Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
The Bias Of Evolution
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Freedom777" data-source="post: 761747" data-attributes="member: 4663"><p>The prominent evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin has spoken bluntly about this anti-God, materialistic bias:</p><p> "WE take the side of science IN SPITE of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, IN SPITE of its failure to fullfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, IN SPITE of the tolorance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, becuase we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. IT IS NOT THAT THE METHODS AND INSTITUTIONS OF SCIENCE SOME HOW COMPEL US TO A MATERIAL EXPLANATION OF THE PHENOMENAL WORLD, but, ON THE CONTRARY, that we are forced by our A PRIORI adherance to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." New York review jan 9 1997 "billions and billions of demons"</p><p> </p><p></p><p> Most people think that "science" follows the evidence whereever it leads. But it is IMPOSSIBLE to aviod letting our world view color our interpretations of the facts.</p><p></p><p></p><p> Philosopher of science David Hull said, this "...science is not as empirical as many scientists seem to think it is. Unobserved and even unobservable entities play an important part in it.Science is not just the making of observations: it is the making of inferences on the basis of observations WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF A THEORY. "The effect on taxonomy-two thousand years of stasis" british journal for the philosophy of science.16(61):1-18, 1965</p><p> </p><p> Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University, was candid about how certain conclusions would be avoided at all costs, regardless of the evidence: "Even if all the data point to an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER, such an hypothisis is excluded from science becuase it is not naturalistic." correspondence to Nature 410(6752):423 sept 30 1999.</p><p></p><p> There is but a few proofs of the Religion of Evolution.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Freedom777, post: 761747, member: 4663"] The prominent evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin has spoken bluntly about this anti-God, materialistic bias: "WE take the side of science IN SPITE of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, IN SPITE of its failure to fullfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, IN SPITE of the tolorance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, becuase we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. IT IS NOT THAT THE METHODS AND INSTITUTIONS OF SCIENCE SOME HOW COMPEL US TO A MATERIAL EXPLANATION OF THE PHENOMENAL WORLD, but, ON THE CONTRARY, that we are forced by our A PRIORI adherance to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." New York review jan 9 1997 "billions and billions of demons" Most people think that "science" follows the evidence whereever it leads. But it is IMPOSSIBLE to aviod letting our world view color our interpretations of the facts. Philosopher of science David Hull said, this "...science is not as empirical as many scientists seem to think it is. Unobserved and even unobservable entities play an important part in it.Science is not just the making of observations: it is the making of inferences on the basis of observations WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF A THEORY. "The effect on taxonomy-two thousand years of stasis" british journal for the philosophy of science.16(61):1-18, 1965 Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University, was candid about how certain conclusions would be avoided at all costs, regardless of the evidence: "Even if all the data point to an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER, such an hypothisis is excluded from science becuase it is not naturalistic." correspondence to Nature 410(6752):423 sept 30 1999. There is but a few proofs of the Religion of Evolution. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
The Bias Of Evolution
Top
Bottom