Warden_of_the_Storm
Well-Known Member
- Oct 16, 2015
- 15,245
- 7,493
- 31
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- Single
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.
You're right.
I have no idea of what geneticists do behind closed doors.
Make Thalidomide?
What is that based on?
That's chemists, not geneticists.
Then where did you get the impressions you've posted here of how they do their work?You're right.
I have no idea of what geneticists do behind closed doors.
That the things you listed are what scientists "have to work hard on". Where did you get that impression?What is what based on?
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.
For some, it does necessitate that very thing. Just look at the whole Covid extravaganza has taken place these past 4 years.I do, I just don't think having an interpretation of scripture necessitates calling scientists liars, frauds, demonic, and all that.
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.I don't see any justification for it at all.
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.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.
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.
'Forms' aside there, its still a psychological crisis .. and it, (fortunately or unfortunately), requires no compelling attention, from a scientific viewpoint.That's not the specific form of psychological crisis I'm referring to.
There is no 'ideological tumult' amongst scientific thinkers .. (when they choose to don that particular hat).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.
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.'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.
There is no 'ideological tumult' amongst scientific thinkers .. (when they choose to don that particular hat).
FWIW: I'm personally ok with your tack there.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."
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.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.
I figured you would be. I'm not upset, I'm just talking academically.FWIW: I'm personally ok with your tack there.
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.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.
Maybe .. Eg: I've always held suspicions about various forms of 'Atheism'.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.
Ha!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.
Lousy Neutrals of Neutropolis.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.
Science is a secular endeavor, plain and simple. It has no place for religion.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.
That seems, like ever, as a them problem.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.
A tumult generated by the rejection of evidence-based descriptions of nature.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.
We debate with journal articles and if that doesn't work, pistols at dawn.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.
.. or a side benefit produced by thinking scientifically.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.
Yep .. that happens.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.
'Perfect' is idealistic. Science is about what works.But no one's perfect, even those of us who are evolutionists.
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".Maybe .. Eg: I've always held suspicions about various forms of 'Atheism'.
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.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).
Yep .. I get it ..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".
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.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.
Neutrals aren't lousy. They simply don't show up in existence.Lousy Neutrals of Neutropolis.
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.Science is a secular endeavor, plain and simple. It has no place for religion.
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).That seems, like ever, as a them problem.
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.A tumult generated by the rejection of evidence-based descriptions of nature.
We debate with journal articles and if that doesn't work, pistols at dawn.
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.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.
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?