Was Charles Darwin a fraud?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You're right.

I have no idea of what geneticists do behind closed doors.

Make Thalidomide?

That's chemists, not geneticists.

 

[AV1611VET]

What is that based on?

What is what based on?

You don't see scientists moving the decimal point as needed?

How do you think we got deep time? or went from ten to one hundred elements on the periodic table?

Pluto is an exception.

Rather than move the decimal point to accommodate other planets, they actually rigged a vote to have Pluto demoted.

It was okay with the Periodic Table -- no problem.

But with our planets? no way!

 

[AV1611VET]

That's chemists, not geneticists.

Okay, thanks.

I got my ists mixed up.

 

[River Jordan]

You're right.

I have no idea of what geneticists do behind closed doors.

Then where did you get the impressions you've posted here of how they do their work?

 

[River Jordan]

What is what based on?

That the things you listed are what scientists "have to work hard on". Where did you get that impression?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Its easily observable from these forums (and elsewhere) that fundamental literalist Christians are in crisis over the ToE and the Physics behind science's inferred conclusions of an old Earth/Universe.

That's not the specific form of psychological crisis I'm referring to. But, on the side, yes we all know that Cognitive Dissonance is going around these days in relation to the tensions between often brought up in the apparent and ongoing ideological tumult.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I do, I just don't think having an interpretation of scripture necessitates calling scientists liars, frauds, demonic, and all that.

For some, it does necessitate that very thing. Just look at the whole Covid extravaganza has taken place these past 4 years.

However, what I'm attempting to delineate here is that there is a specific difference between justification and necessity that we need to recognize as a part of the dynamics of the ongoing "science vs. Bible" fiasco we all have to put up with.

I don't see any justification for it at all.

That depends upon the specific sliver of nuance of the latest of "science's" progressive finds. If we're not careful, we'll find ourselves suddenly thrust into a dozen examples of what I'm talking about. Ideology, Hermeneutics, Praxis, and varied life experiences both good and bad, of whatever grade, will play a part in any one person's perceptions about the nature of the science vs. bible conflict.

Sometimes, from a particular angle, they may appear to be justified. It just won't be via your or my sense of "justification."

The problem is, their praxis is not that scientists are liars, frauds, and agents of Satan. Almost none of them have any idea what scientists actually do, how they do their work, or what their conclusions are based on. So it's impossible for those people's praxis to be that scientists are liars etc.

Quite on the contrary, River. The outcomes of Social psychology don't fall into neatly precise categories by which we can necessarily and always cite the inherent qualities of justification a person may bring to bear upon us. Of course, many of us in the mainstream sciences don't like this, but it is what it is.

LOL, now you're in the realm of pointing out how it's almost impossible to get these people to change their minds, which brings into question the existence of this entire forum.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but as someone who is educated in Philosophy and Social Studies Education, I do have some understanding about human psychological motivation and social praxis. People tend not to listen until they feel they want to listen. It's just the way it is.

And sometimes, scientists do lie or get unjustifiably fixated emotionally on their own points of view. It's not like it can never happen to a working scientist, and this is even the case for those working in biology or paleontology and so on and so forth. You and I are not exempt.

Regardless, though, I understand your frustration with AV. I've tussled with him a little in the past myself, but at the end of the day, I'm always going to lean toward attempting mutual understanding if that is the most I can attempt to ask for .

 

[SelfSim]

That's not the specific form of psychological crisis I'm referring to.

'Forms' aside there, its still a psychological crisis .. and it, (fortunately or unfortunately), requires no compelling attention, from a scientific viewpoint.
Most dialogue from scientific thinkers around this place is in 'the form' of clarifications/explanantions .. and is not ideological.
That observation appears to be unrecognised by those who are ideologically, (or socially), driven, however.

But, on the side, yes we all know that Cognitive Dissonance is going around these days in relation to the tensions between often brought up in the apparent and ongoing ideological tumult.

There is no 'ideological tumult' amongst scientific thinkers .. (when they choose to don that particular hat).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

'Forms' aside there, its still a psychological crisis .. and it, (fortunately or unfortunately), requires no compelling attention, from a scientific viewpoint.
Most dialogue from scientific thinkers around this place is in 'the form' of clarifications/explanantions .. and is not ideological.
That observation appears to be unrecognised by those who are ideologically, (or socially), driven, however.

Everyone has an ideology buried into their view of the world. You do. I do. AV does. There is no one on the planet with a perfectly neutral point of view. And yes, I would side slightly with AV that some scientists have been benighted by the secular realm. And this possibility seems to be unrecognized and dismissed by those who are purely scientifically driven.

There is no 'ideological tumult' amongst scientific thinkers .. (when they choose to don that particular hat).

You've misunderstood my referent. The tension modern science has brought to religious Creationists has been a part of the social tendency for different Christian groups to gather into their own bands of social organization and oppose one another as well as scientists. This is nothing new and, as you and I both know, has been present for quite a long time in Western society. So yes, there is an unfortunate, even if in my view not completely necessary ideological tumult present in our society, and at many levels of consideration.

