Sunday, September 19, 2010

A New Career and New Inspirations


[Nurse Jackie - the future is health care]

Thanks to the lack of technology jobs and the relative abundance of health care jobs in the American economy today, I have decided to change careers. I am leaving computers behind and I am currently studying in nursing school.

I find the anatomy lessons to be not only informative but also very inspiring. The infinite wisdom exhibited by the human body is a remarkable testimony to the greatness of our Creator.

During the first anatomy lesson, the first thing the teacher did was to list all the vital organs of the human body. The only one she mentioned which surprised me was the pancreas. The pancreas weighs about 80 grams and lies between the stomach and spine. It is about 18 cm long and 4 cm wide. Apparently it is the smallest of our vital organs.

The pancreas does two different things: it secretes hormones into the bloodstream, such as insulin, and it secretes enzymes into the intestines which assist in digestion.

The pancreas is working away silently and invisibly every moment of our lives. If a person's pancreas were to be removed or to fail, death would soon follow, unless pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy and insulin injections are provided. Factories are needed to do what this little unsung hero does for us.

49 comments:

NC said...

Best of luck in your new career.
It is not easy embarking on this path at your stage in life :)

jewish philosopher said...

Desperate times call for desperate measures.

NC said...

Can't argue with that.
Don't you feel funny in a class with a bunch of young women?

jewish philosopher said...

Actually it's about 20% men - more than I expected. And some of the "girls" are about 40. A lot of people are trying to get into healthcare.

whoa! said...

Do you intend to skip your genetics, immunology, anatomy and physiology and other courses where the fields depend upon a working knowledge of evolution or will you just pretend that evolution might be valid, just so that you can understand what is being presented?

Will you treat atheists and Jewish skeptics that come under your care, object to caring for them or will they mysteriously all catch some deadly disease?

jewish philosopher said...

Evolution has no more to do with medicine than the immaculate conception has to do with fertility treatments. No medical treatment is based on evolution.  Our textbook, Textbook of Basic Nursing by Rosdahl, doesn't even mention it.

NC said...

Well, since you consider yourself enough of a scientist to understand (and refute) evolutionary biology, I respectfully suggest the following:

If you have some astounding and new information which refutes evolution, rather than tell us ignoramuses about it, why don't you prepare a proper scientific paper and submit it for presentation at a scientific conference or to a prestigious scientific journal? I am sure that biologists in the field would be fascinated to hear about your new data and perhaps cause them to revise their theories. Surely you should feel confident about submitting your ideas for serious scientific scrutiny.

If, however, your information is based on recycled philosophical arguments and Google links, I would imagine you would make a fool of yourself.

jewish philosopher said...

As an atheist, why don't you take your proofs that Jesus was not God to the Vatican and explain to church officials how they are gravely mistaken?

The answer is because you cannot argue with people whose beliefs are based on fantasy and wishful thinking.

By the same token, scientists, who preach evolution in order to discredit the clergy and maintain their own dominant position in society, will continue to do so regardless of how illogical evolution is.

NC said...

At least you admit that you don't believe in scientists or the scientific process and that science is a conspiracy theory. But your anon friend Nathan pretends to be a scientist.

As far as your Vatican question:

1. There is no such thing as "theological method", analogous to the scientific method, for discovering 'correct' religion and faith.

2. Furthermore, I have no need to do such a thing as many historians and academics have already done the "historical" work for me. Besides, its not an issue for me and I don't feel the need to go around preaching that Jesus was not god.

Evolution is a fact, not an opinion or a speculation. Just walk into any natural history museum and see for yourself.

Live with it.

You make a very specific assertion about the corrupt motivation of scientists and the scientific establishment. Of course you don't have evidence for this, because it is false.

jewish philosopher said...

"At least you admit that you don't believe in scientists"

I think scientists can lie. For proof, see here 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/21/education/21harvard.html?_r=2

Or here

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2007/09/portrait-of-scientist.html

"Evolution is a fact, not an opinion or a speculation."

And so is the Holy Trinity according to hundreds of millions of people. So what?

"Just walk into any natural history museum and see for yourself."

Have you ever seen fossils demonstrating a useful new organ or limb developing through a very gradual, mindless process of variation and selection as described by Darwin? I missed that exhibit.

whoa! said...

