blueollie

Enjoy (Snow Day Special)

Hat tip to Friendly Atheist

By the way, I scored 20 points on this “test”. :)

February 1, 2008 - Posted by blueollie | creationism, religion, science | | 2 Comments

2 Comments »

  1. First I want to thank you for the great obama clips.. I love your commentary and link dump.

    Secondly, I want to point out the after checking in on your blog daily for about a week I am starting to get bogged down by the constant atheism-evolution-science bits. I am a scientist, moreover my undergrad was in computer science and the history and philosophy of science. For all your raving that Evolution is Science, Darwin violated scientific method…. If I recall my Roger Bacon correctly science is making causal inference regarding the unobservable correlation of A to B based on the observable correlation of X to Y. Darwin himself dismisses the observable correlation with “don’t look to the fossil record” and “don’t look to the the geological record” sections in Origin of Species. No scientist today would get the pass that Darwin got in 1859.

    Today we can now argue that DNA is providing the observable from X to Y, and in fact I am a believer in evolution. However, I would argue that your resistance to the idea of god is just as doctrinal as any Christian denomination. I have not met one person yet that dislikes Christians for being Christian. I have however met plenty of people who did not like Christians because the proselytize to aggressively. Finally, Evolution does not explain the spark of life that started the whole process….. just as a literal translation of the bible is a bit simple for something that is clearly a metaphorical document.

    I love aspects of your blog but some aspects appear you are just trying to prove to yourself God does not exist.

    Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit

    dafew

    Comment by ducksew | February 2, 2008 | Reply

  2. Hi. Thanks for checking in.

    I would argue that your resistance to the idea of god is just as doctrinal as any Christian denomination.

    No, it isn’t. I think of it this way: suppose I think that my car works as the result of pixies, but these are small, invisible pixies. Someone else says: “that’s nonsense”. Are both “positions equally doctrinal?” Of course not; it is up to the person who believes in pixies to provide evidence.

    To me: atheism says not that “There is no god” but rather: “I see no convincing evidence for a god”.

    So, there is no need to prove that “god doesn’t exist”; any proving has to go in the other direction. I am spending some time challenging the notion that “god exists” is some logical default notion; it isn’t.

    Personally, I don’t care what individuals believe, but I will speak out when folks start wanting to run our community/state/nation as though some deity is going to somehow intervene in physical events.

    Of course you are right about evolution being silent on the first spark, but organic chemistry does have things to say about self-replicating molecules and the conditions that might produce them.

    As far as Darwin, it was my understanding that he wanted to develop this theory completely independently from the other sciences and then see if his ideas would fit in; in “machine learning” this is akin to letting the algorithm run on a “training set” first. OOS was setting forth a conjecture.

    In a way it was a good thing too, because Lord Kelvins’ heat loss calculation would have posited an age of the earth that was too short for Darwin’s theory to work (as radioactivity was unknown at that time).

    Comment by blueollie | February 2, 2008 | Reply


Leave a comment