Category Archives: Definitions, axioms, logic

Basic, central thoughts regarding science and evolution vs creation

There’s no standoff if you think clearly

A response to “The Creation-Evolution Standoff” by Paul Arnold in “Converge.” ( http://convergemagazine.com/creation-evolution-standoff-14552/ )

 

For someone hoping to emulate Dr. Denis Lamoureux’s statement about being “as clean and as competent with the data in front of me” in order to “actually learn something from those we disagree with,” it’s sad to see Paul Arnold so badly misrepresenting this situation.

“To atheists, religion is oppressive and ill informed. To religious fundamentalists, science is morally bankrupt. ”
How can someone write something like that, and then bemoan the excessively binary way people look at it? What’s really bad, though, is the misrepresentation of religious fundamentalists as anti-science. The issue is about creation vs evolution, and while the atheists’ view of religion is essentially immaterial to that, the portrayal of religious fundamentalists as anti-science rather than anti-naturalistic philosophy is a symptom of the central problem. As it comes down to, later in the article, the question is, do we put our faith in God and his ability to communicate with us, or in men and their ability to divine the past from circumstantial evidence, and re-interpret what the Bible plainly says? Continue reading There’s no standoff if you think clearly

This might be fun to try with words on magnets…

Approximately 100 things arranged by complexity
My first attempt at the complexity challenge. Click to view. Toward the left side is fewer parts (including no essential parts/immaterial) to the right is more parts and more dynamism, including sheer number of(non-essential) parts (size), chaotic motion and incidental motion. Going down is less need for specific shapes, less intricacy of parts, fewer connections between different parts, less variety in parts, and in general less essential systematic organization. I added some words, such as “computer” and “advanced robots.” The two “bed”s and connecting line illustrate what could be done with a number of words that actually cover broad concepts (in this case, from a selected spot of ground to a four-poster bed with box-springs and down mattress). The groupings are also illustrative of others that could be made.

And Another Thing … this site is not

So, having disposed of the knee-jerk reaction to “Fundamentalist” and the expectation that I’m going to say that real science is creationist science, I may as well confirm that this isn’t about treating science as a religion itself.  After all, there are people who do take science, or scientism and evolutionism, as a sort of substitute for religion. They look to “Science” for answers to the great philosophical and ethical questions. Who am I? Where did I come from? Why am I here? How should I behave?

Michael Ruse, Professor of Philosophy at Florida State University, is famous for having admitted this occurs. I will take as my reference, however, the article in the Huffington Post in which he defends himself from the over-enthusiastic response of creationist reporting: “Is Darwinism a Religion?” (Posted: 07/21/2011 8:26 am EDT Updated: 09/20/2011 5:12 am EDT, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ruse/is-darwinism-a-religion_b_904828.html) I encourage you to check it out for yourself if you’d care to judge for yourself exactly what he was trying to communicate. Continue reading And Another Thing … this site is not

Seriously, this is NOT a creation science website.

It is the website of a creationist, but that’s not the same thing. My goal here is not so much to promote creationism as it is to point out that evolutionism should not be part of science, although (unofficially) it is. Don’t be surprised if I get around to pointing out that creation science theories are also outside of the natural realm  of science as well. I will be lampooning (or mildly questioning, depending on the case) evolutionism mostly, mostly because it’s the biggest (in many ways) transgressor of the proper limits of science.

It’s true that I see this as just a first step, the recognition of the difference between the kind of science that can be demonstrated and truly can’t be denied without direct consequences in cases where it is applicable, and the newer sciences that include claims (hypotheses, theories, and sometimes pontification) which can’t be demonstrated to be true and can be denied without any problem — unless it gets you censored, blacklisted, or fired. And believing in creation rather than evolution is just a step toward eventually acknowledging Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah/Christ, God manifest in the flesh, repenting of your sin and receiving eternal salvation by calling on the Lord in faith, being redeemed by His sacrifice and justified by His resurrection.  Continue reading Seriously, this is NOT a creation science website.

I’m not claiming this is my idea…

Sir Francis Bacon and The Foundations of Science (this is a long one)

Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626) was not a scientist or “natural philosopher” as they were known in his time. He worked in the British government. He left office in disgrace, having been convicted of bribery. His writings, however, described the method of studying the workings of nature as natural philosophers had begun to do, putting in print the heart of what was to become known as science. It was an exciting, turbulent time. Even back in the so-called “Dark Ages” a number of technological and social changes had begun. The Renaissance; Reformation; Counter-Reformation; wars of religion and succession (with increasingly advanced and deadly weapons); voyages of exploration (and acquisition) by Columbus, Vasco da Gama, Henry Hudson and others; the printing press; the works of Da Vinci, Galileo, and Kepler — all had begun to transform the world from the way things had been (more or less) for thousands of years into the modern world we’re living in.
Continue reading I’m not claiming this is my idea…

Calm down; it’s probably not what you think

Fundamentalism is sticking with the foundations, the heart or core of something. It can accept additional things that are built up from that solid beginning, but rejects additions that get away from it.

For science, we must keep in mind that it is a tool that we humans devised for learning about and understanding the natural world and how it works. It is a method for investigating the world around us and discovering how much we can know for sure.
Continue reading Calm down; it’s probably not what you think