"Have you ever seen fossils demonstrating a useful new organ or limb developing through a very gradual, mindless process of variation and selection as described by Darwin? I missed that exhibit."

You should have been paying more careful attention. Theropod dinosaurs show a clear progression from early reptiles, to feathered reptiles and proto-birds. Wings develop from arms and flippers as well. Other dinos develop elongated spines on their backs. In later fossils they become impressive fans that can be used for body heat modulation as well as defense. Body hair and feathers develop even later. Sounds like a clear progression of ... oh yes, I forgot your principle about not being able to talk reason in the face of magical and wishful thinking. Never mind. Science is all a conspiracy to hide the evidence. lalalalalalalala.

So are you going to follow your own advice and kill patients who are atheists or Jewish skeptics. Nursing seems the perfect venue for emergency intervention.

jewish philosopher said...

"Theropod dinosaurs show a clear progression from early reptiles, to feathered reptiles and proto-birds."

How many mindless variations would be required to turn a reptile into a bird, together with all the failed variants which died off? Millions perhaps? And a museum has them all on display?

Or are you just assuming here is fossil A and here is B. Since B came after A, it must have evolved from A? How do you know that God didn't create A and B, as all scientists before Darwin assumed?

It's like saying "Here we have an ipod and here we have an iphone and here we have an ipad. Clearly one evolved from that other, no intelligent designer needed."

Shalmo said...

economic hardtimes make the orthodox lifestyle all the more impossible to maintain. Perhaps this is a blessing in disguise cracking down the ultra-orthodox once and for all

NC said...

"Or are you just assuming here is fossil A and here is B. Since B came after A, it must have evolved from A? How do you know that God didn't create A and B, as all scientists before Darwin assumed?"

Because the dating and progression of the fossils matches what we would expect if they evolved, and did not exist all at the same time. The is called inductive reasoning, used in science all the time.

"Millions perhaps? And a museum has them all on display?"

In inductive reasoning there are always data points that are missing. That is why it is induction. Learning about the unseen from the seen. That's science, I'm afraid.

"I think scientists can lie."

Yes, individual scientists, like in any other profession, can be dishonest and then they are exposed. Sometimes even rabbis are dishonest.

That's not the same as claiming a collective, universal conspiracy of all of the world's biologists, anthropologists and zoologists who are hiding the facts and arriving at false conclusions. And they are doing this ONLY about evolution; about everything else they are correct. And you are basing this conspiracy theory on a few dishonest scientists?

"Have you ever seen fossils demonstrating a useful new organ or limb developing through a very gradual, mindless process "

Its all over the place. Fishes gills becoming lungs, fins becoming limbs, simple nerve tracts becoming brains and eyes, etc. Just open your eyes.

If you are this skeptical about scientists then perhaps you shouldn't believe anything you are being taught now in nursing school. They are all a bunch of liars.

jewish philosopher said...

"economic hardtimes make the orthodox lifestyle all the more impossible to maintain"

The Middle Ages in Europe were tough too, yet Judaism marched on and even flourished. See for example Rashi and Tosafot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tosafot

"Because the dating and progression of the fossils matches what we would expect if they evolved"

In fact, it doesn't. This is why the concept of punctuated equilibrium had to be invented.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

"Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species."

So the fossils contradict Darwin, who wrote in Origin of Species Chapter 10: “New species have appeared very slowly, one after another, both on the land and in the waters.” And “The process of modification must be extremely slow.”

I don't believe they contradict Judaism however, as I explain here.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/09/how-i-understand-genesis.html

"That's not the same as claiming a collective, universal conspiracy of all of the world's biologists"

It's not a conspiracy, it's a false belief, like Islam, Christianity, Communism and Nazism, which I am sure you will agree are false beliefs which millions of highly intelligent and educated people deceived themselves into accepting.

NC said...

"So the fossils contradict Darwin, "

This is very typical of out of context and disingenuous use of sources. Gould's theory is a variation within evolution and does not contradict it. It refers to a occasional relatively rapid rate of change, rather than the sudden appearance of new species. And it most certainly does contradict the biblical story of creation.

