Science is a form philosophy that is characterized by logic, experiment, observation, empiricism, skepticism, and materialism.
If materialism is a true attribute of science then science is a religion. This is because materialism is a religious position. Materialism says there is nothing other than material things, i.e., there is no supernatural. But this is clearly a belief about the nature of supernatural things.
It is very easy to confuse scientific methodology with scientific materialism. It is scientific methodology that has brought about great technological progress, not scientific materialism. The founders of science (if I may speak so loosely) such as Newtown and Bacon practiced scientific methodologies but did not subscribe to scientific materialism.
In fact, scientific materialism has had some negative consequences for science. Since scientific materialism necessitated something like darwinism, and darwinism resulted in the belief in vestigial organs, and the belief in vestigial organs resulted in non-vestigial organs like the [organ on the end of your intestine that if it gets infected and ruptures, you die] being dismissed as unimportant for study, scientific materialism impaired research of the human body.
therefore, even if Darwin's theory of the origin of species is eventually disproved or superceded, any creationist theory dependent on this timeline would still be wrong.
Thank you. You are right in this point. I do add, however, that refuting _a_ creationist timeline does not prove evolution.
I can only vouch for the writing of Philip Johnson and Michael Behe, and must warn you that there is "young-earth snake oil" to be avoided, but probably not at these sites.
There is an apparent paradox in that the environment on earth has gotten much more complex with all these forms of life instead of more simple. Well, this only applies to closed systems. The earth is not a closed system - it has the nearby sun constantly adding energy to it. If you look at the whole galaxy as a closed system, it would work, because the burning in a star is an increase in entropy and the earth represents a small section of the system with decreasing entropy.
Thanks for you thoughtful comments -- the signal-noise ratio is increasing already!
I would like to point out that I don't think your explanation explains; it just pushes the problem further out. How does the universe as a whole increase in complexity and useable energy (decreasing entropy)?
'Or they say, "Thermodynamics says that things progress from order to disorder. Ergo evolution is impossible." Except it's entropy they mean, and the earth isn't a closed system (we have a sun) so that rule is completely wrong to apply."'
So you push the problem back to the scale of the universe. The problem still exists.
"The even more important truth is that even if it is disproved or superceded by another theory, creationism will still be wrong."
What? How could you possibly know this? You are stating a religious belief, not a scientific belief. Any real scientific theory is falsifiable, yet you have said in essence that evolution as a whole _cannot_ be disproved.
That's as absurd as saying, "The even more important truth is that even if the phlogiston theory of heat is disproved or superceded by another theory, the caloric theory will still be wrong."
The fact is the some -- not all -- of evolution theory is, as Philip Johnson puts it "basically materialistic philosophy disguised as scientific fact." This quote is from http://www.firstthings.com/ ftissues/ft9711/johnson.html.
If the age of an idea invalidates it, you will discard evolution next since the Greeks believed it more than 2000 years ago -- an outmoded dogma indeed!
Slashdot Mirror
Novell claims NetWare 5.x supports 32 processors. This shipped last year, not Real Soon Now.
No. win9x == win32 == multi-threaded.
Done it myself!
There are some wireless LAN solutions available for PCs, but as far as I know they all require you to install a base station.
Lucent's WaveLan -- at least the first and second generation -- allow for peer-to-peer communication.
Science is a form philosophy that is characterized by logic, experiment, observation, empiricism, skepticism, and materialism.
If materialism is a true attribute of science then science is a religion. This is because materialism is a religious position. Materialism says there is nothing other than material things, i.e., there is no supernatural. But this is clearly a belief about the nature of supernatural things.
It is very easy to confuse scientific methodology with scientific materialism. It is scientific methodology that has brought about great technological progress, not scientific materialism. The founders of science (if I may speak so loosely) such as Newtown and Bacon practiced scientific methodologies but did not subscribe to scientific materialism.
In fact, scientific materialism has had some negative consequences for science. Since scientific materialism necessitated something like darwinism, and darwinism resulted in the belief in vestigial organs, and the belief in vestigial organs resulted in non-vestigial organs like the [organ on the end of your intestine that if it gets infected and ruptures, you die] being dismissed as unimportant for study, scientific materialism impaired research of the human body.
therefore, even if Darwin's theory of the origin of species is eventually disproved or superceded, any creationist theory dependent on this timeline would still be wrong.
Thank you. You are right in this point. I do add, however, that refuting _a_ creationist timeline does not prove evolution.
Michael Behe and Philip Johnson have some interesting scientific critiques of evolution.
In the spirit of open-mindedness, may I present
Molecular Machines and Irreducible Complexity,
Philip Johnson, and
Access Research Network.
I can only vouch for the writing of Philip Johnson and Michael Behe, and must warn you that there is "young-earth snake oil" to be avoided, but probably not at these sites.
There is an apparent paradox in that the environment on earth has gotten much more complex with all these forms of life instead of more simple. Well, this only applies to closed systems. The earth is not a closed system - it has the nearby sun constantly adding energy to it. If you look at the whole galaxy as a closed system, it would work, because the burning in a star is an increase in entropy and the earth represents a small section of the system with decreasing entropy.
Thanks for you thoughtful comments -- the signal-noise ratio is increasing already!
I would like to point out that I don't think your explanation explains; it just pushes the problem further out. How does the universe as a whole increase in complexity and useable energy (decreasing entropy)?
'Or they say, "Thermodynamics says that things progress from order to disorder. Ergo evolution is impossible." Except it's entropy they mean, and the earth isn't a closed system (we have a sun) so that rule is completely wrong to apply."'
So you push the problem back to the scale of the universe. The problem still exists.
"The even more important truth is that even if it is disproved or superceded by another theory, creationism will still be wrong."
What? How could you possibly know this? You are stating a religious belief, not a scientific belief. Any real scientific theory is falsifiable, yet you have said in essence that evolution as a whole _cannot_ be disproved.
That's as absurd as saying, "The even more important truth is that even if the phlogiston theory of heat is disproved or superceded by another theory, the caloric theory will still be wrong."
The fact is the some -- not all -- of evolution theory is, as Philip Johnson puts it "basically materialistic philosophy disguised as scientific fact." This quote is from http://www.firstthings.com/ ftissues/ft9711/johnson.html.
Bah. This is chronological snobbery.
If the age of an idea invalidates it, you will discard evolution next since the Greeks believed it more than 2000 years ago -- an outmoded dogma indeed!
Wrox. Bah!