https://sixdayscience.com/2015/05/11/my-testimony/
I know that Dan will see the source of this testimony and immediately discount that actual testimony because of where it's published, because we all know that it's rational to discount something because of where it's published.
Now, I know that Dan has prudly posted his CV elsewhere and that he's got quite an impressive CV to be proud of. But don't you think that someone with a background in astrophysics is better able to assess the evidence than Dan?
I know she's not in the majority, but she is a woman, so that's in her favor. The real question is what happens when people look at the evidence, not the narrative.
47 comments:
Wonderful testimony.
It’s shocking that someone from that background came to faith through their study of science.
Who'da thunk it possible?
I don't dismiss just because of a source (although it may raise red flags). I dismiss when a self-proclaimed expert can't be validated by peer review.
In trying to find information about this author, I can't find much about her and no peer-reviewed scientific research.
I see that she says that she was a "contributing author" to a book called "The Story of the Cosmos" and when I look up that book, she's not mentioned as an author at all, two theologians/philosophers are cited. Maybe she's mentioned or cited in the book, I don't know, but that's one red flag (in addition to having a questionable source and no research identified as hers in scientific journals.
She says that she authored a book, "How Science Can Save Your Faith," but it is a book that I can't find on the internets.
She says that she has a book coming out this summer, "Genesis and the Dark Universe," which I also can't find mentioned on the internet. Who's her publisher? Is she self publishing? If so, why? Such alleged authority sounds pretty important, why are her credentials (and even the existence of her books!) not able to be verified on the internet?
I eventually found that she lists a publishing house (Castalia House) which, according to their website, "Castalia House is a Swiss-based publisher that has a great appreciation for the golden age of science fiction and fantasy literature. The books that we publish honor the traditions and intellectual authenticity exemplified by writers such as J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Robert E. Howard, G.K. Chesterton, and Hermann Hesse. We are consciously providing an alternative to readers who increasingly feel alienated from the nihilistic, dogmatic science fiction and fantasy being published today."
Finally, I see some references to Sarah Salviander graduating from the University of Texas at Austin. When I google that, I get referred to this page...
http://www.as.utexas.edu/~triples/
Which APPEARS to be a fake page. It does not appear to be connected to a University of Texas at Austin (whose website is utexas.edu... NO "as" in the url).
Simply put, how do I KNOW that this person is who she says she is?
I think you've been had.
Brains evolved/God gave you a brain for a reason. Use it.
Craig...
"I know that Dan will see the source of this testimony and immediately discount that actual testimony because of where it's published..."
I know that Craig will see that this unknown person is pushing theories that Craig finds pleasing to his ears and so Craig won't ask reasonable questions like, "WHO is this woman? Is she who she claims to be...?" but maybe he should.
Unlike Craig, I try not to form knee-jerk conclusions.
Dan,
You are correct that I find pleasure (as does God) when someone finds salvation, that’s as it should be for believers.
As far as her scientific work, she specifically mentions a couple of things that drew her to faith. I’m much more willing to trust her expert opinion than your argument from ignorance on the topic.
You made the unsupported claim that all scientists who followed the evidence did so because of a prior commitment to Christianity. I’m just pointing out that your assumption is wrong.
Of course, you’re obviously more qualified than she is.
Craig... "I’m just pointing out that your assumption is wrong..."
??
Did you read what I wrote? We don't know who this person is, we have no way of Verifying her story or alleged qualifications.
Further,You are factually mistaken about me having claimed that all scientists who followed the evidence did so because of a prior commitment to Christianity. I have not said that.
I am sure it's possible that somewhere out there there are some scientists who accepted Evolutionary theory and who came to believe in a 6 day creation, and who weren't christians, but that has to be a pretty small number. A statistically insignificant number. Agreed?
But my point here is that we don't know that about this lady. Everything about this story sounds fishy. THAT'S my point, here.
The question is, why are you giving her any credibility given the lack of evidence that her story's real on the Internet?
“ A statistically insignificant number.“
I’m curious, are you saying that things in statistically insignificant numbers should be ignored? Or perhaps treated in proportion to their statistical probability?
I’ll simply point out that for this young woman it’s vital to do an exhaustive search to dig up every little bit of evidence that can be used to diminish her accomplishments and ability, while blindly listens to 97% of the anonymous members of an advocacy group pushing an agenda is an acceptable substitute for actual data.
The question isn’t, “Do her credentials meet Dan’s arbitrary standards?”, the question is, “Does the research that drove her conclusions actually represent reality?”.
