Posts
I want to apologize to him for the tone, the personal attacks and the way it was presented but I still firmly stand by my statements.
I'm responding to commenter Edward regarding a string of comments from the blog entry
You may want to read through that thread if the following is confusing.
I feel that my response needs its own entry rather than a reply in comments because Edward seems to have a willful disregard for critical thinking. And besides, it's my blog and I can do what I want with it.
I won't go through every point but only hit on what I feel are the important pieces. Edward, I'm sure you will disagree with me!
When Edward asked why I listed my educational background and asked for his, I respond:
My point is that yes, by getting an education in a certain field, you have acquired specialized knowledge in that field. Therefore your words have weight and some authority. I would expect EVERYONE to listen closer to a doctor of theology then to me when it comes to the Bible!
If you have no direct or studied knowledge in a subject and only repeat what others have stated, your view should have less weight and authority. You are not presenting from a position of knowledge, only passing along what you heard from others.
Edward, you tend to quote bad science that is demonstrably false and out of date. Quoting the laws of thermodynamics and asking where the transitional fossils are shows that you don't really know the laws of physics or the fossil record. What high school science classes did you take? And the tired jet from a junkyard analogy? Really? What a horrible explanation of entropy! As for how babies are made, I think that's generally covered in junior high. Ask any 12 year old.
Do you believe that the banana is an atheists nightmare? :-)
Just because you don't understand the science and the natural world doesn't mean it's wrong.
Edward states that the King James Version of the Bible has been peer reviewed for 400 years.
As for the KJV being peer reviewed, I was kind of kidding. I was visualizing Matthew, Mark, Luke and John sitting around comparing their papers on Jesus.
But, Since the KJV Bible is a work of literature from antiquity, I feel that it can't be reviewed scientifically as a work of knowledge.
It can be and has been studied historically and religiously. For centuries, academics have sifted through the Bible to find the parts that line up with known historic happenings and they've found several.
As far as religious study, that enters into philosophy and faith and that leaves it wide open to interpretation.
I could argue that religion HAS peer reviewed the bible and that's why there are so many sects of christianity!
Edward, you said:
"This book (The Bible) is the foundation that I stand upon, it's been tested and survived greater minds than yours or mine. And you throw up science that is like a fog over the land. You are free to shape it in whatever way you want. The only authority in your belief system is you.
I have checked "science" alone Bruce and found it lacking."
I have checked "science" alone Bruce and found it lacking."
How is science "a fog over the land"? Do you find all aspects of science lacking Edward, or just the fields that conflict with the Bible? I know how you feel about biology, but, do the Earth and the other planets revolve around the sun? Do you believe in germ theory? Do you understand electricity? Magnets, how do they work? Are the simple machines on your approved list?
So, how do I explain science to someone who has no real knowledge of it?
As for hiding behind my 'bunch of letters' (which aren't all that special), I asked for YOUR credentials because I wanted to see how to address my response to you. I see that I should use small words so as not to confuse you further.
Simply put, Science is a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena.
Scientists observe something, repeatedly, make note of their observations (data) and then try to make sense of the data. They report their finding to others. Good science is peer reviewed. This means that the scientist will present his study to other experts in the field. The other scientists will question and challenge the data presented. It is often contentious and uncomfortable to watch. I've observed several peer reviews and they can be a brutal run through the gauntlet.
In these reviews, new information is never blindly accepted.
The 'authority' of scientific knowledge comes from long observation, data collection, collaboration, and repeatable results when subjected to tests. This is not the case with religion. By your own admission, it is based on faith. Faith that an ancient book is the inspired work of an infinite, timeless god.
In order for your extraordinary claim to be accepted by critical thinkers, it will have to come up with some extraordinary proof. But then, that would negate the need for faith.
Oh, and this is how magnets work;
