To: neolib who wrote (183768 ) 3/20/2006 8:31:19 PM From: Brumar89 Read Replies (1) | Respond to How come its only legitimate for atheists to spread their faith via hijacking science? I don't have to post any "wedge document" conspiracies to prove that this is commonly happens - the top minds in the field of evolution - Dawkins, Provine, Dennett, etc are militant atheists extremely hostile to religion of any kind. And they make no bones about it.Science is about understanding the universe through observable and repeatable means. This developed largely in the Renaissance . You might consider what we had prior to that. And no, science is not about Truth. Its about Accuracy. The former is the domain of religion and philosophy in general (and is also pretty useless) while the latter is the domain of science (and is spectacularly useful). Science is materialism, it can't be neutral on the subject. If you could provide even a single example of one successful scientific theory not based on materialism, I'd love to hear about it. Science is agnostic on nonmaterialistic domains. They are both in definition and practice outside its domain. If you could provide even a single example of one successful scientific theory not based on materialism, I'd love to hear about it. Newton was not a materialist so I'd consider his laws as being not based on philosophical materialism. Yes, his laws were about the material world, but he didn't have to assume the physical world is all there was in order to practice science.Evolution, especially common descent is easily disprovable, and might well be shown so. Find any living organism on this earth which does not share the same molecular machinery. Find anatomically modern species fossils in Cambrian deposits. dinofish.com The list of things that could turn evolutionary theory upside down are endless. The reason evolution is such a well established theory is that it is supported by such an overwhelming amount of data. It is literally a statistical theory. Each piece of data, while not overly great in itself contributes to a distribution which cannot be ignored. I would have thought so till I did some reading in the field. It just isn't true. Those attacking evolution typically look for anomalies under the mistaken opinion that an anomaly somewhere on the tail of the distribution can somehow overturn the mean or variance, which are established by millions of over data points. If you know anything about statistics, you'll understand how nutty that approach is. Certain parts of the puzzle, like the geologic column, have contributed so much data in terms of the progression of fossils with known geologic strata, that disproving this in general, i.e. if you could show that geologic strata where not correlated with fossil type, you would in one fell swoop destroy a great swath of evolutionary data. He is clearly straying into philosophy which is not science. he problem with ID is that it does not stop and theistic evolution. I think you probably mean "does not stop with theistic evolution". It wants to get rid of evolution entirely. Unfortunately, much of modern medicine as well as environmental ecology, etc depends on understanding evolution. So, yes, the future health and welfare of our nations depends on kicking their damn butts.