As long as the second question can be ignored in favor of the first, it’s easy to relegate one more woman to “minority” status.
???
Are you READING what I'm writing?
It's NOT an "arbitrary standard" to ask, "Is this woman a real person that exists in the world?"
It's not arbitrary to ask, "Is her story as she relates it based on facts? Did she really have the degrees she claims in this story she relates?"
Your response does not seem to match up with what I'm writing.
I do not trust this story to be factual, based upon a real person with these actual credentials.
I THINK that maybe you've been had/played for a fool/duped/tricked/mislead.
You see, I don't trust random claims from unknown people on the internets. I suggest that you'd be wiser to do the same.
Craig... "I’ll simply point out that for this young woman it’s
vital to do an exhaustive search to
dig up every little bit of evidence that can be used
to diminish her accomplishments and ability,
while blindly listens to 97% of the anonymous members of
an advocacy group pushing an agenda
is an acceptable substitute for actual data."
I can't begin to explain to you how weird and wholly irrational this statement is. How confusing and false and conspiratorial/irrational it is. Maybe you haven't quite woken up and are not stating things clearly. Maybe try again?
"You see, I don't trust random claims from unknown people on the internets. I suggest that you'd be wiser to do the same."
Yet you unquestioningly trust that opinions of 97% of the members of an agenda driven advocacy organization, but can't name any of them or explain what specific evidence they've provided to justify your trust.
What's hard to understand, it' just one more example of you trolling the internet to find "negative" information about people you you don't agree with and basing your conclusions on anything other than the substance these people have offered.
Craig...
"Yet you unquestioningly trust that
opinions of 97% of the members of an
agenda driven advocacy organization,
but can't name any of them or
explain what specific evidence they've provided to justify your trust. "
Again, ?????!!!
What in the name of all is holy are you TALKING about?
ONE reason to support consensus expert opinion is the fact of CONSENSUS. These are disparate people, groups, organizations, schools and experts from a wide cross-section of backgrounds and areas of expertise and religions and geography... To try to get SUCH A DIVERSE group to conspire to agree on scientific data that isn't supported by the known data just boggles the mind.
So, no, I'm not going to research tens of thousands of experts, because, who does that?! That's precisely WHY consensus amongst experts in areas that are beyond my area of knowledge is so compelling.
On the other hand, when someone cites a LONE scientist (or someone who alleges to be a scientist) who has an outlier view, then starting with a bit of investigation into that lone alleged scientist is a rational thing.
If we have THOUSANDS of medical doctors warning about cancer and cigarettes and we find ONE scientist who says that cigarettes are not only non-carcinogenic, but are healthy for you, then yes, I will look into that scientists' background. Is he actually a scientist? Who's paying for her research? Is his research peer-reviewed? Is she credible?
These are reasonable questions to ask the outlier "experts" in a case where there is widespread consensus.
Do you disagree?
As to the rest of your conspiratorial suggestions...
1. It's not that I "trust" these scientists because I have an innate trust in individual scientists. I trust peer-review (flawed tho it may be) and consensus, because it's more reliable than an individual with a solitary disagreeing opinion.
2.You think that 97% of scientists are part of an "agenda-driven advocacy organization..."? What is the organization? What are they advocating? Where is your evidence that these THOUSANDS (TENS of thousands?) of experts are "agenda-driven..."?
That's a sweeping claim with nothing to support it and sounds conspiratorial and difficult to believe.
3. Of course, I can name scientists. Bill Nye, Sarah Trabue, Albert Einstein, EO Wilson... and there are the groups, like the AMA, Scientific American, etc... and then there are others I've read but couldn't name off the top of my head because I don't remember every name of every expert I've read.
Again, that's the point of why expert consensus is compelling on topics where special expertise is required.
I can't name a SINGLE scientist who says that smoking is bad for you, and yet I believe that this is true.
Do you DISBELIEVE the expert consensus on smoking?
If you don't, why not?
Again, are you reading what I'm writing?
Do you think this "expert" you cited is an actual expert? Does it not concern you that her "books" do not appear to exist? That her degree/association with the university she cited may not be real?
WHY someone would trust expert consensus is just reasonable. Because expert consensus.
WHY someone would trust an outlier with a questionable pedigree is less obvious/less reasonable.
"I see that she says that she was a "contributing author" to a book called "The Story of the Cosmos" and when I look up that book, she's not mentioned as an author at all"
She authored chapter 6 of the book. I googled her name...an Amazon entry was listed, which presented the book and allowed me to easily see the contents.
