Comments on: Todd Wood on Evolution (Pt 2) http://blog.jmlynch.org/2009/10/06/todd-wood-on-evolution-pt-2/ suffering under the sun Sat, 23 Jul 2011 23:46:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Mike McCants http://blog.jmlynch.org/2009/10/06/todd-wood-on-evolution-pt-2/comment-page-1/#comment-7869 Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:47:12 +0000 http://jmlynch.wordpress.com/2009/10/06/todd-wood-on-evolution-pt-2/#comment-7869 “Since I think God is not only knowable but desires to be known, He becomes a valid agent to posit in science.”

Hilarious.

]]> By: DLC http://blog.jmlynch.org/2009/10/06/todd-wood-on-evolution-pt-2/comment-page-1/#comment-7866 Sat, 10 Oct 2009 02:59:11 +0000 http://jmlynch.wordpress.com/2009/10/06/todd-wood-on-evolution-pt-2/#comment-7866 So… there’s an entire Himalayas worth of evidence for evolution, and what, an old book of bronze-age lore in favor of creation, but this fellow Wood says he has weighed the evidence and found evolution lacking.
The “triumph” of non-reason strikes again.

]]> By: Seamus http://blog.jmlynch.org/2009/10/06/todd-wood-on-evolution-pt-2/comment-page-1/#comment-7857 Thu, 08 Oct 2009 08:55:58 +0000 http://jmlynch.wordpress.com/2009/10/06/todd-wood-on-evolution-pt-2/#comment-7857 The problem as I see it is that there is no agreement/understanding as to what science represents: what science is.
When there is no agreement within the scientific community can there be any surprise at the abject ignorance in society and the consequent misrepresentations in education that result?

Have we reached the stage where people (in science) focus so much on the fine detail of specialised areas that they miss “the big picture”?

Any scientist who believes that science is great, but can only go so far misses the fundamental point…

Science is the ONLY means that we have as a species to identify truth and accumulate knowledge (which can only exist in a form independent of the individual).

Evolution tells us that every aspect of that lump of stuff we call a brain exists purely to process empirical data from the physical world around us, that any changes and improvements that have come about did so purely in response to that environment (as with all living beings). To believe the mind possesses any trancendental qualities is to persist in the fallacious view that humans, individually or collectively, “matter”. The need for fate justifying faith.

The catastrophic nature of the geological history of our planet (and not just evolution) tells us otherwise.

Science succeeds simply because it avoids the failure of individual perspective; it externalises the concept of truth. For any individual in the 21st century (scientist or not) to argue that they can understand or know more than science is to suggest that the individual can trump the collective and is my favourite definition of arrogance.
I have never seen any counter argument as anything other than semantics…but am happy(?) to be proved wrong…..

]]>