[MD] Metaphysics

[markhsmit]

Hi Mary,
If I may jump in.  If creationism was not developed using the scientific
method does that make it wrong?  I am just trying to understand what
you use as your yardstick for your beliefs.  Is science the ultimate
measure of things.  If science cannot measure it (like love) does it
not exist?
Thanks,
Mark

On Jan 16, 2010, at 11:25:34 AM, Mary <marysonthego at gmail.com> wrote:
From:   Mary <marysonthego at gmail.com>
Subject:    Re: [MD] Metaphysics
Date:   January 16, 2010 11:25:34 AM PST
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Hello Platt and Ham,

Creationism, as a theory, was not developed using the scientific method.
Attempts to back-fit it into the large body of existing scientific
observation have been unsuccessful to date. Until such time as it is
substantiated by observation, I must respectfully discount it as a valid
scientific theory. Proponents seem to demonstrate a willful disregard for
the scientific method, while yet insisting on a fair hearing. The
scientific community has obliged, and, unfortunately for its proponents, has
been unable to substantiate its claims. To persist in the face of
overwhelming evidence to the contrary, indicates a lack of respect for the
scientific method. To reject the results of repeated scientific scrutiny
simply because one does not like the outcome is your prerogative, but does
not make the theory valid from a scientific point of view. 

Creationism is something entirely different from science, and I would
appreciate it if it were removed from my son's 9th grade biology textbook.
If the State of Texas believes he requires instruction in Creationism in
order to achieve a well-rounded education, he can take a comparative
religions class. Science class should be reserved for the study of theories
which are supported by the scientific method. In fact, teaching the
scientific method is one of the major aims of any class in the basic
sciences. By affording Creationism a place in Biology textbooks, the
implicit message is that the scientific method is only useful if it supports
your belief system. This is a truly dangerous idea that, if left unchecked,
will subvert a generation of scientists. The whole point of the scientific
method is to remove as much bias as possible from experimentation and
observational results. 

In summary, in case anyone fails to get the point, Creationism is a
Christian fundamentalist religious theory, which, I must respectfully point
out, does not enjoy complete agreement even within the Christian religious
community itself. Evolution, on the other hand, is a scientific theory
which has gained wide acceptance by virtue of observation within the
scientific community.

Please do not confuse the two. 

Mary

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of
plattholden at gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 4:58 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Metaphysics

On 14 Jan 2010 at 16:59, Krimel wrote:

> Is this a joke? Creationism (I notice you use the honest term, at least,
> rather than disingenuous ID) has a stranglehold on biology? I think what
> pisses Dawkins off is the persistence of this stupid idea. Creationism is
> rooted in dogma not logic or science or anything else. If ever there was
an
> example of people being held in the thrall of an idea for social rather
than
> intellectual reasons this is it.

Dawkins and his fans are as rooted in dogma as were the priests of the 
Inquisition.

Platt 
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/

Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/