From a "lazy troll"...if you want to continue this, leave me a comment on my blog :)

posted by (anonymous) at 10:44am on 10/02/2006
You make interesting points about "scientists"; you talk about how "the whole point of their activity" is to describe the physical world around us. Two points must be made here:
1 - No-one argues that scientists try to make sense of the physical world.
2 - You are confusing present, operational, empirical science with historical science. A continued canard that depicts those who disagree with Darwinian evolution as straw men who are easily refuted. Maybe you don't have any better arguments?

You said that "the reason scientific theories (models of reality) are commonly accepted is because they work as explanations and descriptions of The Real World...", yet "hindsight (aka history)" shows us that if a commonly accepted 'scientific model' does not work, the theory is slightly adjusted to fit the new evidence (take Ptolemaic astronomy or phlogiston theory as examples). It is no different today.
[parent entry] [link] [reply]
maelorin: (Default)

Re: From a "lazy troll"...if you want to continue this, leave me a comment on my blog :)

posted by [personal profile] maelorin at 12:20pm on 10/02/2006
theology is no replacement for science in understanding the physical world.

no scientist claims that we "have it all figured out" yet. but that is not the point, we know we're on a journey. but it's not a theological one. that's for theologians.

creationism is not an explanation of the physical world, it's stories written several thousand years ago dressed up in contemporary language.

i just don't see the point of all the obsession with it anyway. it's neither important to christian theology nor particularly relevant to living as a christian. millions of catholics are no less christian than evangelicals.

just because you can read something, doesn't mean you understand it.

i'm not confusing historical anything with contemporary practice.

yet "hindsight (aka history)" shows us that if a commonly accepted 'scientific model' does not work, the theory is slightly adjusted to fit the new evidence

your point being?
[link] [parent] [reply]

May

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
          1
 
 2
 
3
 
 4
1
 5
 
 6
 
 7
 
 8
 
 9
 
10
 
 11
 
 12
 
 13
 
 14
 
 15
 
 16
 
17
 
 18
 
 19
 
 20
 
 21
 
 22
 
 23
 
24
 
 25
 
 26
 
 27
 
 28
 
 29
 
 30
 
31