As to peer reviewed work, this link presents 48 of them. All I had to do was to google her name plus "peer reviewed articles", and bada-bing, bada-boom...
This was painstaking research that took me...about five minutes and that's not hype.
You say, that's the problem in citing one or two people as your appeal to an Authority... if your expert doesn't check out or their theories are crackpot, it's easy enough to discover that.
Now, if you want to try to disprove the case made by tens of thousands of scientists, feel free. But until you do so, appealing to one alleged expert with dubious credentials is not an adult or rational approach that reasonable people will find compelling.
Craig... "just one more example of you trolling the internet to find "negative" information about people you you don't agree with..."
And instead of looking at the data, you choose to engage in a false ad hom attack. Of course, it's stupidly false to suggest I scoured the Internet looking for "negative information..." Of course, I didn't do that.
I went to read her writing which did not sound very scientific or professional and so I went to read more about her and her theories and found that she does not appear to be who she claims to be. Or at least there are holes in her story.
I do this all the time with someone cites someone saying something that sounds suspicious. When some liberal posted a comment about trump that sounded so awful it was hard to believe, I looked up who he was citing and the story was false and I pointed that out.
Looking into dubious claims is what adults do. Your source is making dubious claims and does not appear to be legitimate.
"Looking into dubious claims is what adults do."
Are you suggesting that the person in question doesn't exist, or that she hasn't completed the education that's been claimed?
Because the only reason I've pointed this story out is that it's one more instance of someone starting as a atheist/agnostic and having their scientific studies point them toward Christianity. That's it. I'm not sure what "holes" there are in that story, but you believe who you want.
I know that SHE SAYS she was an atheist who was a scientist who became a six day believer who became a Christian. What you and I do not know is, Is she a real person? Is she really a scientist? Is her story legitimate.
Because it reads more the the fantasy of a Christian performer than an actual biography.
I'm guessing you don't see it that way. Don't know how to help you there.
Thanks for your results, Marshal. I didn't see any of that and spent a whopping 10-15 minutes looking. Nonetheless, WHERE are her books she says she's written? Why is her link to the university she is aligned with wonky? WHY does her testimony read like second rate Christian sci-fi?
"What in the name of all is holy are you TALKING about?"
I'm talking about the Pew piece that you cited weeks ago, that doesn't say what you think it says. Yet, you've latched onto it as if it's the gospel.
You've chosen to believe that 97% of the members of an advocacy group are worthy on trusting. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about that reality. Further, you can't name any of these folks, nor can you (beyond repeating "consensus" as if it's a magic spell) provide any actually evidence that these folks have shown you to justify your trust/faith.
It's pretty simple.
"To try to get SUCH A DIVERSE group to conspire to agree on scientific data that isn't supported by the known data just boggles the mind."
What evidence do you have that this advocacy group is diverse? Usually advocacy groups are formed based on affinity not diversity.
"So, no, I'm not going to research tens of thousands of experts, because, who does that?!"
Look, if you don't want to research the data and rely on other things, that's fine with me. Personally, I'd prefer to have at least a cursory knowledge of one or two really compelling points backed by hard data before I committed myself to a position, but you go ahead and stick with faith in a bunch of anonymous "experts".
"On the other hand, when someone cites a LONE scientist (or someone who alleges to be a scientist) who has an outlier view, then starting with a bit of investigation into that lone alleged scientist is a rational thing."
!. This "lone scientist" is being offered as an example of someone who's scientific studies led them to faith, nothing more. Do you understand that?
2. By all means, let's have the specifics of what the "outlier view" is and why it's wrong?
"Do you disagree?"
It's only reasonable if you plan to take the evidence offered seriously and consider the evidence and the data with an open mind and evenhandedly.
1. I get it. You trust anonymous "experts" because you have faith in the flawed "peer review" system, and really aren't interested in the data as long as you see consensus in an advocacy group. Got it.
2. This is what happens when you don't actually read the sources you provide and miss critical information. I read your source, and found data you ignored. Not my problem.
3. You do realize that Bill Nye isn't really a "scientist" don't you? So, what specific data or evidence have these scientists provided that has convinced you that the Evolutionary/Naturalist/Materialist narrative is correct and indisputable? Which alternate theory of the origin of the cosmos? Which explanation of the presence of the vast amount of information contained in DNA, has convinced you that the information came from nothing?
"Do you DISBELIEVE the expert consensus on smoking?"
No, I believe the data. I believe the evidence.
"If you don't, why not?"
