The following is Uncommon Descent's purpose statement on their blog.
It raises a few questions which I am daring to ask them. I doubt there
will ever be answers to these questions, but if there are any ID
Proponents who wish to provide answers, I'll gladly discuss them with
you. When providing answers, I would appreciate specific links to
specific sources which back up what you're claiming, especially where
you think it has the best impact.
Here goes:
"Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and
cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has
become corrupted."
Okay, so answer me this:
(1) What content of science has been corrupted by "materialistic
ideology"?
(2) When did this corruption start?
(3) What parts of which sciences have, traditionally used non-
materialistic elements? (remember, "traditionally" means that it was
done that way for generations)
(4) Can you give specific examples of a science discepline that
successfully used non-materialistic elements in the past, which was
"subverted", becoming less successful, and provide a historical
context under which it happened, as well as list the actual negative
effects of the corruption?
"The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used
illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this
worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to
incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and
cosmological origins."
(1) Saying that the conclusions are incorrect and unsupported suggests
that you know what the correct conclusions are, and you have plenty of
support for them. PLease explain.
(2) PLease give examples of scientific research that has been
undermined by materialistic worldview, and what specific scientific
progress has been hampered, and how it was hampered. Please give
specific examples.
"At the same time, intelligent design (ID) offers a promising
scientific alternative to materialistic theories of biological and
cosmological evolution -- an alternative that is finding increasing
theoretical and empirical support. Hence, ID needs to be vigorously
developed as a scientific, intellectual, and cultural project."
(1) Can you give examples of the progress of the support of ID?
Specifically, which scientific advancements has science benefitted
from that are the result of ID research?
(2) Please list some specific research that ID proponents have done
which have resulted in positive empirical support for ID.
On Jul 21, 3:45 pm, Psycho Dave <Priscus.Fo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here goes:
> "Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and
> cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has
> become corrupted."
> Okay, so answer me this:
> (1) What content of science has been corrupted by "materialistic
> ideology"?
Science has provided great advances in many fields and endeavours of
inquiry. The progress in so many areas, from both Christian and non-
Christian scientists alike, has been a wonderful thing. But, as in
other endeavours, its success draws groups of people who wish to
illegitimately capitalize on that fame and recognition. For example,
consider some less than respectable atheists. By simply associating
the marketing buzzword "science" with their epistemological positions,
they try to falsely co-opt the credibility of science into their very
own positions.
But the truth is, as an epistemological tool, science has quite
noteworthy and specific limitations (such as ones I've examined
frequently on this forum). These limitations are so debilitating and
embarrassing, that some quick-fix epistemological axioms are needed to
shore up the faulty "science" epistemology they promulgate. An
extremely easy way to try to shore the position up is to simply assume
or posit that science in fact is adequate; this tack can be tried by
assuming a "materialistic" ideology:
"The philosophy of materialism holds that the only thing that can be
truly proven to exist is matter, and is considered a form of
physicalism. Fundamentally, all things are composed of material and
all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material
interactions; therefore, matter is the only substance. As a theory,
materialism belongs to the class of monist ontology. As such, it is
different from ontological theories based on dualism or pluralism. For
singular explanations of the phenomenal reality, materialism would be
in contrast to idealism."[1]
By melding materialism with existential and humanistic premises, one
can articulate an epistemological view similar to the peripatetic
axiom:
"Nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses"[2]
By prescribing this type of axiom onto such an existential and
materialistic world-view, it makes it much harder to note the
limitations of science, and makes it seem much more plausible that
marketing driven atheistic bombasts will in fact be given the same
credibility that is associated with proper science (that is done in
its proper venue).
So, to objections from Christians that such an approach is invalid,
its very easy to fall back on the peripatetic axiom:
"Prove it"
Where the (usually) unspoken premise is: "Prove it peripatetic ally"
But the caveat and catch with such a "prove it" statement is that it
is easy and convenient for the atheist to simply choose the most
ineffective epistemology of all, existentialism, and then ride its
claims of "no evidence" and "no proof" into the ground. Of course,
since the existential epistemology cannot establish the objective
truth of *any* claims, the non-believer need not worry that "proof"
will magically surface. "proof" is merely a convenient personal and
subjective goal post that can always be moved "further out". In this
manner, atheists frequently make claims that associate "science" with
a rejection of God that, on the surface, may seem difficult to
adequately answer.
