News-Record.com

The trend my indeed change with this particular emphasis, Joe. While naturalistic evolution has made a name for itself in the classrooms across the U.S., it is a view of reality that excludes an mmaterial and intelligent designer.

The problem is the "point of tension" that such theoretical nonsense causes. It is an idea that logicaly reduces humans to mere material beings and eliminating, as collateral damage, the mind. And quite frankly, as the mind goes so goes other contingent realities that we consider part of our "imaterial" minds and unique to our "species." In other words, if the mind and brain are ontologically synonomous; or, if the "brain secretes thought as the liver secretes bile," then Volitonal Freedom is one such quality. And I don't dont know one single atheist, or consistent evolutionist, who wants to relinquish that perceived quality.

In essence, naturalistic evolutionism is unlivable, at least with any consistency. I am afraid that, according to my research, the protectors of the materialistic worldview are more concerned with avoiding dualism than with truth because of the logical implications of a dualistic world.

It's getting quite tiresome to see these repeated attempts to throw monkey wrenches into the workings of real science by the Discovery Institute. They have failed at destroying the work of teaching science in science classrooms as of the Dover PA case, so now they're trying to re-define science.

Science is based on a method that requires material evidence to support a theory. One can hardly deny that its worth has been proven spectacularly over the past 400 years. Once you require scientists to start looking for gnomes, demons and such-like, all progress in knowledge will stop.

Typically spoken, namtac. Your post really didn't address the issue at hand. If naturalistic evolution is true then the position you hold is probably nothing more than a determined one. The moment you allow a worldview that eliminates actual voltional freedom, there is no other logical choice.

Concerning science, there are many things that science can't prove but are still assumed by your "scientific" mindset. Consciousness for example has not been authenticated by science, it is merely assume. Other realities that escape the "microscope" are reason, logic, the human mind and volition.

These realities are assumed apart from the "scientific" verification you so revere.

Tony

Funny, Tony, but I thought that the issue at hand was "how does science work"? Don't you think that everyone should understand that question before we start judging the moral implications of the answers it provides? Otherwise, you are imposing the answer before you explore the question - which may be very religious, but harld sceintific.

"..ID movement's war on science be the brain? ""

Hahaha.. you gotta love the dispassionate, inquiring verbiage the "don't challenge the unprovable truth" folks use to frame their argument.

The experiment I read about in search of a so-called "God-gene" found that a certain area of the brain that distinguishes between the self and the world was dimmed during prayer and meditation, so that participants felt a sense of connection with the universe, joy and peace. The pleasure of the experience might motivate more prayer or meditation, but it would not make anybody do it. The experiment showed that part, or maybe all, the mystical experience was due to brain activity, but I fail to see why that interferes with anyone's free will. There may well be some nonmaterial force or spirit interacting with the brain to produce these pleasant sensations, but the point is that such immaterial, thus unmeasurable, beings cannot be scientifically tested and verified as being anything more than brain activity, which can be measured. Therefore, whatever metaphysical, nonmaterial conclusions anyone reaches as a result of this sort of experience are totally untestable, therefore uncertain and subjective. But nobody's volition is controlled by them. They can reach whatever spiritual conclusions they want, they just can't verify them or pretend they're scientific.

Namtac Said: Funny, Tony, but I thought that the issue at hand was "how does science work"? Don't you think that everyone should understand that question before we start judging the moral implications of the answers it provides? Otherwise, you are imposing the answer before you explore the question - which may be very religious, but harld sceintific.

Hello again Namtac,
I really think it deals with the controversy between those who want to include a view of reality that includes a material and immatierial world verses those who demand a monistic reality (reality consisting of only one substance, material). It is a battle between Cartesian Dualism and naturalistic materialism. I am only contending that the very thing that materialists count an imposition upon the scientific method is necessary for any science to begin with. They must assume the very things that they cannot prove by the same scientific method they so revere. The point here may not be so obvious but I will give it the old country boy try.

The objections to the dualistic considerations of the mind are that "dualism" is not scientifically verifiable; when the fact of the matter is, even the reasoning powers, logic, intentionality, etc also escape the same verification. Yet, no materialist is rejecting them in doing his science.

Also, the objections of Discovery Institutes "war on the Brain" is but a materialistic objection to the existence of the mind. This view, the so called scientific view, equates the mind with the brain. Again, this is a purely materialistic view.

Science, however, does not work without the scientist who, as noted before, depends on the very processes that escape the scientific method. Again, the evolutionism that you and so many others defend actually eliminates the ability to do science in the first place.

Second, the moment you move from how things actually work in the present observable world to origins you encroach into philosoical and theological territories. That is why I reject to using evolutionism and science as synonyms.

The objection to "dualism" is self-defeating when it comes to the scientific method because in a monistic (merely materialistic) world we are determined to do what we do in the first place. In such a world I can no more "choose" my biblical worldview than Richard Dawkins can "choose" his atheism. The reduction of

Curious to know wht you think on this.

Sincerely,
Tony