And let's not pretend that everything is just hunky dory at all levels even among all secular scientists. Debate is a part of science anyway.

 

[SelfSim]

For some, it does necessitate that very thing. Just look at the whole Covid extravaganza has taken place these past 4 years.

However, what I'm attempting to delineate here is that there is a specific difference between justification and necessity that we need to recognize as a part of the dynamics of the ongoing "science vs. Bible" fiasco we all have to put up with.

That depends upon the specific sliver of nuance of the latest of "science's" progressive finds. If we're not careful, we'll find ourselves suddenly thrust into a dozen examples of what I'm talking about. Ideology, Hermeneutics, Praxis, and varied life experiences both good and bad, of whatever grade, will play a part in any one person's perceptions about the nature of the science vs. bible conflict.

Sometimes, from a particular angle, they may appear to be justified. It just won't be via your or my sense of "justification."

FWIW: I'm personally ok with your tack there.

Quite on the contrary, River. The outcomes of Social psychology don't fall into neatly precise categories by which we can necessarily and always cite the inherent qualities of justification a person may bring to bear upon us. Of course, many of us in the mainstream sciences don't like this, but it is what it is.

Many if us 'in the mainstream science' also don't care about the outcomes of Social psychology and/or its qualities, when thinking scentifically. They just don't come up in that mode of thinking.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

FWIW: I'm personally ok with your tack there.

I figured you would be. I'm not upset, I'm just talking academically.

Many if us 'in the mainstream science' also don't care about the outcomes of Social psychology and/or its qualities, when thinking scentifically. They just don't come up in that mode of thinking.

And the fact that many in "mainstream science" don't care about those outcomes is a part of the problem. It's sort of similar to how sociologists twenty years or so ago started honing in on the fact that Business majors of that time didn't seem to be grounded in business Ethics. This was evident after the scandals at Enron, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

Likewise, a number of working scientists probably don't consider the outcomes of their "work" because they're already tied to one political or ideological framework that tends to dismiss the concerns of certain forms of Christian thought..............or sometimes Ethical thought.

But no one's perfect, even those of us who are evolutionists.

 

[SelfSim]

Everyone has an ideology buried into their view of the world. You do. I do. AV does. There is no one on the planet with a perfectly neutral point of view. And yes, I would side slightly with AV that some scientists have been benighted by the secular realm. And this possibility seems to be unrecognized and dismissed by those who are purely scientifically driven.

Maybe .. Eg: I've always held suspicions about various forms of 'Atheism'.
I recall one encounter with someone who labelled himself a 'Humanist' and found his worldview to be grossly at odds with mine, (when I found a need to don my 'Humanist' hat .. (which incidentally, I was forced into selecting by the CFs forum software in order to sign up here. I hold no fixed beliefs when it comes to the label under my tag here of: 'Humanist' .. I can take it or leave whenever I choose).

You've misunderstood my referent. The tension modern science has brought to religious Creationists has been a part of the social tendency for different Christian groups to gather into their own bands of social organization and oppose one another as well as scientists. This is nothing new and, as you and I both know, has been present for quite a long time in Western society. So yes, there is an unfortunate, even if in my view not completely necessary ideological tumult present in our society, and at many levels of consideration.

Ha!
Just the other day, I found myself declaring to a local aquatic facility administrator, that I choose to reject their notion of my being a 'member' of some grouping they've decided upon, when all I want is to do laps in a pool.
(Their perception of me there, has nothing to do with my doing laps in a pool).

 

[Hans Blaster]

Everyone has an ideology buried into their view of the world. You do. I do. AV does. There is no one on the planet with a perfectly neutral point of view.

Lousy Neutrals of Neutropolis.

And yes, I would side slightly with AV that some scientists have been benighted by the secular realm. And this possibility seems to be unrecognized and dismissed by those who are purely scientifically driven.

Science is a secular endeavor, plain and simple. It has no place for religion.

You've misunderstood my referent. The tension modern science has brought to religious Creationists has been a part of the social tendency for different Christian groups to gather into their own bands of social organization and oppose one another as well as scientists.

That seems, like ever, as a them problem.

This is nothing new and, as you and I both know, has been present for quite a long time in Western society. So yes, there is an unfortunate, even if in my view not completely necessary ideological tumult present in our society, and at many levels of consideration.

A tumult generated by the rejection of evidence-based descriptions of nature.

And let's not pretend that everything is just hunky dory at all levels even among all secular scientists. Debate is a part of science anyway.

We debate with journal articles and if that doesn't work, pistols at dawn.

 

[SelfSim]

I figured you would be. I'm not upset, I'm just talking academically.

And the fact that many in "mainstream science" don't care about those outcomes is a part of the problem.

.. or a side benefit produced by thinking scientifically.
The benefit there is clarity which ultimately benefits the purpose behind distilling and enhancing science's objective reality model.