"t's not a conspiracy, it's a false belief, like Islam, Christianity, Communism and Nazism,"

Given the open nature of scientific debate and review, such a false belief based on erroneous facts would not be possible without a worldwide conspiracy plot, involving silencing and perhaps killing all critics.

whoa! said...

Evolution is not as intuitive topically as you would like, so you challenge it on scientific grounds. I agree that all future arguments should be put in a paper to be peer reviewed. And you object by saying that it is all a universal conspiracy. Yet no such conspiracy existed for the big bang theory, which revolutionized thinking about cosmology, shaking universally established core assumptions, and it had just as many religious implications as evolution (e.g. the universe BEGAN, as opposed to having always been). Yet the same conspiratorial scientists revisited and revised their thoughts, and in the face of the evidence, the big bang is almost as universal, even though its conclusion is not the one that "atheist" scientists would have liked.

In fact, the only objection that fundamentalists had to evolution was the time that it required, as they insisted that the earth was only 6000 years old. You admit that the evidence of an ancient earth is overwhelming and even found peshetlach for it, but you still object to evolution, which should pose no problem for you theologically.

Then you enter a field where most its core assumptions would not work if evolution were false. The immune system would not work, and therefore antibiotics and anti allergy therapies. Animal tests extended to humans would not work. Genetic therapies would not work. Assumptions about genetics, immunology, histology, and basic zoology would all break down if evolution were false. Yet, they work. Why?

jewish philosopher said...

I don't see what makes evolution science any more than scientific racism, scientific Marxism or Scientology are science. You can call anything science.

And evolution has plenty of critics, who are silenced.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/expelled-no-intelligence-allowed/

As far as assassinating creationists goes, I'm sure some scientists would be fine with that. See this story for an example of scientific killing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_University_of_Alabama_in_Huntsville_shooting

Fortunately law enforcement officials, who are not deranged scientists, take a very dim view of murder.

The fossils merely prove that life in the past was different than it is now. Atheists seize upon this as proof that Origin of Species is true and the Torah is false, however this is not the case.

Evolution is the creator god of atheism. Atheism is the most popular religion of scientists because it excludes the possibility of prophesy and thereby discredits the clergy and makes scientists supremely important.

"Then you enter a field where most its core assumptions would not work if evolution were false. "

Sure they would. Everything has one creator, but not one ancestor. Why does the same electric outlet power your computer, tv and blender?

whoa! said...

"Atheists seize upon this as proof that Origin of Species is true and the Torah is false, however this is not the case."

Origin has been disproven in many respects, and replaced by ideas that better conform to the observed data. That is how science works. Darwin did not invent the theory of Evolution. He simply gave it a mechanism which described what he observed. Current theories build on Origin and have proven many parts of his direction true and others false. Darwin would be first to admit that.

This does not imply that Origin is untrue. It is outdated in some respects. Its underlying theory is still used with great success in the field of medicine. This does not imply Torah is false. Torah says nothing about it, except about the time, for which you have tirutzim. Darwin believed in both. So did many after him.

And I see you have chosen to dodge the real question. I don't blame you ... much.

jewish philosopher said...

"Origin has been disproven in many respects"

It never made any sense and science should be honest enough to admit God made us.

"Its underlying theory is still used with great success in the field of medicine."

The false theory of evolution has actually often perverted medicine, as you can read here.

http://www.gospelhour.net/2278.html

Anonymous said...

Whoa!

The status of Theropod dinosausras bird ancestors is problematic because birds and dinosaurs exhibit different growth patterns and because of the details of the anatomy.

And punctuted equilibirum is an attempt to explain why species to species change i.e. evolution is basically absent from the fossil record. It is because it happens too fast to get caught. But themn they say that evolution happens too slow to be observed by humans. Its sort of a Goldilocks thing.

NC said...

Religions are authority based systems. Science is not. Evolution was accepted not because of Darwin's "authority", but because it explained things and stood up to scrutiny. Before Darwin and Wallace, scientists accepted creationism, so why did they change their minds? Any scientist's theory can be discredited by this scrutiny. It is not a "belief" and any comparison to religion is false and a red herring.

Nathan, whether birds descended from dinosaurs is the subject of debate, but in any case does not in any way detract from evolution.

