Comments on: The Naturalist’s Lament http://www.manandultraman.com/archives/158 Tue, 22 Nov 2011 09:40:53 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: naturalists http://www.manandultraman.com/archives/158/comment-page-1#comment-5120 naturalists Wed, 10 Sep 2008 08:37:23 +0000 http://psharbaugh.wordpress.com/?p=338#comment-5120 [...] discussion of evolution, fundamentalist Christian objections to it, and God's place in the debate.http://psharbaugh.wordpress.com/2008/08/15/the-naturalists-lament/Welcome to Naturalists at LargeNaturalists at Large is the leading environmental education group in [...] [...] discussion of evolution, fundamentalist Christian objections to it, and God’s place in the debate.http://psharbaugh.wordpress.com/2008/08/15/the-naturalists-lament/Welcome to Naturalists at LargeNaturalists at Large is the leading environmental education group in [...]

]]> By: Jacko http://www.manandultraman.com/archives/158/comment-page-1#comment-451 Jacko Wed, 20 Aug 2008 05:32:12 +0000 http://psharbaugh.wordpress.com/?p=338#comment-451 I trust this blog will be shut down within a fortnight. I trust this blog will be shut down within a fortnight.

]]> By: Patrick Sharbaugh http://www.manandultraman.com/archives/158/comment-page-1#comment-450 Patrick Sharbaugh Fri, 15 Aug 2008 04:52:34 +0000 http://psharbaugh.wordpress.com/?p=338#comment-450 Thanks for commenting, Marc, but I'm not sure I grasp your point. You seem to be saying any scientific endeavor that does not take supernatural intervention into account is "pseudo-science." But of course that's the whole point of science - to decipher the wonders of the natural world without having to rely on supernatural explanations that can't be observed, tested, or otherwise proven to exist. You would seem to be saying that all science is "pseudo-science." Which would mean that every shred of scientific inquiry that's ever been undertaken is without any basis in reality. But the next time you want to turn on the lights or you need an antibiotic, you might consider redefining "pseudo." People of faith are free to attribute any and all known (and as yet unknown) scientific forces to God if they wish, just as they're free to credit Him with the existence of the moral impetus, smallpox, halitosis and foot fungus. But that's the responsibility of theologians, not scientists. In the meantime, I share your sigh of wonder at all creation and, like you, steadfastly believe it encourages further investigation. Thanks for commenting, Marc, but I’m not sure I grasp your point. You seem to be saying any scientific endeavor that does not take supernatural intervention into account is “pseudo-science.” But of course that’s the whole point of science – to decipher the wonders of the natural world without having to rely on supernatural explanations that can’t be observed, tested, or otherwise proven to exist. You would seem to be saying that all science is “pseudo-science.” Which would mean that every shred of scientific inquiry that’s ever been undertaken is without any basis in reality. But the next time you want to turn on the lights or you need an antibiotic, you might consider redefining “pseudo.”

People of faith are free to attribute any and all known (and as yet unknown) scientific forces to God if they wish, just as they’re free to credit Him with the existence of the moral impetus, smallpox, halitosis and foot fungus. But that’s the responsibility of theologians, not scientists. In the meantime, I share your sigh of wonder at all creation and, like you, steadfastly believe it encourages further investigation.

]]> By: Marc http://www.manandultraman.com/archives/158/comment-page-1#comment-449 Marc Thu, 14 Aug 2008 21:50:14 +0000 http://psharbaugh.wordpress.com/?p=338#comment-449 The problem with saying "evolution doesn't require God" is that you can't take God out of the equation like you can in a laboratory. You can label His providence "the strong nuclear force" or his creative acts "lucky chance upon lucky chance" but you can't replay the world without it. Since you can't verify what evolution would do without God any statement concerning this is by it's very nature unscientific being unverifiable and falls into the class pseudo-science. Atheists constantly caricature the believers-shrug when faces with something incredible or wondrous. Yet this is ignore 2 things: it's not a shrug but a sigh of wonder which, on the contrary, encourages further investigation. The second is blindness to The Atheists Shrug which <a href="http://cawoodm.wordpress.com/2008/08/15/random-means-we-dont-know/" rel="nofollow">calls something "random" when we don't understand it</a>. Random-of-the gaps? The problem with saying “evolution doesn’t require God” is that you can’t take God out of the equation like you can in a laboratory. You can label His providence “the strong nuclear force” or his creative acts “lucky chance upon lucky chance” but you can’t replay the world without it. Since you can’t verify what evolution would do without God any statement concerning this is by it’s very nature unscientific being unverifiable and falls into the class pseudo-science.

Atheists constantly caricature the believers-shrug when faces with something incredible or wondrous. Yet this is ignore 2 things: it’s not a shrug but a sigh of wonder which, on the contrary, encourages further investigation. The second is blindness to The Atheists Shrug which calls something “random” when we don’t understand it. Random-of-the gaps?

]]>