Subject:
|
Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:00:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1486 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> > > > I absolutely support a person's right to pretend that the flood created the
> > > > Grand Canyon, but the government has no business giving its endorsement to
> > > > a work of religious mythology such as this one.
> > >
> > > Hm. But the government DOES have business endorsing a book that would
> > > support the theory that the GC was created by erosion? Why should the
> > > government support NASA research (say), as opposed to religious research,
> > > apart from the actual measurable gains that it gets out of scientific
> > > research?
> >
> > Because geologic theory is based in testable science rather than non-testable
> > religion, and the Fed's choice to endorse an article of religious faith is
> > manifestly unconstitutional.
>
> Although I doubt it's the case, what if the book were written using scientific
> methods?
Honestly, that's a great question! Creationists have never actually submitted
anything for peer review, so if the book were indeed written using scientific
methods of inquiry, then it would be greatly beneficial to them to put it up for
examination. One of the reasons that Christian Creationism isn't science is
because it is, at its heart, empirically non-testable; an infinite, omnipotent
Being by definition invalidates scientific testing. However, if this book
subscribes to a less strident form of Creationism, then honest inquiry welcomes
the book's attempted entrance into the literature.
You're almost certainly correct that this book did not follow the methods of
science, but such a book *might* be written and would therefore be worthy of
scientific examination.
> Let's suppose for a minute there were some evidence (albeit alternately
> explainable evidence via "regular" science) that supported the claim. The
> article I pointed at had 1 such tidbit I noticed (that geologic evidence in a
> couple places looked like certain bits happened in catastrophe's rather than
> gradually), but it had nothing else short of refutation of the "regular"
> erosionist theories. But suppose there *were* more slight bits of evidence in
> that line, which, although not numerous, and explainable in other ways by
> science, still pointed to a conclusion that just happened to mesh with the
> religious argument of being created by the Flood?
As I understand it, the competing theory (catastrophic flood, in this case)
would have to explain all observed data better and would also have to provide a
better predictive model than existing theories.
> IOW, taking a true scientific approach towards a conclusion that just happens to
> also be religious. Does the fact that it coincides with religion, or that the
> theory itself was inspired by a religious belief change the scientific
> legitimacy of the theory, thereby making it unconstitutional? If the book is
> actually written scientifically (and I'm not saying it is), is it not still
> valid?
On the contrary--if a scientific approach led convincingly to a religious
conclusion, then you'd have a basically proven religion on your hands, and I
might very well convert to it in that case!
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
| (...) Although I doubt it's the case, what if the book were written using scientific methods? Let's suppose for a minute there were some evidence (albeit alternately explainable evidence via "regular" science) that supported the claim. The article I (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
21 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