But the problem with the epistemology articulated by the peripatetic
axiom is that the peripatetic axiom itself fails its own test! The
peripatetic axiom is an idea that cannot be derived simply from an
appeal to sensory perception.
And for materialism itself, its much the same. Materialism asserts a
"monist ontology"[1] that denies the existence of ideas, metaphysics
and concepts. But the very idea that "the only thing that can be
truly proven to exist is matter" is itself an idea or concept, and
provides its own counter example!
Well you expect to invade somebody mind for free moron. And you want
links too
what else do you want? moron, you think people waste there time for
your stupid questions. Maybe you have all the time in the world
seating in front of a screen all day and night why don't you ask your
friend TG she have all day doing nothing, but steering in to a screen
enjoy..
On Jul 21, 8:45 pm, Psycho Dave <Priscus.Fo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The following is Uncommon Descent's purpose statement on their blog.
> It raises a few questions which I am daring to ask them. I doubt there
> will ever be answers to these questions, but if there are any ID
> Proponents who wish to provide answers, I'll gladly discuss them with
> you. When providing answers, I would appreciate specific links to
> specific sources which back up what you're claiming, especially where
> you think it has the best impact.
> Here goes:
> "Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and
> cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has
> become corrupted."
> Okay, so answer me this:
> (1) What content of science has been corrupted by "materialistic
> ideology"?
> (2) When did this corruption start?
> (3) What parts of which sciences have, traditionally used non-
> materialistic elements? (remember, "traditionally" means that it was
> done that way for generations)
> (4) Can you give specific examples of a science discepline that
> successfully used non-materialistic elements in the past, which was
> "subverted", becoming less successful, and provide a historical
> context under which it happened, as well as list the actual negative
> effects of the corruption?
> "The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used
> illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this
> worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to
> incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and
> cosmological origins."
> (1) Saying that the conclusions are incorrect and unsupported suggests
> that you know what the correct conclusions are, and you have plenty of
> support for them. PLease explain.
> (2) PLease give examples of scientific research that has been
> undermined by materialistic worldview, and what specific scientific
> progress has been hampered, and how it was hampered. Please give
> specific examples.
> "At the same time, intelligent design (ID) offers a promising
> scientific alternative to materialistic theories of biological and
> cosmological evolution -- an alternative that is finding increasing
> theoretical and empirical support. Hence, ID needs to be vigorously
> developed as a scientific, intellectual, and cultural project."
> (1) Can you give examples of the progress of the support of ID?
> Specifically, which scientific advancements has science benefitted
> from that are the result of ID research?
> (2) Please list some specific research that ID proponents have done
> which have resulted in positive empirical support for ID.
> Well you expect to invade somebody mind for free moron. And you want
> links too
> what else do you want? moron, you think people waste there time for
> your stupid questions. Maybe you have all the time in the world
> seating in front of a screen all day and night why don't you ask your
> friend TG she have all day doing nothing, but steering in to a screen
> enjoy..
> On Jul 21, 8:45 pm, Psycho Dave <Priscus.Fo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The following is Uncommon Descent's purpose statement on their blog.
> > It raises a few questions which I am daring to ask them. I doubt there
> > will ever be answers to these questions, but if there are any ID
> > Proponents who wish to provide answers, I'll gladly discuss them with
> > you. When providing answers, I would appreciate specific links to
> > specific sources which back up what you're claiming, especially where
> > you think it has the best impact.
> > Here goes:
> > "Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and
> > cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has
> > become corrupted."
> > Okay, so answer me this:
> > (1) What content of science has been corrupted by "materialistic
> > ideology"?
> > (2) When did this corruption start?
> > (3) What parts of which sciences have, traditionally used non-
> > materialistic elements? (remember, "traditionally" means that it was
> > done that way for generations)
> > (4) Can you give specific examples of a science discepline that
> > successfully used non-materialistic elements in the past, which was
> > "subverted", becoming less successful, and provide a historical
> > context under which it happened, as well as list the actual negative
> > effects of the corruption?
> > "The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used
> > illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this
> > worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to
> > incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and
> > cosmological origins."
> > (1) Saying that the conclusions are incorrect and unsupported suggests
> > that you know what the correct conclusions are, and you have plenty of
> > support for them. PLease explain.
