tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6821840758756075048.post3490279473955722541..comments2023-09-25T09:44:38.184-07:00Comments on Evolutionary Novelties: Questions about evolutionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6821840758756075048.post-9861120394738285142008-04-30T05:45:00.000-07:002008-04-30T05:45:00.000-07:00Hi, Todd;While I agree that science can't demonstr...Hi, Todd;<BR/><BR/>While I agree that science can't demonstrate their is no supernatural force, because it would be an attempt to set a null hypothesis on something which can't be demonstrated in the first place; they are well within the domain of science to show that human claims about the supernatural creative forces are spurious.<BR/><BR/>I found Victor Stenger's book "God: The Failed Hypothesis" to be a superb examination of the issue. I would say that by pressing the issue when it comes to religious belief, scientists are forcing the believers to admit that all they have on the issue is their faith (which is fine) but can make no demonstrable proofs for their belief in the Creator.<BR/><BR/>The issue is important for me because of the issues of Intelligent Design and other forms of Creationism. They are trying through the legislatures now to create a backdoor into the classrooms through "Academic Freedom" legislation, and a Florida version of the bill even mandates the teaching of Intelligent Design through their version of "critical analysis."<BR/><BR/>I understand what you are saying, but I think it is up to all those who accept that the scientific processes to continue to say "NO" to the idea that the theory is a guess and that all guesses have equal weight. <BR/><BR/>If the religious who practice science will make this point, that they know that their belief is faith and not evidence-based, I think that the sciences will be more acceptable to people of faith once people are educated more thoroughly on this.<BR/><BR/>So, I agree and disagree.Mike Haubrich, FCDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07220070898785894481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6821840758756075048.post-70922491855996621362008-04-29T17:29:00.000-07:002008-04-29T17:29:00.000-07:00Bjorn - yes, I tend to agree, but would slightly c...Bjorn - yes, I tend to agree, but would slightly change the wording to "NOMA is true in principle, as long as understand we CANNOT SCIENTIFICALLY know anything at all about the supernatural".<BR/><BR/>So to my mind, if people are being intellectually honest (which I agree most anti-evolutionists are not, although they may be honest and brain washed), then NOMA is a useful truce. As scientists, we can only tell people about the domain of science. When scripture makes scientifically testable hypotheses (e.g. the earth is a few thousand years old), we can tell them, quite confidently, that science does not support that. <BR/><BR/>At the same time, scientists cannot claim to have input on supernatural magisteria. If people choose to believe that there is a spiritual force called a flying spaghetti monster that set the rules of the universe into motion, then science has little to say about that non-scientific idea.Todd Oakleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14309149952900395185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6821840758756075048.post-53200634912167147142008-04-21T17:32:00.000-07:002008-04-21T17:32:00.000-07:00NOMA is true only in principle, as long as we don'...NOMA is true only in principle, as long as we don't assume to know anything at all about the supernatural. However, as we all know, religious people claim to know all sorts of things about the supernatural magisteria, and the problem is that that knowledge clearly overlaps with the magisteria that science claims for itself. Belief in answers to prayer and miracles directly interferes with our natural world.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, and less to the point, ignoring the problem away on logical grounds doesn't affect all those people who actually claim that the science is wrong because scripture tells them so.Bjørn Østmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01559295818080378160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6821840758756075048.post-16500996356597065792008-03-06T21:24:00.000-08:002008-03-06T21:24:00.000-08:00Todd. I meant Todd. Can I blame the kids for dis...Todd. I meant Todd. Can I blame the kids for distracting me when I wrote that comment?<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.tuibguy.com" REL="nofollow">Tangled Up in Blue Guy</A>Mike Haubrich, FCDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07220070898785894481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6821840758756075048.post-18868651869612642742008-03-06T20:54:00.000-08:002008-03-06T20:54:00.000-08:00Kevin -I am flattered that you linked to my post o...Kevin -<BR/><BR/>I am flattered that you linked to my post on eye evolution!<BR/><BR/>Sometimes I worry when I write a post about a published paper that I may get things totally wrong while pretending that I understand, and your feedback lets me breathe a bit easier. It is especially gratifying in light of the context of this post.<BR/><BR/>MikeMike Haubrich, FCDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07220070898785894481noreply@blogger.com