Only the post-modern religion is worthwhile. That means a religion without God.

Get it?

socratease

AJ,
I am able to accept the original, historical definition of fundamentalism, but the definition used these days in common parlance is usually used as an attempted slur. Zimmerman associates it with being ‘narrow’. This I don’t accept.

I agree that knowledge, even before any practical application, is a worthy end in itself. The reason I emphasised the practical in my post was in response to Davidf (18/2), who was challenging me regarding the practical side.

You say that you’re waiting for me to give you evidence of a young earth. You said this on the other thread, the one where we were discussing the rejection by Dawkins and other atheists of the proposal to publicly debate the issue.

So as I said to you, if you really want some information and interaction of opinion, then are you in agreement with me that the experienced campaigners (those who know more about it than you and I) from both the atheist and the creationist camps should debate it when they all come to Melbourne in March?

AJ,
You got through your last 350 words without calling me a scandalous evil doer. Then you compare me a little to yourself. Is this the new, warmer, more congenial AJ?

Actually, I’d like to think that in essence we are quite different.

I don’t find comfort in reminding myself of the number of scientists who don’t accept evolution. If numbers mattered to me, then I’d be an evolutionist. Rather, I am persuaded by the arguments creationists have put forward.

I do not resent science, and don’t ever remember doing so. I am concerned that philosophies of materialism may lead to an undermining of science’s foundations. Science took great leaps forward when people started to look for order within the physical world, believing that an orderly designer had imposed his order upon it.

In simpler terms, you could take a bucket of Lego and empty it on the ground, a million or a squillion times, and it will never assemble itself into a Lego house or car. If we continue with this materialist philosophy that says that the order we perceive came into the universe by its own natural and physical properties, then we may lose motivation for our own aspirations of purpose in construction or engineering. Why bother? Couldn’t we let everything go and run its own course, and things will be able to construct themselves?

Imagine how our progress would slow and eventually stop.

When you speak about those old cranks who started pushing their improvable ideas onto science, were you thinking of Isaac Newton? “The most beautiful system of the sun, planet and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and domination of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

Did Newton “stop learning” at this point? Was he someone who had given up (as Bushbasher suggests)?

Do you or did you really think that science is just a game? I had trouble interpreting what you were saying. I’ve always optimistically believed that science was a quest for truth.

"I do not resent science, and don’t ever remember doing so."

you do when you believe that it conflicts with your religiously inspired beliefs. you resent evolution with an irrational passion.

"Did Newton “stop learning” at this point? Was he someone who had given up (as Bushbasher suggests)?"

no he wasn't. because, unlike e.g. intelligent design twats, newton didn't invoke the supernatural as a faux-explanation for the natural, only for what lies behind the natural. newton's invocation of god was irrelevant to his science, except in as much as it led him to believe that the universe was governed by laws.

a better example is kepler. when kepler tried to read the mind of god, kepler created pseudoscientific nonsense. kepler's laws came not from believing in god, but from ignoring god.

Dear Dan,

Science is not a quest for truth. Science is an attempt to understand the relations of animate and inanimate matter. An explanation of the workings can always be replaced by a better explanation. Scientific 'laws' are subject to falsification. A counter example or a phenomenon which does not fit the law means that the law must be discarded or revised. Truth is not subject to falsification. If it were it would not be truth.

Evolution is simply fact as shown by the fossil record and experiments with fruit flies, bacteria and other creatures. The theory of evolution has been revised and will continue to be revised as we find out more about the relations of organisms.

Dan,

<<Zimmerman associates [fundamentalism] with being ‘narrow’. This I don’t accept.>>

You had still misrepresented what Zimmerman said by specifically claiming that he called others personally (rather than just their views) “narrow” and “fundamentalists”.

<<The reason I emphasised the practical in my post was in response to Davidf (18/2), who was challenging me regarding the practical side.>>

Okay, but then, when David gave examples, you did the classic Creationist trick of shifting the goal posts by going from evolution, to just macroevolution. The only difference being time, mind you.

<<...as I said to you, if you really want some information and interaction of opinion, then are you in agreement with me that the experienced campaigners (those who know more about it than you and I) from both the atheist and the creationist camps should debate it when they all come to Melbourne in March?>>

And I asked you to stop dodging and weaving.

Regardless of the topic of the thread, you spoke as though it was possible that the Earth is young, and as you yourself did on another thread with another poster (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3445#81855), I held you to account for it.

<<I am persuaded by the arguments creationists have put forward.>>

If you are so persuaded by their arguments, then why is it that you refuse to accept my challenge to test the accuracy of them on the other thread (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9980#162267) when you made a similar claim about the arguments at creation.com?

Could it be because every time you provided a link to a creation.com article, li’l ol’ amateur me has discredited it?

<<I am concerned that philosophies of materialism may lead to an undermining of science’s foundations.>>

No, you specifically said “invoke the supernatural”, and now you’re trying to backpedal.

So again, please explain what kind of evidence one would look for to invoke the supernatural without resorting the common logical fallacies.

<<Science took great leaps forward when people started to look for order within the physical world, believing that an orderly designer had imposed his order upon it.>>

Continued...