Change is all over the place in the fossil record, its full of transitional species. What would you have to see to document change, a movie?

The punctuated equilibrium is still evolution, stop obscuring the arguments with red herrings. It just states that it happened faster in some cases than others. In thousands of years rather than millions. So we still couldn't "observe" it in our lifetimes.

Nathan, as I suggested to JP--conspiracy theories notwithstanding-- I suggest you submit your evidence and objections to scientific peer review among experts---they would definitely be interested in your discoveries. In this blog you can argue philosophy, politics or theology, but leave science to real scientists.

Jiminy H. Cricket said...

Believe it or not, this latest post of yours brings up many questions. It seems that many (most?) occupations and secular schools are forbidden for Ultra-Orthodox Jews. Apparently not nursing school, or the nursing occupation. I am curious how you know which forms of education or employment are permissible. Did you consult your rabbi?

For that matter, since we are on the subject of work why don't observant Jews drive to their temple? Yes, I know, no work on the Sabbath, but how did the rabbis determine that operating motor vehicles or flipping light switches constitute "work" for that purpose? Surely such conundrums did not exist in Talmudic times, but from what authority do poseks derive their statements on modern-day technology? Were Jews allowed to ride animals on the Sabbath or was that considered "work" as well? (And do holidays that fall off the Sabbath day count as the Sabbath?)

I would dearly appreciate your explanations!

Jiminy H. Cricket said...

JP, I mean no direspect, but I am patiently awaiting your answers. Mere curiosity really! What constitutes "work" for purposes of Sabbath observance? If the technological prerequisites for automobiles did not exist in Talmudic times, how did modern-day rabbis determine that observant Jews must not drive to shul? I am curious about how a posek determines halakhic matters in lieu of a Talmudic precedent. (In the case of cars, said precedent is lacking for obvious reasons.) Which brings up work and education, what factors would a rabbi use to determine if a particular line of work or school is suitable for the Torah-observant Jew?

jewish philosopher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

NC:

If theropods are not the ancestors of brids, then the ancestor of birds is still missing. This is a problem because if the ancestor of brds existed why can't we find it?

The three dozeon or so transitional species listed on thr talk origins website mostly transitions between major groups, like synnapsids and mammals. All this proves is that different species existed at different times. Evolution means that ones species cahnges into another. This is pretty much absent from the fossil record. The cases that are sirted on the tlak origins website of incremental chnage from one species to another involve, like the changes in the shells of foraminifors or diatoms are trivial chnages that may very well be within mormal intraspecies variation.

Punctuated equilibrium is an attempt to explain why evolution is largly absent from the fossil record. It is an attempt to explain the overall pattern of evolution, not isolated cases. So it happens too fast to get caugh in the fossil record, but too slow to be observed by humans in existing species. Again, a Goldilocks thing. How lucky for the evolutionists.

My conclusions are based on the evidence I see that the scientists provide.

jewish philosopher said...

"Evolution was accepted not because of Darwin's "authority", but because it explained things and stood up to scrutiny."

Evolution is not science and it was accepted for the same reason the Trinity was accepted or the Koran was accepted.

"What would you have to see to document change, a movie?"

Seeing evolution would prove evolution. Evolution is the gradual creation of new useful limbs and organs through a natural, unguided process of trial and error variations. The fossils merely demonstrate that in the distant past life was different than it is today.

"I suggest you submit your evidence and objections to scientific peer review among experts-"

Since 1859, endless creationists have critiqued evolution. There is a massive body of literature. Which atheists of course just ignore, as the Vatican ignores anti-catholic literature.

"It seems that many (most?) occupations and secular schools are forbidden for Ultra-Orthodox Jews."

It depends on which school and which Jew and which rabbi you ask. Through a blog, I can't give anyone advise. I think that careers in acting, modeling, the military outside Israel and sports would be pretty much off limits to observant Jews but that's about it.

"Yes, I know, no work on the Sabbath, but how did the rabbis determine that operating motor vehicles or flipping light switches constitute "work" for that purpose?"

The Torah prohibits lightening a fire on the Sabbath.

DrJ said...

Nathan said:
"My conclusions are based on the evidence I see that the scientists provide."

