Kevin Dorner

If they have degrees in any of the sciences, and still cling to YEC, then either they will cling to it no matter what they know in biology, or there is a failure to teach the methods of science... really, what science is, along with the field itself, and going by what science educators are saying, I would go with the latter.

I don't have to be a biologist, or a geologist, or a professional of any sort of science to see that YEC, OEC, ID, whatever you want to call it is not science, and can never be, for the simple reason that it invokes the supernatural or unknowable agents. Thus, by this, it falls outside the realm of making predictions, being refutable, and being a naturalistic explanation.

In every case, when scientists of the past have allowed "mystical" or supernatural phenomena to creep in, they have been wrong, and have had to remove these ideas due to later discovery. An example is the "crystal spheres" of planetary orbits. As well as requiring epicycles for the appearance of non-circular orbits, all sorts of numerological mysticism was applied to the number of spheres, their sizes, etc. This constrained the number of planets so impeded the search for new ones. Or, Vitalism, the notion that there was some mystery force in living things that was not present in non-living ones, so it was considered impossible to synthesize organic chemicals. The "mystery force" was considered by many to be the "breath of life" breathed into living things by god during creation. Vitalism was refuted when urea was synthesized in 1828 (thanks, theyeti.) (Isn't it ironic that Michael Behe, Mr. Irreducible Complexity himself, is a biochemist, and all of biochemistry was once considered an irreducible complexity, so his profession wouldn't exist if his ideas were accepted?)

Science is a product of the Ionian Greeks, because, and ONLY because they were the first group in recorded history to refuse to explain the world with supernatural things: gods, demons, etc. So, this is the first, most important, and most basic requirement of all science, and anything that does not abide by this cannot be scientific, regardless of its misuse of the word. Simple, no?

If you think it's hard to practice good science now with theists saying this and that about the origin of life, imagine how biologists must have felt before the publication of the Origin Of Species. Even Dawkins admits it would have been difficult to be an atheist before then. But scientists stuck to their guns, and refused to give in to mystical explanations for unknown phenomena, knowing that over time and with effort, natural explanations would be found. They were correct in every case.

(edit: year fix)

[ February 07, 2002: Message edited by: Kevin Dorner ]</p>

theyeti

1828 by Friedrick Wohler.

"I must tell you that I can prepare urea without requiring a kidney or an animal, either man or dog."

theyeti

Kevin Dorner

Thanks. I'm not good with years, thus the (?) after it. I could have been non-lazy and done a search of course.

Oolon Colluphid

I agree entirely Kevin. Can't resist picking a very minor nit though...

Actually, what he said was:

Cheers, Oolon

theyeti

Since this part of BWM is the creationists' favorite tool for "proving" that Darwinism causes atheism, I thought I'd clear one thing up. Unfortunately, I don't have the book with me right now, but if you read the full context, you can see what he's really getting at. What he's talking about is a dinner with a philosopher friend of his who is an atheist. After Dawkins made the claim that atheism is hard to justify before 1859, the philosopher rejects that notion by bringing up Hume and noting that a specific explanation for living diversity is not necessary for atheism. What Dawkins is pointing out in the above quote is that while Darwin may not be necessary for atheism, it is necessary for intellectual fulfillment. Creationists usually quote Dawkins' initial premise (that Darwinism is necessary for atheism) but never point out that it's quickly rejected.

theyeti

jess

he got a comp science PhD in 1969? Considering the paucity of schools on the East Coast offering such an animal, he should not be too hard to track down. In addition, the fact that he was an associate professor at the University of California in 1980 should make us pretty sure who he was...

If anyone wanted to waste the time...

I ate Pascal's Wafer

Has anyone else thought about entering in a negative number for the donation thing and then checking to see if it deposited money to your credit card? I don't have one, so I can't do this, but it's a thought. It'd be a great way to show them how much we enjoyed the article!!! I guess it'd run the risk of the form not recognizing the minus sign and then actually donating money to them, so maybe that's not the best idea. It's fun to consider, though.

Nick