Data and evidence.
"Again, are you reading what I'm writing?"
As painful as it is to slog through your mountains of crap and refusal to answer questions, yes.
"Do you think this "expert" you cited is an actual expert?"
Do I think that she's an expert in relating her journey from atheism/agnosticism to faith after her scientific studies, yes. I think that most people are experts in their lived experience. Do I think she's more of an expert in astrophysics than you are, yes. Do I think she's as much of an expert as she could potentially become, no. But, i didn't even suggest that she was an "expert" in anything beyond her personal journey. Are you now suggesting that she's not competent to recount her lived experiences or that her lived experiences are to be discounted?
"Does it not concern you that her "books" do not appear to exist? That her degree/association with the university she cited may not be real?"
Given the fact that all I have is your word on this matter, no. I have no reason to trust you.
"WHY someone would trust expert consensus is just reasonable. Because expert consensus."
Excellent example of circular reasoning. Consensus should be trusted because consensus exists.
"WHY someone would trust an outlier with a questionable pedigree is less obvious/less reasonable."
Again, you trust who or whatever makes you feel the best.
Although, I've not ever suggested that she be trusted about anything else other than her lived experience, I do find it interesting that in this prolonged discussion over multiple threads, Dan has offered absolutely ZERO actual "experts" that can be investigated. He offered a link to a survey of members of an advocacy group that all agreed on some undefined premise (one that wasn't specified in the piece), and continues to insist that "consensus" is enough. How does one research this "consensus", how does one evaluate the expertise of these "experts"? How does one evaluate the evidence and data?
Apparently one just accepts that "consensus" is enough, and that "experts" don;t need to be identified or have their qualifications examined as long as they are pert of the "consensus".
What's interesting is that with about 4 mouse clicks I was able to land on her CV, which strangely enough has multiple pages on things like "peer reviewed" papers, conference presentations, and the like.
Maybe the problem is with Dan's abilities to use the Google.
Let me clarify. I saw plenty of links from her. I was looking for something other than her saying this is my experience. Something to validate what she saying. Did you find that?
Craig... "Apparently one just accepts that "consensus" is enough, and that "experts" don;t need to be identified or have their qualifications examined as long as they are pert of the "consensus"."
1. IF we're talking about the benefits of Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) as compared to Insertion of a pacemaker or an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) or Maze surgery... it doesn't matter how smart I am. I will need to listen to expert opinion.
Agreed?
2. And if 97% of experts in the field recommend CABG and warn against the other two, THE VERY SMARTEST, most rational and really, ONLY thing to do is to listen to the consensus.
Agreed?
3. AND, if I have no reason to suspect the consensus and I happen to know that the 3% remaining are mainly part of a religious group that forbids CABG because their god forbids it, then I would be rather foolish to give them the benefit of the doubt over and against the vast consensus.
Is that not the only rational conclusion to reach? The ONLY rational conclusion.
If you say otherwise, you are a fool.
"Let me clarify. I saw plenty of links from her. I was looking for something other than her saying this is my experience. Something to validate what she saying. Did you find that?"
1. I have written this post expressly to highlight her lived experience, I have not offered any of her academic or scientific work to "prove" anything.
2. Other then the multiple pages of "peer reviewed" papers/articles he's named on, and multiple other published works, no.
Craig... " 1. I have written this post expressly to highlight her lived experience, I have not offered any of her academic or scientific work to "prove" anything."
But if she's not a real person or is a real person who is making up parts of her story, then her "lived experience" is in question. That's the point.
Lord have mercy.
" it doesn't matter how smart I am. I will need to listen to expert opinion. Agreed?"
Of course, we're not talking about those things, but in theory we'd listen to our physician who we'd trust to walk us through the data (pro and con) to make the best decision.
"2. And if 97% of experts in the field recommend CABG and warn against the other two, THE VERY SMARTEST, most rational and really, ONLY thing to do is to listen to the consensus. Agreed?"
There are too many assumptions in this statement to take it seriously. Because while this level of "consensus" might be available regarding one medical procedure, you'll need to prove that the same level of consensus exists in the areas were actually talking about.
1. The 97% number you keep throwing out based on the Pew polling data, is NOT 97% of all of the "experts in the field". It's 97% o the members of an advocacy group with absolutely zero indication of their actual
2. Truth is not decided by consensus. If my (hypothetical) choice is to listen to the Truth or listen to consensus, I'll choose Truth every time.
3. 97+2=99
4. The notion that you can equate 1 medical procedure with the conversation around the origin of the cosmos is simply a false dichotomy.
5. While your pet medical procedure might have 97% agreement that it is the best treatment, that doesn't mean that it is the most appropriate treatment for 100% of all patients.
6. How about you simply stick with the subject under discussion, instead of trying to interject a bunch of extraneous crap.
7. The problem is that you don't know enough about the topic of origins, the worldview encompassed in Evolution/Materialism/Naturalism, or the theoretical/methodological presumptions involved to actually discuss the topic.
"AND, if I have no reason to suspect the consensus and I happen to know that the 3% remaining are mainly part of a religious group that forbids CABG because their god forbids it, then I would be rather foolish to give them the benefit of the doubt over and against the vast consensus."
1. Again, you believe what you want based on consensus rather than evidence, no one is trying to stop you.
2. Please explain how you "happen to know that the 3% remaining are mainly part of a religious group that forbids CABG because their god forbids it,", and provide proof of this knowledge.
3. Again, you stick with the anonymous subset of "experts" that belong to an advocacy group intent on pushing an agenda, if that's what floats you boat.
However, if this notion of "consensus of experts" is truly a basis for believing something without examining the evidence, then surely you will agree that a "consensus of experts" can be used to support any other claim without looking at the evidence, right? Will you affirm that this "consensus of experts", is now an acceptable universal standard of supporting one's claims on any topic?
"Is that not the only rational conclusion to reach? The ONLY rational conclusion."
Not if there is evidence that casts doubt or raises questions on the "consensus", or if the "experts" are anonymous or members of an advocacy group, or if one believes that Truth isn't decided by a majority vote. But it's interesting that you've chosen this one issue where you've decided that there is a binary choice.
It's cute when you simply announce that your hunch is the "only rational choice".
If you've got proof she's not a real person, then provide it. I've found plenty of indications that she's either real, or an incredibly well backstopped legend.
Dan,
I'm curious, when you talk about this "consensus" can you specify 3-4 things that all 97% of these members of an advocacy group all have 97% agreement on?
WHAT ADVOCACY GROUP are you speaking of?
Remember the Pew polling data you used to "prove" your "97%" of all scientists claim?
The advocacy group they polled, I addressed this is some detail weeks back, perhaps you should pay more attention.
WHAT ADVOCACY GROUP are you speaking of?
Good Lord, have mercy.
Remember the Pew polling data that you offered as "proof" of your "97%" of all scientists claim? The claim that I addressed in some detail, pointing out the multiple problems with the polling data as it related to your claim? If your memory is failing, or you didn't read it the first time, I highly recommend that you do so. If you're asking me to go back and find the link to the poll YOU offered as "proof" of your claim, I think I'll pass. The notion that you think that I have to (after addressing this multiple times) have to go back and find your link because you chose to ignore my pointing out of it's flaws at the time is pretty damn funny.
So, you can't even NAME this alleged and mythical "advocacy group" you're speaking of..? Just another dumb Trumpian unsupported and stupidly false claim.
We see.
As to proof that SCIENTISTS (not an advocacy group, but the large group of independent scientists with expertise in a realm of areas) agreeing with evolutionary theory being massive... that's not just from one Pew poll (although I have no reason to doubt Pew). It's just reality. Multiple polls and just, you know, get out there in the world and speak to scientists.
So, I have NO use for your vague and unsupported accusations of some widespread conspiracy. That's the realm of Trump and other con artists and their useful idiots.
I'm guessing you're speaking about one poll of the American Association for the Advancement of Science... a group that promotes science and scientific learning. An "advocacy group" that promotes SCIENCE. Deviants.
No, I simply refuse to go back and research the group YOU claimed represented 97% of all scientists.
No conspiracy at all. It's just one more example of you failing to be able to prove your broad sweeping claims and hiding behind a "consensus" of the anonymous.
Oh, so you did finally do your won research, excellent.
Thank you for acknowledging that you are NOT citing a poll of "all scientists", but a poll of the members of one advocacy group.
I appreciate it when you acknowledge when your claims are proven to be false and/or unsupported.
"Multiple polls and just, you know, get out there in the world and speak to scientists."
1. Speaking of being vague and non-specific.
2. Should I accept the word of a meteorologist as being authoritative on matters of astrophysics?
3. Still the same vague appeal to anonymous "scientists" and unnamed "polls" instead of being able to point to one actual piece of compelling evidence.
4. Under what circumstances is Truth decided by "consensus"?
A quick and easy question, Craig. Do you seriously think that most scientists, the vast majority, DON'T believe in evolutionary theory? Do you think that even 10% of actual scientists believe in intelligent design as a scientific theory?
If so, you are comically uninformed. You have no data to base it upon. It would be a ridiculous guess on your part.If you thought that, I believe that your partisan human traditions are blinding you to reality.
Craig... "Under what circumstances is Truth decided by "consensus"?"
As I've always been quite clear about, truth is not determined by consensus. But on matters of technical expertise, one would be a fool to say that 95% of the experts in the field believe Theory A, but I'm going to believe Theory B, which is supported by those scientists who share my religious views.
9 out of 10 scientists agree that 9 out of 10 scientists are beyond questioning.
"A quick and easy question, Craig."
Are you so stupid,, blind, or egomaniacal that you are unaware that you've asked two questions? Further, the expectation that I'll answer despite your refusal to answer an increasingly large number of questions is quote the bit of hubris.
"Do you seriously think that most scientists, the vast majority, DON'T believe in evolutionary theory?"
The short answer to your question (which is so full of vague terms that it really can't be answered as asked) is no.
1. Please define "scientists". I honestly don't think that the opinion of a meteorologist on questions of the origin of the cosmos carries any particular weight just because it's a :scientist".
2. Define "evolutionary theory". As stated the broadness and vagueness of the term basically guarantees that the answer to the question is going to be no.
3. How many of the "scientists" that believe "evolutionary theory" do so because of a commitment to philosophical naturalism rather than due to specific evidence?
4. Do commitments to philosophical and methodological naturalism raise any questions as to the validity of any conclusions drawn based on these preconceptions?
5. What is one piece of universally agreed on, scientifically proven evidence that can be cited as authoritative?
I could go on, but it's unlikely that you will respond to/answer the above.
"Do you think that even 10% of actual scientists believe in intelligent design as a scientific theory?"
No.
1. Do you think that pointing out the flaws in Evolution/Naturalism?materialism require an affirmation of ID?
2. Has anyone ever claimed that ID is a "scientific theory"?
3. Does it seem counterproductive to deny to presence of design, in something that has the appearance of being designed?
4. How does "evolutionary theory" explain the vast amount of information contained in DNA?
Again, I could ask more, but you'll likely ignore these.
" If so, you are comically uninformed. You have no data to base it upon. It would be a ridiculous guess on your part.If you thought that, I believe that your partisan human traditions are blinding you to reality."
1. The problem is that we're asking different questions. I'm not asking what the consensus of a bunch of anonymous people with pre-commitments is. I'm asking what it True.
2. I've never made any claims about any of those things. I've literally only been asking questions that you (and your anonymous scientists) can't answer.
3. I'm not sure that asking questions, and pointing out the flaws and inability to answer on the part of you and your anonymous scientists has anything to do with "partisan human tradition".
4. Are you saying that belief in "partisan human traditions" is disqualifying when it comes to scientific inquiry?
5. Are you saying that you and your anonymous scientists are totally free from belief in "partisan human traditions" that influence your/their conclusions?
6. Why has the "scientific/Evolutionary establishment" been so reliant on false "evidence" to prove the superiority of their position?
7. Perhaps you should stop making these sorts of "if so" statements given the fact that they're usually wrong.
Art,
You're probably not far from the truth.
Those on the left...and Dan illustrates this point constantly...generally regard opposition to what they believe as no more than rank superstition or religiously motivated. In the meantime, they imply their own beliefs are pure and without ideological influence to any degree. This attitude is reflected in discussions on any number of topics, be they scientific, political or religious. It's the pat response when no logical, fact-based response is possible. What's important is the leftism, not the search for and acceptance of truth that might illuminate the flaws of leftism. Indeed, even that which only points to a single shaky belief must be crushed or disparaged. There's no legitimate attempt to find "common ground" from which both sides can truly launch an attempt to seek out truth. Protecting leftism is all that matters.
The implication that scientists don’t aren’t predisposed to filter their work through the preconceptions of their worldviews is simply absurd. Whether it’s a prior commitment to philosophical or methodological Naturalism/Materialism or a prior commitment to Atheism or to Theism we can’t pretend that it’s one sided.
Just ask people such as Guillermo Gonzalez about how ideologically driven are the atheists and materialists of the science world.
All anyone has to do is read some of what the “science establishment” actually says about their biases and a priori assumptions to get a glimpse of the reality.
I can’t understand how anyone can exclude certain conclusions, regardless of where the evidence leads and expect to be taken seriously.
Post a Comment