Today's Debate inside the Scientific Community
Darwinist: I.D. isn’t science. And if it’s not science, it isn’t true.
I.D. Proponent: Isn’t science the quest for truth about life and the universe?
Darwinist: Only if that quest is done within a materialist framework.
I.D. Proponent: But what if that quests needs to go OUTSIDE the materialist framework?
Darwinist: Then it’s not science. And thus, it's not true.
Let’s take this debate into the private sector…
Employee: Boss, I have a great idea. Instead of using typewriters, why don’t we start using computers? Computers are a lot faster and better.In the private sector, that boss would never survive. How much longer can Darwinism survive?
Boss: Do computers use a mechanical process?
Employee: Well, yes – but what makes them better is their use of information technology.
Boss: We can’t use information technology.
Employee: Why not?
Boss: Because it’s outside the realm of mechanics. We decided a long time ago that work – by definition – can only be a mechanical process. Information theory (or any form of “mind”) must be ruled out.
Employee: Um, but computers are a lot better than typewriters! With computers, we can do twice as much work in half the time!
Boss: Sorry, get back to your typewriter.
**UPDATE, DEC. 3, 2009**
This entry has been cross-posted by Denyse O'Leary with commentary here and here.
3 comments:
You're quite mistaken by what 'Darwinism' is, if this post was meant to be serious. Darwin thought critically about what he saw and devised theories based on those observations. Simply, Darwinism is an extension of critical thought based on observations. Unless society loses the ability to think, this type of rational thinking will never go away. On the plus side, if this ever happens, society won't end - it will just revert to life during the Roman Catholic dark ages.
Dan: I don't share your assumption that a belief in Darwinism is evidence of rational thinking.
In fact, while it's certainly possible to be a "rational Darwinist" (as you seem to be) I find that most Darwinists are more interested in protecting their ideology than in objectively pursuing the facts.
Sadly, most Darwinists are quite eager to ignore or suppress evidence that is contradictory to their theory.
While it's certainly human nature to dislike things that go against our ideals, I don't think it's unfair of me and others to hold the Scientific Establishment - which claims to be "objective" and "unbiased" - to be held to a higher standard. Therefore, their behavior toward Intelligent Design advocates(as revealed in the movie "Expelled") is intolerable.
If people were exposed to the truth about Darwinism, I doubt we'd descend into a new Dark Ages, as you claim. Rather, I think we'd help facilitate a moral and intellectual renaissance, given that the bulk of America's elites would no follow the lies of "Reductionism," and would instead once again have a healthy respect for faith (as our Founding Fathers, for instance, did).
I wrote a little more about this topic in my essay, "Will Western Civilization End in Your Lifetime? Yes, Probably."
http://mustardseednovel.blogspot.com/2009/09/will-western-civilization-end-in-your.html
JCS: Intelligent Design DOES use the Scientific Method.
I.D. proponents make observations about the natural world and draw conclusions based on those observations. As far as I know, that is the way science has been done since the Anicent Greeks.
If there's room enough in science for theories that global warming will reduce the number of circumcisions, I think there's also room for Intelligent Design.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/02/circumcision-rates-africa-decline-because-global-warming#comments
I wish Darwinists would debate the facts, rather than debate what IS and ISN'T Science, according to the Scientific Elites...
http://mustardseednovel.blogspot.com/2009/11/principle-of-charitable-reasing.html
Post a Comment