> > (2) PLease give examples of scientific research that has been
> > undermined by materialistic worldview, and what specific scientific
> > progress has been hampered, and how it was hampered. Please give
> > specific examples.
> > "At the same time, intelligent design (ID) offers a promising
> > scientific alternative to materialistic theories of biological and
> > cosmological evolution -- an alternative that is finding increasing
> > theoretical and empirical support. Hence, ID needs to be vigorously
> > developed as a scientific, intellectual, and cultural project."
> > (1) Can you give examples of the progress of the support of ID?
> > Specifically, which scientific advancements has science benefitted
> > from that are the result of ID research?
> > (2) Please list some specific research that ID proponents have done
> > which have resulted in positive empirical support for ID.
>But, as in
>other endeavours, its success draws groups of people who wish to
>illegitimately capitalize on that fame and recognition. For example,
>consider some less than respectable atheists...
I'd love to consider them. Names, please.
>But the truth is, as an epistemological tool, science has quite
>noteworthy and specific limitations (such as ones I've examined
>frequently on this forum)
I'm sorry about this Brock, but the depths of my stupidity know no
bounds, so, couldja mebbe point out those debilitating shortcomings
you've destroyed here in these forums? I really wouldn't mind being
shown up. Really.
On Jul 21, 2:39 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 21, 3:45 pm, Psycho Dave <Priscus.Fo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Here goes:
> > "Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and
> > cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has
> > become corrupted."
> > Okay, so answer me this:
> > (1) What content of science has been corrupted by "materialistic
> > ideology"?
> Science has provided great advances in many fields and endeavours of
> inquiry. The progress in so many areas, from both Christian and non-
> Christian scientists alike, has been a wonderful thing. But, as in
> other endeavours, its success draws groups of people who wish to
> illegitimately capitalize on that fame and recognition. For example,
> consider some less than respectable atheists. By simply associating
> the marketing buzzword "science" with their epistemological positions,
> they try to falsely co-opt the credibility of science into their very
> own positions.
> But the truth is, as an epistemological tool, science has quite
> noteworthy and specific limitations (such as ones I've examined
> frequently on this forum). These limitations are so debilitating and
> embarrassing, that some quick-fix epistemological axioms are needed to
> shore up the faulty "science" epistemology they promulgate. An
> extremely easy way to try to shore the position up is to simply assume
> or posit that science in fact is adequate; this tack can be tried by
> assuming a "materialistic" ideology:
> "The philosophy of materialism holds that the only thing that can be
> truly proven to exist is matter, and is considered a form of
> physicalism. Fundamentally, all things are composed of material and
> all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material
> interactions; therefore, matter is the only substance. As a theory,
> materialism belongs to the class of monist ontology. As such, it is
> different from ontological theories based on dualism or pluralism. For
> singular explanations of the phenomenal reality, materialism would be
> in contrast to idealism."[1]
> By melding materialism with existential and humanistic premises, one
> can articulate an epistemological view similar to the peripatetic
> axiom:
> "Nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses"[2]
> By prescribing this type of axiom onto such an existential and
> materialistic world-view, it makes it much harder to note the
> limitations of science, and makes it seem much more plausible that
> marketing driven atheistic bombasts will in fact be given the same
> credibility that is associated with proper science (that is done in
> its proper venue).
> So, to objections from Christians that such an approach is invalid,
> its very easy to fall back on the peripatetic axiom:
> "Prove it"
> Where the (usually) unspoken premise is: "Prove it peripatetic ally"
> But the caveat and catch with such a "prove it" statement is that it
> is easy and convenient for the atheist to simply choose the most
> ineffective epistemology of all, existentialism, and then ride its
> claims of "no evidence" and "no proof" into the ground. Of course,
> since the existential epistemology cannot establish the objective
> truth of *any* claims, the non-believer need not worry that "proof"
> will magically surface. "proof" is merely a convenient personal and
> subjective goal post that can always be moved "further out". In this
> manner, atheists frequently make claims that associate "science" with
> a rejection of God that, on the surface, may seem difficult to
> adequately answer.
> But the problem with the epistemology articulated by the peripatetic
> axiom is that the peripatetic axiom itself fails its own test! The
> peripatetic axiom is an idea that cannot be derived simply from an
> appeal to sensory perception.
