Then we get philosophers publishing supposed works of science. Look at the wretched butchering of actual paleontology done by the DI’s Stephen Meyer in Darwin’s Doubt.
1 Like
Well, then just say my interpretation of scripture says it, I believe it, and that settles it. Actually, that is pretty much what you have done. If science is of the Devil just ignore it and be happy.
1 Like
Pure science for millenia was about investigating God’s creation. But in the last 150 years people like you have hijacked it and made it …well, yes, as you say “of the Devil” because no longer is God anywhere allowed. You don’t own real science. What you did was alter what science is then try and foist it on the population. And unfortunately, you have done a good job of it. You and your funding $$
Just like medicine for millennia was about leeching out the bad blood and driving off the evil spirits.
Then those darn scientifically minded doctors hijacked it.
Thank goodness for this thing called progress.
The proper term is regression, back to the Garden of Eden where everything God said is questioned. The only real progress we are making in human terms is that are progressing towards judgment day when every single soul, even you, will stand before God and give account of his life.
Fine. Next time you go to the hospital for an infection forget that antibiotic nonsense. Just tell them to bleed you and burn some incense to drive out the foul airs. 
1 Like
For a long stretch prior to roughly 150 years ago, science was not exploring domains which presented difficulties which made any theologians uncomfortable. The church was fine with Bacon and Newton.
Eventually, the church came to terms with the heliocentric solar system of Copernicus and Galileo, but that was choppy going. Galileo, in his letter to the Duchess Christina, argued that the Bible was to instruct on spiritual matters, but was not intended as a guide to scientific inquiry. I would agree with him on both counts, so I do not believe people like me have hijacked science. Whatever else “real science” may be, it is not presuppositional apologetics.
I have had fellow parishioners honestly say to me that, quote, science is of the Devil. This is usually after some absurd scientific claim is refuted, and they fall back on “I’m just going to believe the Bible”, in the most literal way. So fine, go in peace. Just please spare me [ I’m not saying this is you ] that secular science is suppressing the truth that fire breathing winged juvenile form dragon kinds disembarked from Noah’s ark and St. George ran one through.
No. This is so not true. The glory of human accomplishment in what is called science is due to investigation and all that includes. Testing predictions , if mattering at all, I see as a minor detail in science. Science is A high standard of investigation which can demand confidence in its conclusions.
Thats why the philosophy of science matters alongside practical science. THIS in order to make sure practical science plays by the rules before it has the prestige of science.
Evolutionism does not play by the rules and philosophers of science should be pointing this out and anywhere the rules are broken. Science without philosophers of science is driving without street controls. Smash!
to accomplish one does not need a community however, on a curve, a community would bring more accomplishement. However the community would, on a curve, interfere with accomplishment.
Yes, I agree, that is the same point I am making about Weinberg-type claims about philosophy.
Edit: Specifically: having expertise in field X does not quality one to make claims in field Y and simultaneously disregard the knowledge and peer review process of field Y.
Just to be clear, I am not saying one cannot make claims about the intellectual value of field Y in general. But, to do so, one must have and be willing to defend a set of criteria for that evaluation.
So one can say that, eg, ID is not science if one also is careful to explain what constitutes science, why that is so, and how ID claims fail to meet those criteria for science.
If someone wants to say that philosophy should not be considered a domain of intellectual inquiry, then one needs to give principled reasons for such a claim. Just saying “I don’t see the value” or “it is not science” or "I don’t need philosophical knowledge to make philosophical claims " do not cut it for me.
1 Like
Sure, and I think it is also true that scientists publish a lot of work in science which is of mixed quality, as evaluated by other scientists!
I say good for those scientists who submit their work to the process of philosophical peer review and publication. I am instead questioning those scientists who make philosophical claims or who disparage philosophy in general without taking the time to engage with and understand contemporary, relevant philosophy, let alone actually try to publish their home-grown philosophy through the peer-review process.
Late Edit:
Here’s Weinberg and Coyne and other scientists conferencing with philosophers:
https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/naturalism2012/#
So I credit to them for doing that. I have watched many of the videos. They provide a good starting point to understanding some of the relevant philosophy.
Did you take a poll? Have you ever spent time in an evolutionary biology department? Stop making crap up.
My boss was actually bashing scientists who try to force fit things yesterday. I thought to myself, “boy, what would that PD guy think if he heard this. He thinks we are dogmatic and conversations like this don’t happen.”
5 Likes
I’m glad. It sounds like you took a general statement and interpreted it to mean I think all scientists are dishonest about everything all the time. That is certainly not what I think.
That is very true. 
However, peer review usually does a good job of weeding out the worst papers.
I would agree there are occasions where scientists are given more authority on topics of philosophy than their training merits. Personally, I enjoy the snarky and crumudgeony attitude of Weinberg and Coyne more for its entertainment value than its philosophical truth, but they often give the public an insight into how scientists view philosophy. Paraphrasing Weinberg’s pithy comments, scientists can at least point out bad philosophy when they come upon it.
1 Like
And that is a great tragedy. Mix in a lot of pseudoscience and misrespresentations and logic fallacies, and it is easy to taint a broad range of theology.
1 Like
Philosophers too can be scathing in their criticism: for example Ladyman and Ross start this book with a polemic belittling much current metaphysics as “neo-scholastic” and based on “macro-bangings”. They suggest instead a scientifically grounded metaphysics which engages with what modern physics, especially QFT, says about the world.
It is obvious then that your experience does not include knowing many scientists. You are basically saying that droves of high achieving people who are dedicated to their research careers, day in and day out, are not only the village idiots of society in that they have no clue what they are doing, but that they do not even have any interest in their own cluelessness as to what they are about.
Advances in cancer research are not made because “everyone else does”, but because research scientists know their stuff. The Higgs was not discovered because someone just accepted “whatever it is”. Just because you get your information from YEC sites means that everyone else is scientifically naive.
Of the practicing geologists and scientists who are Christian that I’ve known, none are YEC. That the earth is old is beyond obvious to those who are actual working scientists.
3 Likes
@PDPrice – Please deal with this in another way than by ignoring it (it wasn’t written by an unbelieving Jew, but by one of your brothers):
3 Likes
Ha, it’s the varves again. I’ve got a book nearby that deals with that, so I’ll be reading up before too long.
Neither funny nor clever.
2 Likes