- Mar 8, 2006
- Reaction score
- Portland, Oregon
Do you still assume that disagreement with or criticism of your logic is a personal attack on you? I asked questions solely of things you said, and this in an attempt to understand the underlying premises of your logic. I based my statements on nothing but your responses to my questions. If my responses are non sequiturs then tell me how they are non sequiturs. You may think your words clear, but are you sure they accurately communicate what's really on your mind?Gebre Menfes Kidus said:I won't discuss this further with you unless you stop making non sequiturs in regards to my statements. My statements are clear, and you need to interpret them at face value.PeterTheAleut said:As regards Intelligent Design, why should that be allowed into the debate? I'm familiar with Michael Behe, having read his book, Darwin's Black Box, and heard him speak live. I'm still not convinced that Intelligent Design should be accepted as science, though. It might make for excellent philosophy, but I don't see how it can be truly recognized as consistent with the scientific method and therefore worthy of being called science.Gebre Menfes Kidus said:My repsonses are as follows in red:
As I stated above, legitimate science is based on the rigid criteria of the scientific method.PeterTheAleut said:But what is legitimate science, and why is it legitimate?Gebre Menfes Kidus said:I didn't and don't define science as "secular." I am careful to make a distinction between legitimate science and secular science.PeterTheAleut said:But why must we define science as something secular, oppose it to the "sacred" content of the Church, and thereby justify our efforts to dismiss the findings of scientific observation altogether?Gebre Menfes Kidus said:The issue of macro evolution is one of the many reasons why I am so grateful to belong to the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. Our Fathers have taught that according to Scriptural chronology (derived most notably from the Book of Jubilees, which is part of our canon) the earth is only about 7,000 years old. This time frame precludes any possibility for the process of macro evolution. As an Ethiopian Orthodox Christian, I embrace the apostolic Faith and Teaching of my Church; and therefore I don't have to worry about being deceived by the vagaries and vicissitudes of secular science.
Legitimate science is that which adheres to the rigid criteria of the scientific method. If you want to know what the criteria of this method are, then I refer you to Karl Hempel's book, The Philosophy of Natural Science.
Do you see "secular" science arrogating to itself sole authority to discover truth about the natural world? Even if it is, how are our "secular" scientists proclaiming themselves "experts" that we ignorant sheep must follow blindly?Gebre Menfes Kidus said:Secular science is capable of ascertaining truth about the laws and principles of creation; but when it arrogates to itself the sole authority to interpret and discover truth about the natural world, then it operates essentially like the leaders of a cult (i.e. the secular scientists are the "experts," and the rest of us ignorant sheep must blindly agree with whatever they tell us).
By rejecting prima facie the possibility for the existence of God. By refusing to allow Intelligent Design into the debate. By posturing themselves as authorities on "facts" while relegating religion to the realm of "values."
So science must be based on a [Christian] theistic presupposition to be legitimate? What is this "atheistic presupposition" you see as the foundation of what you call [illegitimate] "secular science"?Gebre Menfes Kidus said:There is no contradiction between legitimate science and Christian Truth; there is often contradiction between pseudo-science and Christian truth. I define "pseudo-science" as that which operates from an atheistic presuppostion.
This argument is in fact just a rephrasing of the very statement I asked you to explain. It therefore does not answer my question.Gebre Menfes Kidus said:By posturing themselves as authorities on "facts" while relegating religion to the realm of "values."
This doesn't answer the question immediately preceding, Gebre. What is the "atheistic presupposition" you see as the foundation of illegitimate pseudo-science?PeterTheAleut said:So science must be based on a [Christian] theistic presupposition to be legitimate? What is this "atheistic presupposition" you see as the foundation of what you call [illegitimate] "secular science"?Gebre Menfes Kidus said:There is no contradiction between legitimate science and Christian Truth; there is often contradiction between pseudo-science and Christian truth. I define "pseudo-science" as that which operates from an atheistic presuppostion.
As I stated above, legitimate science is based on the rigid criteria of the scientific method.
If this "atheistic presupposition" (whatever it is) is indeed the definition of pseudo-science, then it follows logically that the opposite, true science, is defined by a foundation that is not atheistic--that is to say, theistic. I'm not aware that Carl Hempel's naturalistic philosophy and definition of the scientific method would permit such a theistic foundation. How, then, can you say legitimate science is defined only by strict adherence to the scientific method defined by Hempel, if it must also have a theistic foundation? It seems contradictory to me to assert (implicitly) that science must have a theistic foundation to be legit, even though Hempel's scientific method, which you assert to be the definition of legit science, doesn't make allowance for the existence of the metaphysical (i.e., God).
How does that follow from anything you just posted?Gebre Menfes Kidus said:Do some more research on the concensus of the scientific community regarding atheistic evolution, and then get back to me.
FWIW, I think scrutiny of the foundational premises of your reasoning, even if you would rather discuss just the conclusions themselves, is perfectly on topic and appropriate to any discussion of your point of view.