To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 26260
26259  |  26261
Subject: 
Re: You have got to be kidding me...
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:00:27 GMT
Viewed: 
1485 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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR