Atheos canadensis
Well-Known Member
I cannot fully express how much I love it when this happens, when some pedant tries to correct somebody's grammar and fails.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
"They" has been used as gender-neutral singular pronoun since Middle English. Its use was deprecated by 19th century grammarians, but it is returning to formal usage. It's accepted by many British style guides but generally rejected by American ones.
No, it is a mere quote mine at best. Without a link to the original statement it is worthless.It's basically an admission that, regardless of the strength and weaknesses of Evolution theory, it will still be enshrined as unquestionable dogma on philosophical grounds.
This automatically makes the theory suspect because there is so much clearly ideological investment in it.
You can expect about as honest a presentation for evolution theory by its proponents as you would a presentation of an automobile by a used-car salesman.
What about this text, which I have seen quoted many times, "
...Richard Lewontin's review of Carl Sagan’s posthumously published book, Billions and Billions, when he admitted that evolutionists “have a prior commitment, a commitment to naturalism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence 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 absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door” [my emphasis]
In the very next sentence, Lewontin explains why he holds that position. However, I feel the need to point out that he does not speak for me or for most scientists; I think if you ask around you'll find that most scientists disagree with him on this matter. While many are certainly materialists, their materialism came as a result of their adherence to science, not the other way around.
I cannot fully express how much I love it when this happens, when some pedant tries to correct somebody's grammar and fails.
But that's what I was talking about, an atheistic scientific approach where a belief about the universe has already been established as opposed to following the truth in all realms no matter where it leads.
It's called a View Master effect. It's prevalent in most of science. Some people just want to put them down already, some people insist we keep looking through them. This applies to any dogmatic view when other ideas are presented and actually fit the facts. Be it cosmology or evolution. Which is basically one and the same and both contain about 95% ad-hoc assumptions because they ignore what we see.
Yup.In the very next sentence, Lewontin explains why he holds that position. However, I feel the need to point out that he does not speak for me or for most scientists; I think if you ask around you'll find that most scientists disagree with him on this matter.
Maybe I should have said "scientist" for the anal retentive. Some scientist can be too dogmatic.
The spiritual realities are the ones that religionist experience in their inner life.
I'm sure this problem could be obviated by simply having me inject myself.
In addition the correct pronoun for "a healthy person" is not "them" but rather "he or she."
What about this text, which I have seen quoted many times, "
...Richard Lewontin's review of Carl Sagan’s posthumously published book, Billions and Billions, when he admitted that evolutionists “have a prior commitment, a commitment to naturalism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence 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 absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door” [my emphasis]
But that's what I was talking about, an atheistic scientific approach where a belief about the universe has already been established as opposed to following the truth in all realms no matter where it leads.
I think if you ask around you'll find that most scientists disagree with him on this matter. While many are certainly materialists, their materialism came as a result of their adherence to science, not the other way around.
Of course they will disagree. They are selling the myth that scientists are overwhelmingly bastions of disinterested objectivity... the myth that there are no ideological influences playing a significant role in academic institutions... the myth of the virtuous peer-review process that filters out all biases, etc. It's a big illusion they have to keep selling the public to keep themselves in business, and is almost laughable in its naivete.
Every now and then you get an honest scientist like Lewontin who has the guts to admit his biases upfront. Very rare.
I'm sure there are. Just like there are scientists who approach science with the goal of confirming their belief in scripture. What's the point here?We are having a communication problem here. In true science with a true scientist no, that's not what happens. But there are scientist who do approach science in that way.
I'm sure there are. Just like there are scientists who approach science with the goal of confirming their belief in scripture. What's the point here?
Yea, I had to remember what the point was......oh, a bunch of unneeded post's ago I was conceding that "Religion and science are both altogether too dogmatic." I thought that was a given. As a religious person it is an acknowledgment that religion is in need of reform when it comes to the YEC narratives.
Of course they will disagree. They are selling the myth that scientists are overwhelmingly bastions of disinterested objectivity... the myth that there are no ideological influences playing a significant role in academic institutions... the myth of the virtuous peer-review process that filters out all biases, etc. It's a big illusion they have to keep selling the public to keep themselves in business, and is almost laughable in its naivete.
Every now and then you get an honest scientist like Lewontin who has the guts to admit his biases upfront. Very rare.
But that's what I was talking about, an atheistic scientific approach where a belief about the universe has already been established as opposed to following the truth in all realms no matter where it leads.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?