I'm not sure rigorous thinking is any more common among programmers than among other analytical professions (medicine, law, academia, auto mechanics, businessmen). I think the point is to tap these alternative sources for new ideas. It probably won't work, just because there will be too much badness to sort through in order to find the goodness. At any rate, it does less damage to humanity than "Let Joe Average Perform Your Next Surgery".
There's no doubt that much of "science" cannot be tested or observed. You are right. We cannot throw out all untestable or unobservable hypotheses. Of course most of us have been down this road, but in the end, many scientists are fine with extrapolative theories as long as God isn't involved. I can understand that. If I weren't a Christian (or other monotheistic adherent), I'd want to stay as far away from God as possible. I don't believe that's true of all scientists, and I'm not even sure whether it is true for most of them, just many of them. I think that scientists often make faulty assumptions or use as points of departure dubious scientific or other claims. As for the "molecular record" - creationists don't dispute that there is a consistent plan in DNA, etc., but they do dispute the line of descent that is largely conjectured, and the source of organic molecules such as proteins as well as the information present in DNA. Personally I'm inclined to believe that most speciation is the result of genetic dilution of kinds of animals. The Bible does not claim, nor do most creationists believe, that God created individual species during 6-day creation.
You're right in saying/implying that everyone has an agenda. This is why I am skeptical regarding factual information of any sort, and before accepting it, I usually ask myself why I am being told this information, and what is the benefit to the person telling me - the benefit from lying about it, and the benefit from telling the truth. I also consider the eventual consequences of believing the things I am told, and whether a source gives contradictory information.
That being said, the Bible also purports to tell us many aspects of "how" which conflict with evolutionary views - 6 literal days of creation, created kinds, man first - then woman, plants before the sun, etc. The serious question that I have is, "if you don't believe the 'how' in the Bible, can you justify believing the 'what'?"
I'd tend to agree that teaching of creation should not be a part of the science education of small children. I think that evolution should also be kept out, because it is also metaphysical and non-scientific (neither testable nor observable). Let's teach the things that we know to be true - that organisms have DNA which makes them suited to survive in a particular environment, that observable changes in populations occur, etc. Let's not teach that life came spontaneously by chance from non-life, that humans evolved from apes and fishes, etc. - those things cannot possibly benefit little children (below college age) except to brainwash them into holding tenuous theories that are constantly being reconstructed, and which have not been proven. You see, there is every bit the agenda on the part of evolutionists to take God out of society. I don't want to put God into society, just to let people decide for themselves. The point is to stop teaching evolution as a fact, and not to teach complex theories to children who don't know what to do with them.
The attempts by many Christians to teach ID and creation are not intended to shun science or make second-class citizens out of atheists; it's just a reaction to what many view as being an untruthful, specifically anti-Christian approach.
Not that I am "the religious right" or anything, but I will not accept the possibility of your theory, despite continuing to believe in an omniscient creator. The whole point is that created things are so complex that they can only have been designed by an omniscient and omnipotent being. Even if you believe that created things were formed through slow processes, it's ludicrous to believe that they came about by chance, error, or stupidity. I have not seen anyone design a better universe, and I have not seen one proposed. Human beings fail even in our attempts to understand what is all around us. We didn't invent God, but even if there were no divine revelation, we'd be able to figure out that an omniscient, omnipotent being created the universe. I think that there is quite a bit of linguistic wrangling going on to say that nothing was created, planned, designed, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
I wasn't sure about the promiscuous part, but I was aware that she is gigantic.
I'm not sure rigorous thinking is any more common among programmers than among other analytical professions (medicine, law, academia, auto mechanics, businessmen). I think the point is to tap these alternative sources for new ideas. It probably won't work, just because there will be too much badness to sort through in order to find the goodness. At any rate, it does less damage to humanity than "Let Joe Average Perform Your Next Surgery".
There's no doubt that much of "science" cannot be tested or observed. You are right. We cannot throw out all untestable or unobservable hypotheses. Of course most of us have been down this road, but in the end, many scientists are fine with extrapolative theories as long as God isn't involved. I can understand that. If I weren't a Christian (or other monotheistic adherent), I'd want to stay as far away from God as possible. I don't believe that's true of all scientists, and I'm not even sure whether it is true for most of them, just many of them. I think that scientists often make faulty assumptions or use as points of departure dubious scientific or other claims. As for the "molecular record" - creationists don't dispute that there is a consistent plan in DNA, etc., but they do dispute the line of descent that is largely conjectured, and the source of organic molecules such as proteins as well as the information present in DNA. Personally I'm inclined to believe that most speciation is the result of genetic dilution of kinds of animals. The Bible does not claim, nor do most creationists believe, that God created individual species during 6-day creation.
You're right in saying/implying that everyone has an agenda. This is why I am skeptical regarding factual information of any sort, and before accepting it, I usually ask myself why I am being told this information, and what is the benefit to the person telling me - the benefit from lying about it, and the benefit from telling the truth. I also consider the eventual consequences of believing the things I am told, and whether a source gives contradictory information.
That being said, the Bible also purports to tell us many aspects of "how" which conflict with evolutionary views - 6 literal days of creation, created kinds, man first - then woman, plants before the sun, etc. The serious question that I have is, "if you don't believe the 'how' in the Bible, can you justify believing the 'what'?"
I'd tend to agree that teaching of creation should not be a part of the science education of small children. I think that evolution should also be kept out, because it is also metaphysical and non-scientific (neither testable nor observable). Let's teach the things that we know to be true - that organisms have DNA which makes them suited to survive in a particular environment, that observable changes in populations occur, etc. Let's not teach that life came spontaneously by chance from non-life, that humans evolved from apes and fishes, etc. - those things cannot possibly benefit little children (below college age) except to brainwash them into holding tenuous theories that are constantly being reconstructed, and which have not been proven. You see, there is every bit the agenda on the part of evolutionists to take God out of society. I don't want to put God into society, just to let people decide for themselves. The point is to stop teaching evolution as a fact, and not to teach complex theories to children who don't know what to do with them.
The attempts by many Christians to teach ID and creation are not intended to shun science or make second-class citizens out of atheists; it's just a reaction to what many view as being an untruthful, specifically anti-Christian approach.
Not that I am "the religious right" or anything, but I will not accept the possibility of your theory, despite continuing to believe in an omniscient creator. The whole point is that created things are so complex that they can only have been designed by an omniscient and omnipotent being. Even if you believe that created things were formed through slow processes, it's ludicrous to believe that they came about by chance, error, or stupidity. I have not seen anyone design a better universe, and I have not seen one proposed. Human beings fail even in our attempts to understand what is all around us. We didn't invent God, but even if there were no divine revelation, we'd be able to figure out that an omniscient, omnipotent being created the universe. I think that there is quite a bit of linguistic wrangling going on to say that nothing was created, planned, designed, etc.