Seems that your logic has somehow been missed by scientists. Why don't you enlighten them? Unless its all a conspiracy theory, along with the Twin Towers being brought down by the Jews and other such nonsense.

"Evolution is not science"

Then why did scientists, who previously accepted creationism, become convinced?

"Seeing evolution would prove evolution."

OK, then seeing creation would prove creation, right?

Science doesn't work like that. Its called induction.

NC said...

"Evolution is the gradual creation of new useful limbs and organs through a natural, unguided process of trial and error variations."

And that is exactly what you see. Go into any museum.

I know I asked you this, before, but how do you know that on some random morning 1000 years ago, the sun rose?

jewish philosopher said...

"OK, then seeing creation would prove creation, right?"

Which we do see. Every watch has a watchmaker.

"And that is exactly what you see. Go into any museum."

The fossils merely demonstrate that in the distant past life was different than it is today.

"how do you know that on some random morning 1000 years ago, the sun rose?"

There are some records going back that far.

NC said...

"There are some records going back that far."

As far as I know, there is no specific testimony or evidence of sunrise on September 26, 1010.

"Which we do see." Who saw creation?

"The fossils merely demonstrate that in the distant past life was different than it is today."

Connect the dots. Basic science.

jewish philosopher said...

"As far as I know, there is no specific testimony or evidence of sunrise on September 26, 1010."

Maybe it didn't. So what?

"Who saw creation?"

We see everyday machines being created, never evolving.

"Connect the dots."

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan#Episode_12:_Encyclopedia_Galactica

Yet evolution is virtually evidence free. This is exactly where other false religions such as Christianity and Islam fail. Do I see a pattern?

Anonymous said...

"We see everyday machines being created, never evolving."

Untrue. You lose again.

"Evolution of Adaptive Behavior in Robots"

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1000292

jewish philosopher said...

The robots are built by an intelligent designer. So were we.

Evolution would be a new machine gradually developing through accidents happening in the factory, no designer involved. Of course, that can never happen.

Anonymous said...

DrJ:

Many scientists admit to having an apriori bias against any explanation that goe soutside of the laws of nature that we typically experience. Saying "G-d did it" goes against the rules, either because it is not naturalistic, not testable, not falsifiable, etc. So evolution wins by default, not because that is where the evidence leads.

NC said...

Many philosophers feel that science and religion don't intersect-- the science gives the "how" and the religion the "why".

So what's wrong with saying that the mechanism was evolution but god made the rules of nature and directed it all? There's no contradiction there. Just like the big bang or other aspects of geology and cosmology, which give the "how", and god provides the why. (even though the science may contradict the literal interpretation of the bible)

I have no problem if you say an intelligent creator directed the whole thing through his laws of physics, but the mechanism was evolution.

In this case scientists have no problem with saying "god did it". Science by definition is the study of natural processes, so don't expect it to evaluate "miracles" which are claimed to be outside of nature.

jewish philosopher said...

I think that the primary proof of atheism is that fossils prove that Origin of Species is true and the Bible is false.

I however refute that:

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/03/evolution-science-hijacked-by-atheism.html

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/09/how-i-understand-genesis.html

NC said...

"I think that the primary proof of atheism is that fossils prove.. "

You've made a false dichotomy: Either the Bible is literally true or there is no god. Logical error.

The proofs of evolution are not just fossils.

1. The zoological tree (of living organisms) and their interelatedness and commonalities
2. The observation of local adaptations, over place and time, and the unique characteristics of isolated systems (ie marsupials)
3. The DNA record strongly indicating common origins of species.
4. The factual existence and observations of artificial selection-- in farming, domestication, etc. (Think of how a wolf evolved into a chihuahua in just a few tens of thousands of years)

"I however refute that:"

Your ideas are not really refutations but more like alternative "scientific" theories. You propose those scenarios to explain the observations. Therefore, unless you would like to submit these ideas for scientific scrutiny, as a non-scientist you should limit your claims to theological ones. Otherwise you are shouting to the mountains. Really. See if your multiple creations theory really fits into all of the observations. It is no different then if I were to propose an alternate theory about volcanos, about which I know practically nothing. I can scream it on the internet as long as I want, but unless it holds up to scrutiny, its worthless.


The overall evidence for evolution, as I mentioned above, is overwhelming. It is only you with some mashigina Evangelicals who hold onto objections.

jewish philosopher said...

"Either the Bible is literally true or there is no god."

If the Bible is bogus, then there's no reason to believe in the Biblical God. This is what atheists apparently mean "I don't believe in God because there is no proof!"

"The zoological tree (of living organisms) and their interelatedness and commonalities"

Not really. Carl Linnaeus, the founder of taxonomy, was a creationist.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=185

"2. The observation of local adaptations, over place and time, and the unique characteristics of isolated systems (ie marsupials)"

We never see new limbs or organs evolve. No watchmaker, no watch. 

"3. The DNA record strongly indicating common origins of species."

Or a common designer.

"4. The factual existence and observations of artificial selection-- in farming, domestication, etc. (Think of how a wolf evolved into a chihuahua in just a few tens of thousands of years)"

We never see new limbs or organs evolve. No watchmaker, no watch.

"unless you would like to submit these ideas for scientific scrutiny"

Scientists foolish enough to question evolution are treated like Galileo when he questioned the church. Atheism is simply the new orthodoxy.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/expelled-no-intelligence-allowed/

NC said...

"If the Bible is bogus, then there's no reason to believe in the Biblical God."

With this one sweeping over generalization you dismiss all intermediate positions. Over heard of non literal interpretation? The Talmud is full of it. And there are other descriptions of the "biblical god" besides your angry, jealous and vindictive version.

This is actually the kind of debate you should be having: theology, not science.


"We never see new limbs or organs evolve."

Huh? fins to limbs to wings and back? The formation of eyes? The fossil record is full of examples. You really should go to the Museum of Natural History.

"Scientists foolish enough to question evolution are treated like Galileo"

Any serious scientific work by a qualified scientist is accepted. For example Gould's work is taken seriously. OTOH, anybody who is ridiculed by the establishment deserves it, on the basis of bad science. God arguments are by definition bad science, since science examines only the natural explanations.

Whether or not you believe in supernatural is a matter of faith, and if you feel a supernatural explanation is needed when a natural one suffices.

jewish philosopher said...

"With this one sweeping over generalization you dismiss all intermediate positions"

Monotheism is a Torah concept. Discredit the Torah and you've killed God.

"The fossil record is full of examples"

The fossils merely demonstrate that in the distant past life was different than it is today.

"Any serious scientific work by a qualified scientist is accepted"

Your naiveté is touching, however course scientists are no more honest than businessmen, politicians or anyone else.

"God arguments are by definition bad science"

That would surprise every pre-Darwin scientist.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=185

NC said...

"Discredit the Torah and you've killed God."

Many theologions, Jewish and others, would beg to differ, and say that evolution does not discredit the Torah or kill god.

Also, remember that for at least half the earth's population, who do not follow Abrahamic faiths, evolution poses no problem whatsoever in their religion.

"That would surprise every pre-Darwin scientist."

Yes. Because science now is totally different. Peer review. Relativity. DNA. Statistics.

This doesn't mean that a scientist can't mention or believe in god. It just cannot be used to explain something, since that quells the whole endeavor which attempts to illucidate natural mechanisms.

Imagine if Einstein, instead of developing relativity to explain gravity, just sufficed to say, "because god did it so humans would stay attached to the earth". Would that be science?

"The fossils merely demonstrate that in the distant past life was different than it is today."

Kind of like saying that tectonic plates "merely" show that the earth's crust was different in the past, without even trying to connect the past and the present. Or archeological ruins "merely show" that civilization was different in the past, and ignoring everything in between.

You have proposed an alternate theory to explain everything. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that it is correct and consistent with the evidence (especially since you seem to confident and adept at discrediting other scientific theories). Submit it to the journal "Science" for example.

It is much easier to shoot holes at somebody else's theory than to defend your own.

NC said...

An insight:

1. Because rationalists/scientists use induction, and because we don't see "supernatural" events of the biblical kind today, we assume that they could not have occured in the past, either. So, for example, I reject that humans lived to the age of 1000 years. I realize that you would disagree with this. You reject inductive reasoning as a way of discovering reality.

2. Science seeks to understand natural mechanisms. In the past, when so little was understood, even scientists often had to resort to the god of the gaps. [example-- Newton was a believer, and gravity was a mysterious "force". Not so for Einstein]
So, by definition, if you invoke the supernatural in your explanation, you are not speaking the language of science, and you are not and cannot be using its methods. If you invoke god or miracles you bypass all natural laws, and therefore they cannot be studied by science.


So, in essence, I think we are speaking two different languages, although superficially you use the word "science", you don't mean the same thing I do.

Since your alternate "special creations" theory involves miracles, supernatural intervention, etc, it could not possibly be proven or disproven by science.

The only way to reconcile the conflict is to say, as some do, that the laws of nature are God's, like the anthropic principle. (although now Hawkings disputes this)

jewish philosopher said...

"Many theologions, Jewish and others, would beg to differ, and say that evolution does not discredit the Torah or kill god."

I would tend to agree with Daniel Dennett who compares evolution to a “universal acid”:

“it eats through just about every traditional concept, and leaves in its wake a revolutionized world-view, with most of the old landmarks still recognizable, but transformed in fundamental ways.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_Dangerous_Idea#Universal_acid

"Yes. Because science now is totally different."

And perhaps much worse. Plenty of good science was done before 1859. However to quote Ernst Mayr:

"The Darwinian revolution was not merely the replacement of one scientific theory by another, as had been the scientific revolutions in the physical sciences, but rather the replacement of a world view, in which the supernatural was accepted as a normal and relevant explanatory principle, by a new world view in which there was no room for supernatural forces."

http://bevets.com/equotesm.htm

Science enthusiastically embraced Darwinism because it increased the prestige of science and eliminated the importance of the clergy.

"Submit it to the journal "Science" for example."

Again your naive belief in the honesty of scientists is touching. Creationists often have submit articles to scientific journals which just reject them.

http://www.trueorigin.org/creatpub.asp

You may as well submit your critiques of Christianity to the Vatican for publication.

"Since your alternate "special creations" theory involves miracles, supernatural intervention, etc, it could not possibly be proven or disproven by science."

What about the idea that the earth has been visited in the past by aliens from other planets? Would that be something science could study? Would that automatically be false because it doesn't happen now? Francis Crick once suggested this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia#Directed_panspermia

But mention God, God forbid, and it's all different. It's not science, it can't be true.

Essentially, scientists are simply trying to find any excuse possible to strip the clergy of all credibility so that they, scientists, can dominate instead.

NC said...

"And perhaps much worse."

Is that why we now live longer (about twice as long), healthier and with a higher quality of life than 150 years ago?

"What about the idea that the earth has been visited in the past by aliens from other planets?"

No, it would not be automatically false, just very unlikely unless there was good evidence for it. And we know that all present reports of UFO's have been thoroughly discredited.

jewish philosopher said...

"Is that why we now live longer (about twice as long), healthier and with a higher quality of life than 150 years ago?"

That's no thanks to evolution. Evolutionists used to believe in euthanasia

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i3/euthanasia.asp

And removing useful organs.

http://www.gospelhour.net/2278.html

"No, it would not be automatically false, just very unlikely unless there was good evidence for it."

So if a scientist says "Space aliens created life on earth", as Crick did, that might be good science. However if a scientist says "God created life on earth." that's bad science.

This is just atheistic dogma.

NC said...

I don't wish to troll, I will stop here.

jewish philosopher said...

It's just that you seem to simply repeat the same points, over and over.

"Evolution must be true because scientists say so."

Wrong. Scientists can be just as delusional and dishonest as anyone else.

"The fossils demonstrate evolution."

Wrong. Therefore paleontologists have had to invent "punctuated equilibrium".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

"People are naturally pretty nice; no Torah or fear of God needed."

Wrong. Read a few history books or newspapers.

Anonymous said...

Re no driving on Shabbat:

Lighting or extinguishing a fire on Shabbat is considered to be a Biblical prohibition by the Talmud.

The standard internal combustion engine in cars basically works by igniting a fire (ie. "combustion").

I suppose that there could theoretically be a question with "green" cars that don't have this engine or any form of creating fire - perhaps it would be a lesser violation and therefore preferable for ambulances operating on Shabbat, for example?