Category: Where science fails


“The real problem for empirical scientists & rational skepticism is we care more about truth than the religious do.”  Aron Ra, “Faith is not a Virtue”

Interesting thought.  Especially since Mr. Ra also believes that those who believe in God have no interest in the truth.  But is the truth rational skeptics, as Mr. Ra identifies himself as, care about the whole and complete truth, or is any partial truth ok?  Or is it that since, in Mr. Ra’s estimation, Christians have no real care for the truth that any care for the truth no matter how small or partial , would be more?  Somehow I get the impression that neither of these is what he meant.

Or, perhaps truth isn’t really all that important to some rational skeptics after all.

So if Mr. Ra is so committed to truth why does he have such an aversion to it?  While busily stating over & over , I suppose in the hope that repetition will make something true, that evolution has been proven, he steadfastly avoids calling evolution a law, the scientific proclamation of true, provable, and reproducible fact.  Fair enough, part of scientific law requires a theory to be reproducible, ie: standing on Earth, let go of an object and it will fall to the ground.
But here is where Mr. Ra’s statements start to break down.  At 10:01 of his recorded lecture at Eastern Illinois University “Because it’s called the theory of gravity”.   Yes that’s right the theory of gravity.  Do you find it interesting that it is now the theory of gravity.  Has gravity been “Plutocized” from a law to a theory?  My guess is that the hope is by reducing certain laws of science to theories it will help elevate the theory of evolution in the public eye.

Change what words mean and change the past.

Once again trying to change the meaning of words to alter the discussion, like an illusionist tying to draw your attention to one thing, while distracting you from noticing the elephant walking off stage.  The desire to alter what words means is a dishonest attempt to win the game by changing the rules.  Hopefully Mr. Ra will move to his stated desire, to be more concerned with the truth.

Although I doubt it
Advertisements

“We hold this truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”

Is it any wonder so many atheists would have this country fundamentally changed.  The very essence of our founding is anathema to their core beliefs.  No atheists could have, would have ever written the words above.

Neither could an evolutionist worth his salt who would dare to be honest about the implications of his beliefs.  If we have evolved from the primordial ooze, how could we be endowed with anything?  Where is the intrinsic value of man, or even nature if it is simply the result of chance+matter+time?
However what if man is created.  If we are instead the result of the actions of a supreme being, then man has been endowed with that worth.  And nature, all of creation is of value.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Well at least it shouldn’t be.  Faith is about taking what is known or makes sense and applying it to that which can not be proved.

Are you supposed to leave your mind at the sanctuary door? Why does it seem so many people think that either believing in God requires turning off your brain, or if you’re not turning off your mind well then at least faith has no place in the outside world.  Religion is all well and good but there are far too many holes and too many leaps of faith to make it really of any value besides making you “feel” good.

Well that’s a bunch of baloney, a load of bull.  Stop and actually look at the current trends in scientific study such as cosmology, biology, and history and look at all of the leaps of faith being touted as fact and ask yourself, does this make sense? 

I still remember sitting in a third grade classroom in Lancaster and having a teacher tell us that the earth was heading into the next ice age.  Thirty years later, my own kids are being told that the planet is warming.  High school, the planets millions of years old, today its billions, and too bad those extra zeros couldn’t have found their way to my bank account instead.  Science would like for us to “Believe” it has all the answers, but it doesn’t.  Two of my brothers are men of science, one a doctor the other computers, and don’t get me wrong I want science to take us to the moon and beyond, thankful for its cure of polio, and hope for further amazement.  Hey I’m still waiting for the flying car and the transporter.  But what I really want is to hear science say “Well if this then that, but the truth is we really don’t know.  What we are telling you is what we think happened, but to truly believe it we have to take this amazing leap of faith that things played out in the past exactly how we think they did with absolutely no variance to the equation. 

So which is more an act of blind faith?  Believing in the latest idea about how the world began, no it’s NOT a theory go plug “scientific theory” into Wikipedia yourself, then ask does evolution meet that criteria? Or is a belief system that’s been around for 2,000 years seem more stable more permanent and less a blind leap than the latest trend?