> And for materialism itself, its much the same. Materialism asserts a
> "monist ontology"[1] that denies the existence of ideas, metaphysics
> and concepts. But the very idea that "the only thing that can be
> truly proven to exist is matter" is itself an idea or concept, and
> provides its own counter example!
> Well you expect to invade somebody mind for free moron. And you want
> links too
> what else do you want? moron, you think people waste there time for
> your stupid questions. Maybe you have all the time in the world
> seating in front of a screen all day and night why don't you ask your
> friend TG she have all day doing nothing, but steering in to a screen
> enjoy..
> On Jul 21, 8:45 pm, Psycho Dave <Priscus.Fo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The following is Uncommon Descent's purpose statement on their blog.
> > It raises a few questions which I am daring to ask them. I doubt there
> > will ever be answers to these questions, but if there are any ID
> > Proponents who wish to provide answers, I'll gladly discuss them with
> > you. When providing answers, I would appreciate specific links to
> > specific sources which back up what you're claiming, especially where
> > you think it has the best impact.
> > Here goes:
> > "Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and
> > cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has
> > become corrupted."
> > Okay, so answer me this:
> > (1) What content of science has been corrupted by "materialistic
> > ideology"?
> > (2) When did this corruption start?
> > (3) What parts of which sciences have, traditionally used non-
> > materialistic elements? (remember, "traditionally" means that it was
> > done that way for generations)
> > (4) Can you give specific examples of a science discepline that
> > successfully used non-materialistic elements in the past, which was
> > "subverted", becoming less successful, and provide a historical
> > context under which it happened, as well as list the actual negative
> > effects of the corruption?
> > "The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used
> > illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this
> > worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to
> > incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and
> > cosmological origins."
> > (1) Saying that the conclusions are incorrect and unsupported suggests
> > that you know what the correct conclusions are, and you have plenty of
> > support for them. PLease explain.
> > (2) PLease give examples of scientific research that has been
> > undermined by materialistic worldview, and what specific scientific
> > progress has been hampered, and how it was hampered. Please give
> > specific examples.
> > "At the same time, intelligent design (ID) offers a promising
> > scientific alternative to materialistic theories of biological and
> > cosmological evolution -- an alternative that is finding increasing
> > theoretical and empirical support. Hence, ID needs to be vigorously
> > developed as a scientific, intellectual, and cultural project."
> > (1) Can you give examples of the progress of the support of ID?
> > Specifically, which scientific advancements has science benefitted
> > from that are the result of ID research?
> > (2) Please list some specific research that ID proponents have done
> > which have resulted in positive empirical support for ID.- Hide quoted text -
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 4:39 AM, trog69 <tom.tro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>But, as in >>other endeavours, its success draws groups of people who wish to >>illegitimately capitalize on that fame and recognition. For example, >>consider some less than respectable atheists...
> I'd love to consider them. Names, please.
One can even search this very forum for examples of this behaviour. :)
>>But the truth is, as an epistemological tool, science has quite >>noteworthy and specific limitations (such as ones I've examined >>frequently on this forum)
> I'm sorry about this Brock, but the depths of my stupidity know no > bounds, so, couldja mebbe point out those debilitating shortcomings > you've destroyed here in these forums?
I'm quite happy to share some examples where these points are illustrated:
Ahahaha!!! Man, you are one pompous motherfucker! When you're circular
logic is pointed out to you, you cut and paste more circular logic!
"Yeah, I win, 'cause no one answered my nonsense!"
On Jul 22, 8:04 am, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 4:39 AM, trog69 <tom.tro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>But, as in
> >>other endeavours, its success draws groups of people who wish to
> >>illegitimately capitalize on that fame and recognition. For example,
> >>consider some less than respectable atheists...
> > I'd love to consider them. Names, please.
> One can even search this very forum for examples of this behaviour. :)
> >>But the truth is, as an epistemological tool, science has quite
> >>noteworthy and specific limitations (such as ones I've examined
> >>frequently on this forum)
> > I'm sorry about this Brock, but the depths of my stupidity know no
> > bounds, so, couldja mebbe point out those debilitating shortcomings
> > you've destroyed here in these forums?
> I'm quite happy to share some examples where these points are illustrated:
