Not science, but rather ideology.

[phank]

To be fair, Jorge does have a point. It's no accident that there are so many physicians who signed the famous "doubting Darwin" document. Physicians really are not concerned with the historical development of the liver or the immune system, they are only interested in the failure modes of these systems and appropriate techniques for addressing the failures. From the physician's point of view, the liver or immune system might just as well have been poofed into existence last Tuesday.

Where Jorge goes off the rails is in equating the lack of any need to understand the evolutionary history (for some purposes), with the nonexistence of any evolutionary history. Kind of like saying "I have no need to know where my car was manufactured, therefore I don't know where it was manufactured, therefore it was not manufactured at all but was rather miraculously brought into being all at once and nothing first.

[Roy]

"A theory of biology" is not science.

Interesting.

Is the interesting aspect that you omitted the indefinite article from "a science"?

Evolution can quite easily be science without being a science.

Just as Hooke's Law is science but not a science, smoked salmon is fish but not a fish, the immaculate conception is religion but not a religion, and ice-cream is cold but not a cold.

Roy

[Jedidiah]

I don't appreciate the stuff Jorge posts any more than most of you. I wonder why you keep luring him back with insults and other belittling comments. If he is wrong just ignore him.

[rogue06]

I don't appreciate the stuff Jorge posts any more than most of you. I wonder why you keep luring him back with insults and other belittling comments. If he is wrong just ignore him.

Think of mossy's "Guilty pleasures........." thread.

[klaus54]

I don't appreciate the stuff Jorge posts any more than most of you. I wonder why you keep luring him back with insults and other belittling comments. If he is wrong just ignore him.

Because he's the only one willing to enter a discussion on the physical inter.. ...err reading of Genesis 1.

Now he's failed miserably but HAS hinted that he knows the answer, but won't tell us since we're not worthy. Casting pearls before swine and that jazz.

And he's NOT wrong per se. He's NOT EVEN WRONG.

Oh, I did get one more YEC participant "Mr. Anderson" who said essentially "the plain reading of Ge 1:3 is plain and obvious. Don't ask YECs about plain stuff."

K54

P.S. I apologize. "Mr. Anderson" replied in my "Literal Ge 1:3" thread.

[klaus54]

Is the interesting aspect that you omitted the indefinite article from "a science"?

Evolution can quite easily be science without being a science.

Just as Hooke's Law is science but not a science, smoked salmon is fish but not a fish, the immaculate conception is religion but not a religion, and ice-cream is cold but not a cold.

Roy

Just a clarification for the lurkers. The "A theory of biology is not science" are not my words but a quote from a fella who thinks cosmic rays come from the ground.

K54

[klaus54]

To be fair, Jorge does have a point. It's no accident that there are so many physicians who signed the famous "doubting Darwin" document. Physicians really are not concerned with the historical development of the liver or the immune system, they are only interested in the failure modes of these systems and appropriate techniques for addressing the failures. From the physician's point of view, the liver or immune system might just as well have been poofed into existence last Tuesday.

Where Jorge goes off the rails is in equating the lack of any need to understand the evolutionary history (for some purposes), with the nonexistence of any evolutionary history. Kind of like saying "I have no need to know where my car was manufactured, therefore I don't know where it was manufactured, therefore it was not manufactured at all but was rather miraculously brought into being all at once and nothing first.

Correct. A professional driver doesn't have to understand how an internal combustion works, an auto mechanic doesn't need to know thermodynamics, and an electrician doesn't have to know Maxwell's Equations. Similarly, a physician doesn't have to understand (what creationist call) macroevolution to practice their art.

K54

[Roy]

Just a clarification for the lurkers. The "A theory of biology is not science" are not my words but a quote from a fella who thinks cosmic rays come from the ground.

I'm sure the lurkers are quite capable of determining for themselves that your so-called quote is nothing of the sort.

Omniskeptical is quite capable of making his own howlers. You shouldn't be inventing them for him.

Roy

[klaus54]

I'm sure the lurkers are quite capable of determining for themselves that your so-called quote is nothing of the sort.

Omniskeptical is quite capable of making his own howlers. You shouldn't be inventing them for him.

Roy

I stand corrected. I was going from faulty memory.

Sorry, here is his/her quote which is equally risible:

Evolution is not a science. It is a theory of biology at best

If you can parse that into something sensible, be my guest.

Especially the "at best" part. Likely an indication he doesn't understand the meaning of "theory" in science.

I appreciate the distinction due to the presence or not of the indefinite article.

How would his quote translate into Russian?

K54

[Omniskeptical]

"A theory of biology" is not science.

Interesting.

K54

It isn't a science; it's a theory. Stop being stupid.

[Omniskeptical]

I stand corrected. I was going from faulty memory.

How are you not stewpid?

[HMS_Beagle]

It isn't a science; it's a theory. Stop being stupid.

Not "a" science but a scientific theory supported by consilient scientific evidence from hundreds of different scientific fields.

That makes it science. Period.

Stop with the stupid trolling.

[Omniskeptical]

Not "a" science but a scientific theory supported by consilient scientific evidence from hundreds of different scientific fields.

That makes it science. Period.

Stop with the stupid trolling.

It isn't science in the other sciences. It is a theory of biology.

[HMS_Beagle]

It isn't science in the other sciences.

Of course it's science. How are you not stewpid?

[Omniskeptical]

Of course it's science. How are you not stewpid?

It isn't science in other sciences not biology. Wow, a troll question from Tiggy. I am so surprised.