RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 2595
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,07:11   

Quote (blipey @ April 02 2007,00:16)
Sure, it is appropriate to use language very precisely when speaking to creationist groups or addressing the issues when debating creationists.

As we all many of us agree, N.Wells's concern is valid. Take this accidental capture of one of my edits. I changed it before anyone had a chance to post a reply, but apparently, k.e had already downloaded the text for composition.

Quote (Zachriel (before) @ April 01 2007,08:16)
IDers seem to believe that perceived rhetoric victory inevitably results in scientific acceptance.

Quote (Zachriel (after) @ April 01 2007,08:16)
IDers seem to think that a perceived rhetorical victory inevitably results in scientific acceptance.

The issue I was discussing was the multiple meanings of "believe". You can see why I changed that sentence. Talk about circularity! It is a characteristic of language that the most common and useful words have multiple meanings that are discerned through context (a fact supported by information theory, e.g. f**k). Consequently, some ambiguity is expected (and a fount of comedy!).

Whitesides was addressing a scientific conference of the American Chemical Society. He may not even be much aware of Uncommon Descent. I doubt he would have thought his statements would be misunderstood by any reasonable audience, or even noticed much outside the community of his peers.

George Whitesides            
Most chemists believe, as do I, that life emerged spontaneously from mixtures of molecules in the prebiotic Earth.

    1) to have a firm religious faith
    2) to hold as an opinion

Whitesides made an appeal to expert authority among that very group of expert authorities. We can easily determine his unambiguous meaning. But look what they make of it on Uncommon Descent.
Isn’t this the sort of thing Richard Dawkins is talking about when he defines “faith” as “belief without evidence”? I mean, why do “most chemists believe…that life emerged spontaneously” if there is no evidence as to how that can happen?

A totally useless statement as science but very enlightening as to the true nature of materialist blind faith “science”. It may be patently absurd but that doesn’t even matter to them!

You believe by faith that there was no Intelligent Designer involved. That sounds like religion to me. Evidence, we want evidence not just blind faith.

This is a “statement of faith”, a religious statement.

Of course, we should be careful in our use of language, but I'm not sure there is a solution to the problem of communicating with those whose minds are closed.

The reason I replied to an issue that obviously has N.Wells in a dander (and contrary to my usual practice of avoiding argument with someone who happens to be right) is that my own accidentally revealed edit seemed ŕ propos.

Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]