps to demonstrate that it is not unreasonable to have faith…that faith is not a synonym for stupidity.
Okay, man I talk too much, sorry. Let me ask a couple of questions, please:
-I am curious to know more about what you believe about God when you say, “I actually believe in the existence of God.”
-How would you describe the scientific process? At what point would a scientist being a theist invalidate the legitimacy of that process?
Okay, I have more but I will can it for now because I have faith that you won’t fall off the end of the earth…hehe
And, I responded to your comment on my blog.
Lee
www.focalelement.blogspot.com
Post a Comment