Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Intelligent design properly understood is a theological/philosophical theory that can not ever be proven by science, almost by definition. While one can argue what is the most plausible explanation, one cannot validly assert that any organization found in nature is by intelligent design rather than an evoloved complexity, as I understand it.
and the thing most conservative 'deniers' deny about AGW is that human activity is the principle driving factor. Obviously the Earth warmed from the la 1700's to 1998. But now even the Met agress the last twelve years or more has seen a cooling of temperatures.
While some 'religion' can be confirmed or denied by science, such as archeological digs often do, the most conflicting claims by typical religions is a claim to a miraculous event of some sort. If science could prove said event, then by definition it cannot be miraculous.
Why is one groups willful ignorance the fault of the educated? A layperson could spend their entire life browsing scientific resources and teaching themselves.
The materials are there. What is lacking is the will.
That is not the fault of the scientific establishment.
Lack of helping does not equate to fault, go2.
If one can get past the elitism, condescension and god-complex, most science gurus are pretty human.
Most scientists are tired of tossing their pearls before swine who have no interest in the pursuit of knowledge and instead want to pursue their own agendas.
I don't like Dawkins, but the reason he doesn't give an audience to creationists is because they have (time and again) proven to be dishonest in their intent. Look at what happened to him during "Expelled" if you doubt it.
As I said, all the information is there for the truly curious. It's not the job of the professionals to lead a horse to a trough.
But today in our post-Christian, post-Modern society, the public is returning to a black-box view of science. Unable to understand any of it themselves, and not encouraged to even try by a growing number of scientists, more and more common is this view that science is just another form of faith system, but instead of priests or shamen, we have men in white coats who call themselves scientists and who are presumed to be oracles of Truth purely on a circular set of assumptions. Lacking this understanding the public is prey to all sorts of charlatans posing as scientists or doctors selling all sorts of snake oil.
How does the right even come up with this bullshit. I'm astounded.
That is one of the dumbest comments made so far.
Which part is bullshit? The part about post-modernism? That is pretty much a fact of the public domain, dude.
The part about people not understanding science and treat it like some secular kind of religion? That too is a FACT whether you can grasp it or not.
And there are plenty of examples of scientists speaking on authority with little explanation for their decrees that we just have to accept, like Mann's hockey Stick chart and the constantly changing record of adjusted global temperatures that Hansen at NASA is putting out.
Jeez, Louise, I dont mean to upset you so much by trying to talk about something that requires a little reflection instead of reflexive insults and distortions.
Intelligent design properly understood is a theological/philosophical theory that can not ever be proven by science, almost by definition. While one can argue what is the most plausible explanation, one cannot validly assert that any organization found in nature is by intelligent design rather than an evoloved complexity, as I understand it.
Tell that to the Intelligent Design proponents who want it taught as an equivalent theory to evolution.
and the thing most conservative 'deniers' deny about AGW is that human activity is the principle driving factor. Obviously the Earth warmed from the la 1700's to 1998. But now even the Met agress the last twelve years or more has seen a cooling of temperatures.
Does it matter? They still reject the scientific consensus hat in hand. When the laymen are telling the professionals they are wrong, you expect the professionals to teach the laymen?
Why waste their time?
While some 'religion' can be confirmed or denied by science, such as archeological digs often do, the most conflicting claims by typical religions is a claim to a miraculous event of some sort. If science could prove said event, then by definition it cannot be miraculous.
I agree. So why do people insist on juxtaposing the two?
How does the right even come up with this bullshit. I'm astounded.
That is one of the dumbest comments made so far.
Which part is bullshit? The part about post-modernism? That is pretty much a fact of the public domain, dude.
The part about people not understanding science and treat it like some secular kind of religion? That too is a FACT whether you can grasp it or not.
And there are plenty of examples of scientists speaking on authority with little explanation for their decrees that we just have to accept, like Mann's hockey Stick chart and the constantly changing record of adjusted global temperatures that Hansen at NASA is putting out.
Jeez, Louise, I dont mean to upset you so much by trying to talk about something that requires a little reflection instead of reflexive insults and distortions.
It would be easier to ask, "Which part ISN'T bullshit?"
JimBowie is not a philosopher of science, period.
His arguments are nonsense and dismissed.
Post-Modern View of Science?
Is that like "Back to the Future"?
In its most basic form, postmodernism is an intentional departure from the previously dominant modernist approaches such as scientific positivism, realism, constructivism, formalism, metaphysics and so forth. In a sense, the "postmodernist" approach continues the critique of the Enlightenment legacy, fundamentally seeking to challenge the traditional practices and intellectual pillars of western civilization just as the Enlightenment challenged tradition, theology and the authority of religion before it.
Postmodernism postulates that many, if not all, apparent realities are only social constructs and are therefore subject to change. It emphasises the role of language, power relations, and motivations in the formation of ideas and beliefs. In particular it attacks the use of sharp binary classifications such as male versus female, straight versus gay, white versus black, and imperial versus colonial; it holds realities to be plural and relative, and to be dependent on who the interested parties are and the nature of these interests. It claims that there is no absolute truth and that the way people perceive the world is subjective.
The term postmodernism, when used pejoratively, describes tendencies perceived as relativist, counter-enlightenment or antimodern, particularly in relation to critiques of rationalism, universalism or science.
JimBowie is not a philosopher of science, period.
Nor do I have to be, lol
His arguments are nonsense and dismissed.
OMG, like you have any authority to say my arguments are valid or not or if they are dismissed.
lololol, you are such a jack ass its infuckingcredible.
You simply cannot offer the evidence to carry your argument minimally. Yeah, your OP is fail.
The humiliating issue for JimBowie is that this entire argument reveals him to be a parrot, nothing else.
You simply cannot offer the evidence to carry your argument minimally. Yeah, your OP is fail.
JimBowie ad homs and name calls and spins on his head because he does not grasp the concepts of post-modernism and the philsophy of science. OP is fail.
This piece is so logically flawed it is hard to know where to start or even to start.
Did science exist before the rise of the Judeo-Christian worldview, if it did you need to show that.
Science is a process that presents conjectures about things and then tests whether the conjecture makes sense, refining it through tests and observation, does the idea work or doesn't it work.
Religion is something much different and I doubt any genuine scientist uses 'revelation' to find the truth.
That would be contrary to the scientific method.
Why do we need to rebuff the idea that science and religion are incompatible?
Why not leave them as is and accept that faith is not science as it beliefs are not subject to the scientific method?
"When thinking changes your mind, that's philosophy.
When God changes your mind, that's faith.
When facts change your mind, that's science." from edge.org
Science is a philosophy?
Is that because it can be imagined and you don't need "facts"?
Oh, wait, that's the occult, not science.
