You can visit my new homepage, True Freethinker, via this feed

Thursday, October 16, 2008

“…Professing Themselves To Be Wise, They Became Fools…”, part 4 of 5

Please note that this post has been moved to True Freethinker’s Atheism category.


  1. "What about asking what made the Grand Canyon, a little bit of water and a lot of time or a lot of water and a little bit of time?"

    A little bit of water over a long period of time. It take a LONG amount of time to wear away rock after all. Not to mention that alot of water at one time wouldn't care out a canyon- it would create a wider plain.

    "But there are many gap fillers, secularists fill the gaps in our knowledge with time, chance, matter and even imagination, luck and faith."



    Yes, because explaining a problem with something that exists is a "gap filler". This is why I don't take you so seriously.

    "The very first question to ask is: has it been scientifically verified that scientific verification is the only true epistemology?
    If it has not, the premise is faulty and the statement disproves itself."

    The process of science works by looking at reality to determine information about reality. It has been seen, in reality, that examining reality leads to more information about reality.

    "Prof. Richard Lewontin (Harvard University Professor of zoology and biology) admits that scientists have purposefully concocted an apparatus that will produce the results that they desire:"

    So we should make astrology a science? There is a reason that scientists ignore supernaturalism- it is nonfalsible. In case you are curious the reason scientists don't deal with such categories is that you can never get answers.

    That isn't to say scientists will ignore supernatural phenomena- it just is that if it happens they will consider it natural. After all, from God's view everything is natural- why should we take any other frame of reference?

    "But why do I refer to this concept of science as authoritarian and dogmatic? Consider the words of Scott C. Todd (Department of Biology; Kansas State University):"

    He is wrong. Of course, it is irrelevant in this case due to the fact that. you know, evolution is correct.

    “In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it.”

    At this point the astronomers, geologists, physicists, mathematicians, meteorologists and every field aside from biology attack because, you know, they are also scientists who don't bother with evolution. Not their field. A person to stupid to get that isn't such a good source.

    More to the point, the same point he makes could apply to Newton's theory of gravity... which scientists eventually realized did not accurately represent reality.

    "Clearly this is pseudo-science disguised as science. This is an a priori commitment that dictates what evidence is acceptable and what is to be discarded on the basis of a worldview and not upon science."

    Unless the world view happens to accurately reflect reality. Than you get results. Interestingly, science has achieved results.

    "Now, we must further ask: has absolute materialism been scientifically proved?
    If it has not been then the secular definition of science is faulty, the statement disproves itself."

    You want me to prove a negative? Wow- 8 impossible tasks before breakfast.

    " In other words, science cannot confirm the existence of the supernatural but it can disprove it, how?"

    Simple. A supernatural explanation is a gap filler. it is most likely you simply don't know enough. An natural answer can be provided that answers the question, and, if it is accurate, shows that it isn't supernatural.

    "They conceptualize a worldview in which materialism is absolute and the gap fillers must always be materialism, time, chance, etc."

    Yes, solving problems with things that are known to exist- why that is just wrong!

    "Thus, they argue that given enough time, chance and matter could accomplish anything."

    That is great, but the Epicureans died out over two thousand years ago. Now a days, we recognize that natural process are responsible for alot of stuff. Natural selection isn't chance- it is its opposite (hence selection). Mutations are chance.

    "This has not, of course, been scientifically verified."

    Which is why the field of geology works so well that they can find oil fields?

    "This is not science but is merely a convenient, supposed, guarantee that their worldview must be true."

    Unless, you know, materialism is correct. Of course, we could check by seeing if there is any problem that so far is insolvable under materialism... and there isn't.

    " They have thus, set up their own authoritarian dogma. "

    Yes, reality does tend to be rather authoritarian like that. I mean, it virtually poses a police state like control over us- we can't even go through solid objects!

    "Yet, note carefully that uncovering material causes for material effects is only to be expected in a universe created by God since God created the material realm in which material causes produce material effects."

    So your beliefs are essentially identical to what we would find in a purely material universe? Are you unfamiliar with Occam's Razor?

    " they somehow manage to end up with many of the same scientific conclusions as theists"

    So everyone arrives to the same conclusions even when they are "biased" with a presupposition towards naturalism? It is almost like the bias fits reality!

  2. Samuel Skinner
    I find your purposeful dehumanization of human beings to be much more important that this phantasmagoria, so I will deal with the comment you made elsewhere.


  3. A little bit of water over a long period of time. It take a LONG amount of time to wear away rock after all. Not to mention that alot of water at one time wouldn't care out a canyon- it would create a wider plain.

    If I am not mistaken when Mt.St. Helens errupted, a large canyon was carved in less than a week, which was suppose to take "millions of years" to produce.
    I think the geologists are still scratching their heads over that one.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.