Vanderzyden

Hello all,

I've been visiting with some folks over in the "Existence of God" forum. Something hit me in the middle of one discussion, and I want to share it with you.

So, let me make it clear to everyone:

Certainly I will admit that my beliefs are possibly wrong. I'm willing to explore the probability of their truth or falsehood.

I am unshamed in making this admission. I MAY BE WRONG in believing the following:

1. God exists and cares about Man.

2. The Bible is a (i) collection of authentic, reliable historical records, and (ii) accurately describes the "human condition".

3. Jesus of Nazareth is a man to be taken very seriously.

4. There is excellent, mediocre, and poor scientific endeavor, much of which is heavily dependent upon the ontology of the scientist doing the work.

5. Darwinian macroevolution remains unfounded.

6. Naturalistic dogmatism, like much other religious dogmatism, is responsible for the systematic censoring of highly respectable scientific viewpoints.

I am confident in my beliefs, but I may be wrong. What I want to discover is if they are justifiable. We shall see.


Vanderzyden

[ August 31, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

tgamble

140 years of scientific study and thousands of scientists say you're wrong there.

Such as what? The rubbish published by AIG and ICR? The DI nonsense of Wells, Johnson and Behe? Kent Hovind? What makes them "highly respectable"?

"Naturalistic dogmatism" as you call it is not religion.

GeoTheo

You also may want to consider that 1,2 and 3 have nothing to do with 4,5 and 6.
That's my position. So I hope you are not placing some kind of contingency there that does not exist.

Vanderzyden

Indeed, I am not.

Albion

Yes, there's all sorts of quality of scientific work being done. Exactly what the quality of the work has to do with the ontology of the scientist is another matter, though. Perhaps you could amplify, lest people start jumping to wrong conclusions.

Liquidrage

5. Darwinian macroevolution remains unfounded.

I would only like to discuss this one for the time being.
I am not a scientist of any kind since I do not consider computer programming a science at the level I practice.

Your point hinges on a young Earth.
If you accept microevolution and an old Earth, then you must supply the mechanism that prevents microevolution from becomming macroevolution or your arguement fails to address the empherical evidence of observed changes from microevolution coupled with the accepted duration of which microevolution has been occuring.

ps418

No shit. . . This announcement warrants a thread somehow?

scigirl

Well that's good to hear.

I'm curious. What sorts of evidences would convince you, if you happened upon it, that your beliefs are wrong? In other words, how would you go about testing, or falsifying, your religious beliefs?

scigirl

Kevin Dorner

An honest and brave admission, Vanderzyden.

I know I am wrong about a great many things, and there is much I will never know, and never fully understand even when I do. Every time I learn anything, it was something that I must have been wrong about, by having no answer. One is only a student by admitting one knows less than the teacher, and that the wrong answer is worse than none at all, because it stops the search for the correct one.

Keep learning, as will I.

Vanderzyden

Kevin,

Thanks for the positive comment. How would you answer these questions:

1. Can a student be too careful in deciding what methodologies are suitable to the pursuit of truth? Where will she find guidance on such matters?

2. What is the most important quality a student should require in a teacher or mentor?

Vanderzyden