Reasonable people doubt “science,” the way we doubt “used car dealers”

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 16, 2015

Media, News, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

A friend sends info re this National Geographic edition, reinforcing the essential message: Fund us, you twits We are science! For example:

“Those of us in the science-communication business are as tribal as anyone else, he told me. We believe in scientific ideas not because we have truly evaluated all the evidence but because we feel an affinity for the scientific community. When I mentioned to Kahan that I fully accept evolution, he said, “Believing in evolution is just a description about you. It’s not an account of how you reason.”

Look, anyone who “believes in” evolution is either a twit or a ripoff artist looking for funding from public service unions (or some similar group). Evolution isn’t something we should believe in any more than we should believe in the commutative law or Newton’ equations. Such concepts either explain things or they don’t.

They are not worshipped. They pay their way or are booted.

Comments

Its not doubting science as a methodology but instead doubting conclusions from human beings that say their conclusions are based on science. We doubt people, tailless primates, and not accurate employment of a methodology called science.Robert Byers_{March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PST}

If people 'believe in' science then they should also 'believe in' God since only God provides a coherent basis for 'doing science' and naturalism does not. (Boltzmann Brain, Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism, CS Lewis's The Argument From Reason, and The Argument From Consciousness, Non-Falsifiability of Darwinism and Non-Falsifiability of Multiverses (i.e. multiverses predict everything and therefore predict nothing), etc.. etc..)
BRUCE GORDON: Hawking's irrational arguments - October 2010 Excerpt: What is worse, multiplying without limit the opportunities for any event to happen in the context of a multiverse - where it is alleged that anything can spontaneously jump into existence without cause - produces a situation in which no absurdity is beyond the pale. For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the "Boltzmann Brain" problem: In the most "reasonable" models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/
In other words, not only is Atheistic Naturalism not science, it is in fact anti-science.
Is Metaphysical Naturalism Viable? - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzS_CQnmoLQ
In the preceding video Dr Craig states, epistemological naturalism does not imply metaphysical naturalism.,, In fact a Epistemological Naturalist can and should be a Theist, according to Dr. Craig, because Metaphysical Naturalism is reducto ad absurdum on (at least) these eight following points:
1.) Argument from intentionality 1. If naturalism is true, I cannot think about anything. 2. I am thinking about naturalism. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 2.) The argument from meaning 1. If naturalism is true, no sentence has any meaning. 2. Premise (1) has meaning. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 3.) The argument from truth 1. If naturalism is true, there are no true sentences. 2. Premise (1) is true. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 4.) The argument from moral blame and praise 1. If naturalism is true, I am not morally praiseworthy or blameworthy for any of my actions. 2. I am morally praiseworthy or blameworthy for some of my actions. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 5.) Argument from freedom 1. If naturalism is true, I do not do anything freely. 2. I am free to agree or disagree with premise (1). 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 6.) The argument from purpose 1. If naturalism is true, I do not plan to do anything. 2. I (Dr. Craig) planned to come to tonight's debate. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 7.) The argument from enduring 1. If naturalism is true, I do not endure for two moments of time. 2. I have been sitting here for more than a minute. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 8.) The argument from personal existence 1. If naturalism is true, I do not exist. 2. I do exist! 3. Therefore naturalism is not true.
Further notes:
The Atheist’s Guide to Intellectual Suicide – James N. Anderson PhD. - video https://vimeo.com/75897668 "Hawking’s entire argument is built upon theism. He is, as Cornelius Van Til put it, like the child who must climb up onto his father’s lap into order to slap his face. Take that part about the “human mind” for example. Under atheism there is no such thing as a mind. There is no such thing as understanding and no such thing as truth. All Hawking is left with is a box, called a skull, which contains a bunch of molecules. Hawking needs God In order to deny Him." - Cornelius Hunter “of all the things I’ve lost, I think I miss my mind the most” - Photo – http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-H-kjiGN_9Fw/URkPboX5l2I/AAAAAAAAATw/yN18NZgMJ-4/s1600/rob4.jpg
bornagain77_{March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PST}

Seversky
Most of us are not in any position to test every scientific claim personally. We believe in the theory of evolution because we trust people who have spent their professional lives studying it that there is good evidence to support it, better than for any other explanation. They also publish that evidence openly so that anyone can see it if they’ve a mind.
That's an honest response. We could trust the scientists supporting evolutionary theory, or not trust them. Scientists can be motivated by various biases. The integrity of the evolutionary spokespersons can come into question also. There are well-educated academics and scientists who question, or outright reject evolutionary theory. I'd think we could find good reasons to trust them or not also.
Reasonable people also doubt the theory of evolution in many cases because the religion they believe in – and which is very dear to them – says different, at least according to some. That belief overrides all others.
Many people accept evolutionary theory, without even knowing what it is or what the evidence is - merely because evolution supports their own atheistic bias. An atheistic bias closes people off from a deeper and wider understanding of reality that transcends what science can offer.Silver Asiatic_{March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PST}

Reasonable people doubt spirits and ghost stories, not science.Me_Think_{March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PST}

I don't doubt organisms change. What I doubt is that humans are the end result of eons of randomly-mutating organisms, starting with something that might have looked like a bacterium.vh_{March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PST}

Maybe—except that evolution actually happened. Biology is incomprehensible without it. There aren’t really two sides to all these issues.
There's no debate. Blind, unintelligent, unguided evolution actually happened. Bacteria evolved to become human beings. There are no weaknesses in evolutionary theory - National Geographic said so.Silver Asiatic_{March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PST}

Every thing we know is a belief of one sort or another. We believe the Sun will rise in the East tomorrow morning because that's what it's always done. We don't step off the top off tall buildings without any other means of support because we believe we'll fall to the ground and be killed. Reasonable people stop believing in vaccines and we start seeing a resurgence of measles or polio. Most of us are not in any position to test every scientific claim personally. We believe in the theory of evolution because we trust people who have spent their professional lives studying it that there is good evidence to support it, better than for any other explanation. They also publish that evidence openly so that anyone can see it if they've a mind. Reasonable people also doubt the theory of evolution in many cases because the religion they believe in - and which is very dear to them - says different, at least according to some. That belief overrides all others.Seversky_{March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PST}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply