Quote from traderNik:
It's scientific inquiry in general that guided scientists to that recognition, as opposed to faith-based conjecture like
It wasn't so much that scientific inquiry
guided scientists as much as it was that it
bound scientists to a certain view.
Science simply cannot take into account the actions of some ineffable entity like God. Yet the world was aching for a scientific "explanation" of life on earth so materialistic science provided it.
Now, I happen to think it is a
good explanation, it is a sturdy -- as far as I can tell --
scientific explanation.
But is it true?
Must we all accept it? Can it brook no dissent, even for irrational reasons?
Scientifically, respectively, yes, yes and no. But philosophically, not necessarily, no and yes.
Still on and on with the appeals to authority, huh? I would have thought that after the humiliation of having your lack of familiarity with the works you cite revealed by kjkent, you would try a different tack.
I don't know the incident you refer to, but why would a lack of complete familiarity with a work prevent one from citing it? Unless one cites a work in favor of one's argument when the work's conclusions in fact argue against one's position, what is the problem?
[quoteID/Creation is a faith-based rebranding of traditional Creationism. It belongs in churches and at Scientology gatherings. [/QUOTE]
You'd think it belongs in the philosophy classroom, too, wouldn't you?
And, of course, the reference to scientology is there in order to suggest exactly what the tone of virtually every axe-grinding Darwinist wishes to convey -- that anyone skeptical of a completely materialist explanation of life is an idiot.
I don't know, Nik. I had hoped you yourself might have changed tack by now, that rather than seek to belittle those you disagree with, you might simply disagree amicably. I guess old habits die hard.
))))))))