It's sort of similar to how sociologists twenty years or so ago started honing in on the fact that Business majors of that time didn't seem to be grounded in business Ethics. This was evident after the scandals at Enron, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

Likewise, a number of working scientists probably don't consider the outcomes of their "work" because they're already tied to one political or ideological framework that tends to dismiss the concerns of certain forms of Christian thought..............or sometimes Ethical thought.

Yep .. that happens.

But no one's perfect, even those of us who are evolutionists.

'Perfect' is idealistic. Science is about what works.
Science is the worst in achieving 'perfectionism' .. (except for all the other ways of pursuing it).

 

[Hans Blaster]

Maybe .. Eg: I've always held suspicions about various forms of 'Atheism'.

I've gone so far as to reject the whole notion of "Atheism" as there is no binding philosophy or dogma of not believing in gods. There are many philosophies or dogmas that universal non-believers (atheists) utilize, just as there are many religions that theists apply despite there being no cogent philosphy of "theism".

I recall one encounter with someone who labelled himself a 'Humanist' and found his worldview to be grossly at odds with mine, (when I found a need to don my 'Humanist' hat .. (which incidentally, I was forced into selecting by the CFs forum software in order to sign up here. I hold no fixed beliefs when it comes to the label under my tag here of: 'Humanist' .. I can take it or leave whenever I choose).

I find myself agreeing with much of Humanism when I hear it, but I would not take that label, since I have not even read the Humanist Manifesto, let along taken it up as a personal philosophy. (It probably doesn't work well with my bouts of misanthropy either.) I took the "atheist" label, because it was clean and simple as a non-believer. I didn't take "agnostic" lest people think I was "on the fence" (Thanks a lot Huxley, not) or "seaker" because I am not seaking anything "spiritual". I might have taken "none", but I recall it was not an option.

 

[SelfSim]

I've gone so far as to reject the whole notion of "Atheism" as there is no binding philosophy or dogma of not believing in gods. There are many philosophies or dogmas that universal non-believers (atheists) utilize, just as there are many religions that theists apply despite there being no cogent philosphy of "theism".

Yep .. I get it ..

I find myself agreeing with much of Humanism when I hear it, but I would not take that label, since I have not even read the Humanist Manifesto, let along taken it up as a personal philosophy. (It probably doesn't work well with my bouts of misanthropy either.) I took the "atheist" label, because it was clean and simple as a non-believer. I didn't take "agnostic" lest people think I was "on the fence" (Thanks a lot Huxley, not) or "seaker" because I am not seaking anything "spiritual". I might have taken "none", but I recall it was not an option.

Yes .. I think I would've gladly taken that if 'none' was presented as an option by the forum software .. but notably, it wasn't.

'Humanism', for me, is just conclusion that falls out of the testing of my notorious MDR Hypothesis.
Thus far, every so-called 'Humanist' I've met does actually have that rather odious 'manifesto' lurking behind them .. Manifestos aren't needed in my take on humanism .. but the MDR hypothesis works!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Lousy Neutrals of Neutropolis.

Neutrals aren't lousy. They simply don't show up in existence.

Science is a secular endeavor, plain and simple. It has no place for religion.

Despite the fact that I take a more Stephen J. Gould approach to "science," I prefer to think of science as a human endeavor, one that doesn't involved God because it can't really wrap its experimental gloves around God. So..................we leave Him directly out of the analysis.

See? It's still Plain and Simple.

That seems, like ever, as a them problem.

It's not merely a "them" problem since the question of Jesus' possible Lordship of the Universe is an ever present possibility, looming constantly in the background of our daily lives (i.e. whether we like it or not).

A tumult generated by the rejection of evidence-based descriptions of nature.

Evidence has to be interpreted, and then those interpretations are analyzed for coherence with every other set of evidence and data we have. And sometimes, Christians think the evidence produces conclusions that are simply underdetermined.

We debate with journal articles and if that doesn't work, pistols at dawn.

Yes, a lot of us do debate with journal articles. And where pistols might be drawn, I take the Tom Petty avenue of choice.

​

 

[BCP1928]

What is what based on?

You don't see scientists moving the decimal point as needed?

How do you think we got deep time? or went from ten to one hundred elements on the periodic table?

Pluto is an exception.

Rather than move the decimal point to accommodate other planets, they actually rigged a vote to have Pluto demoted.

It was okay with the Periodic Table -- no problem.

But with our planets? no way!

Who classified Pluto as a planet? Human beings, not God, back when our telescopes were primitive and showed us what was little more than a speck of light. Who reclassified it? Human beings, not God, with better telescopes and satellite probes. It's our right. God gave us the right to name all of his creations.

 

[AV1611VET]

Who classified Pluto as a planet? Human beings, not God, back when our telescopes were primitive and showed us what was little more than a speck of light. Who reclassified it? Human beings, not God, with better telescopes and satellite probes. It's our right. God gave us the right to name all of his creations.

Then why the rigged vote?

 

[BCP1928]

Then why the rigged vote?

LOL!