The Undesigned Designer

[Kenny'sID]

But we're not trying to trick you, just explain to you how scientists are used to using the words, as an aid to promoting clear discussion. We're not responsible for any misinformation you may have picked up, from the popular press, or bad science teachers or creationist websites, or for things you simply don't know.

It was just as much a joke as what I replied to.

That was out of the blue..Misinformation? Where did that come from? And where did you get the idea I was holding you responsible for anything?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Probably because they didn't rig votes back then, or pay off cruciverbalists and lexicographers to get their definitions into the dictionary.

Back then they had [a little more] morals than they do today.

Thanks to today's dictionaries, you can't tell the difference between a miracle and magic, a child in the womb has become a fetus, and morals and ethics are basically the same thing.

Say IN GOD WE TRUST or ONE NATION UNDER GOD, and they have no idea what God you're talking about.

The good in that? it won't last much longer.

In the mean time, they really need to sync up on those dictionaries at least, or I'll remain suspicious.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Science has nothing to say about Jesus or His Gospel. Do you go to an auto mechanic when you want spiritual guidance? An accountant? Then why would you seek it from science?

You yourself said that was about individual understanding of scripture, right?

 

[Speedwell]

You yourself said that was about individual understanding of scripture, right?

No, I don't believe in individual understanding of scripture. The Bible was given to us as a community--Christ's church in the world, not to us as individuals. It takes the entire scholarly and spiritual efforts of the entire community to know it.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, I don't believe in individual understanding of scripture. The Bible was given to us as a community--Christ's church in the world, not to us as individuals. It takes the entire scholarly and spiritual efforts of the entire community to know it.

Just wondering why you guys don't salt your posts with Scripture.

I see a lot of "science says..." but little to no "Scripture says..."

 

[Speedwell]

Just wondering why you guys don't salt your posts with Scripture.

I see a lot of "science says..." but little to no "Scripture says..."

This is science forum. Scripture has little to say about science.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is science forum. Scripture has little to say about science.

How convenient. Your loyalty is noted.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Please don't tell me what I am pointing out. I'll do my own pointing, thankyou. I'm basically saying, "If everything must have had a designer, why is the designer an exception"?

Separate points: 1) It is theologically dangerous to rely on gods of the gaps arguments. If a gap gets filled, you end up looking silly, and having nothing to base your faith upon. This is what has happened with evolution-denying creationism. 2) There is no good reason why the universe owes it to us to be comprehensible to us. Our ideas of what constitute "laws" and "logic" could well be very parochial. Much better to believe because you want to believe, (if you do).

Science calls on the "god of the gaps" much more than does religion (ever read a science paper?).

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I agree. In the words of Dawkins,

"Modern physics teaches us that there is more to truth than meets the eye, or more than meets the all-too-limited human mind, evolved as it was to cope with medium-size objects moving at medium speeds through medium distances in Africa. In the face of these profound and sublime mysteries, the low-grade intellectual poodling of pseudophilosophical poseurs seems unworthy of adult attention."

(Door to ivory tower slams shut.)

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I think the entire problem with the "designer" argument can be summed up in a single, rather famous, statement:

"You can not explain the unexplained, with the inexplicable"

There is a whole body of scientific inquiry that fits this statement, psychiatry for example.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Because they actively lobby to impose their religious beliefs upon a secular society.
Any good patriot should oppose such activity.

Not beliefs....values. (Secular society has some really bad ones.)

 

[Kenny'sID]

No, I don't believe in individual understanding of scripture. The Bible was given to us as a community--Christ's church in the world, not to us as individuals. It takes the entire scholarly and spiritual efforts of the entire community to know it.

Pretty sure you stated it was a matter of comprehension the other day. I'll get back with you if I find the post.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Science calls on the "god of the gaps" much more than does religion (ever read a science paper?).

Your best example of this is?

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Why does the dictionary define the term hypothesis and theory as the same thing, when you and another poster say they have different meanings?

You've been here far too long to not understand the difference between a "scientific theory" and the colloquial usage of "theory." Words can have different meanings in different contexts. You and I use the term "solution" in a different way than a chemist would. We should be able to move past this part of the discussion...

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Your best example of this is?

Read any extensive paper on evolution. Suppositions are what stitch the whole theory together and fill in the gaps.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Read any extensive paper on evolution. Suppositions are what stitch the whole theory together and fill in the gaps.

Well then it should be super easy to give a specific example if you have so many to choose from.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Well then it should be super easy to give a specific example if you have so many to choose from.

Do you disagree with my assertion?

 

[Speedwell]

Pretty sure you stated it was a matter of comprehension the other day. I'll get back with you if I find the post.

Please do; whatever point I was trying to make, I evidently didn't make it clearly.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Do you disagree with my assertion?

I absolutely do.

Science calls on the "god of the gaps" much more than does religion (ever read a science paper?).

So when someone is using a "god of the gaps" argument they are stating that a gap in our scientific knowledge is evidence for their god. I am asking for an example where "science" (this is really vague, maybe you can clarify this) calls on a "god of the gaps" type of argument. You claim such occurrences are plentiful, I shouldn't be asking too much from you.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I absolutely do.

So when someone is using a "god of the gaps" argument they are stating that a gap in our scientific knowledge is evidence for their god. I am asking for an example where "science" (this is really vague, maybe you can clarify this) calls on a "god of the gaps" type of argument. You claim such occurrences are plentiful, I shouldn't be asking too much from you.

Read any paper on evolution. If there is even one assumption in a chain of evolutionary events my point is proven.