It is interesting that, if the web site were created during Darwin's lifetime and he took the test, that he would definitely not have received the highest marks. His ideas contradicted scientific orthodoxy of the day.

. . . which is one of the beauties of the scientific method, eh? Scientific truths are supposed to change over time.

Unlike religion, no scientific "truth" claims absolute truth.

Compare a scientific textbook from only 20 years ago with one published today and you'll find substantial changes in the two. Those changes largely reflect the additional experience that the human species has accumulated during that short period.

Now compare the Christian bible of today with the Christian bible of 1500 years ago. Same old bible. Century upon century of human experience in the world disregarded.

How many educated people today believe that the world functions as Aristotelian physics or Ptolemaic astronomy alleges that it functions? Knowledge changes. That which it may have been rational to believe about the physical world 2,000 years ago, it no longer may be rational to believe (see Creationism/ID theory).

From this perspective it's stunning to realize that some people still cling to the notion that the bible speaks knowledgeably and with authority about phenomena in the world.

[Edited to correct the error that TheDoctor points out below.]

"Scientific truths are supposed to change over time"

Great, so why do you keep raising them against any position today?  If we wait 20 years, science will refute itself.

This is the irony of your position, which you think is 'humble.'   You are annoyed that 'religion' could say it has the right answer throughout time, but then it is only acting consistently then when it offers the same answer each generation.  At least its being true to itself.  The arrogance of the scientific pov (as you express it), is that you raise some 'scientific fact' today that supposedly refutes some 'religious' proposition today, while simultaneiously trumpeting it as a strength of science that this alleged 'scientific fact' may very well not be true in 20 years.

So, against any argument you have against any position that I may offer today, I invoke the conclusions of science 20 years from now.  I don't even know what they are.  You are hereby refuted.

From this perspective it's stunning to realize that some people still cling to the notion that the bible speaks knowledgeably and with authority about phenomena in the world.

I fully agree that it is stunning.

Unlike religion, no scientific "truth" claims absolute truth.

I understand this and really appreciate your bringing it up.  I also see it as part of the beauty of scientific inquiry.  However, it does seem to me that, while scientific truth doesn't claim absolute truth, "scientific orthodoxy"  seems to demand that one live/think/behave as if it is absolute until proven otherwise.  It may not be true, but one is unorthodox if one does not speak as if it were true.  So, in some ways, it seems like it is up to the unorthodox to move science forward.

However, it does seem to me that, while scientific truth doesn't claim absolute truth, "scientific orthodoxy" seems to demand that one live/think/behave as if it is absolute until proven otherwise. It may not be true, but one is unorthodox if one does not speak as if it were true. So, in some ways, it seems like it is up to the unorthodox to move science forward.

I don't disagree with this in substance. Science tends to continue to patch holes in its existing theories as long as it can. Inevitably, however, if the theory is mistaken, it does run out of patches.

Any theory of science may be false and in a popperian sense every scientific theory is false (I hesitate to write that because the 'saint' will misconstrue those words). But the thing about scientific theories (and really about any proposition in general) is that simply because they can be mistaken is not the first reason to believe that they actually are mistaken. Even if at some later time the theory of evolution is shown to be absolutely, indubitably false, it is still TODAY the best explanation that we have to explain the origin of species.

And nothing that will happen in the future can change that fact.

"By the use of the word "refute" (refute: prove to be false) you show conclusively that you do not understand what I wrote."

Oh?

Are you saying that science does not refute Creationism and ID then?

"When the theory of evolution was changed to include the findings of genetic research did that mean that the theory of evolution was proved to be false?"

lol, riiiiiight.  The really funny thing is how adamant the evolutionists were before the neo-darwinian synthesis.  The Scopes-Monkey Trial, for example, though well after Mendel's formulation of the genetic laws, occurred in a context where much of what Mendel had demonstrated experimentally- without aid from evolution, mind you- was largely ignored, under-appreciated, or not very well understood.  The synthesis arrived later, but that didn't stop your honorable mates from speaking belligerently at that time, did it?

"I bring up scientific theories of reality to oppose your bible-based constructions of reality because scientific theories are more accurate representations of reality -- and provably so."

Oh, so are you saying that these scientific theories refute them?

"I am firmly convinced that our species is better served in the long run by facing reality as it is rather than by being lulled into complacency by a comfortable, invented version of it."

Which makes you a dangerous man, probably.  If you go so far as Dawkins, you will argue that parents should no longer be allowed to raise their own children.  Perhaps we have different ideas about what it might mean for our 'species' to be 'better served.'

Just out of curiosity, why should you care about the species?  Shouldn't you just care about yourself and your own progeny?  Have you been reading Dawkin's 'The Selfish Gene,' too?

"You've used this curious phrase in the past and I've never quite understood why. What in my writing style or in my word-choice leads you to think that I, of all people, believe my position is 'humble'?"

You clearly think it is humble in regards to religion.  Your above post is indicative of that.

"If that comes off as arrogant, then sobeit."

I run into similar problems.  No, I was not saying YOU were arrogant.  I was highlighting your post where you went off on religion because it doesn't change, by invoking a system of change that you think is a mark of its greater validity, even though in 20 years, by your own words, these very same scientific 'facts' may not be facts, either.

If recent history is any guide, we can expect a neo-neo-darwinian synthesis in... I'm going to say about 20 years.  With the mapping of the human genome you are already getting some hints of disconcerting realities.

"I am in no way deferential to the religious position. Just between you and me, I think that to believe in the usual Christian conception of God is not only irrational but slightly juvenile, as well. It is in a sense a refusal to grow up and to face reality."

Oh, don't worry about it.  It was clear as day from the start.  In fact, that attitude pretty well is reflected in most atheists I debate with.  Not all, mind you, but most.  The really funny thing is, from my perspective, is how atheists seem to think that you can win an argument over substance by attitude.

"Funny, (I guess) in a three stooges kind of way, but invalid as an argument. (Sorry, DT.) "  

And would you like to tell us WHY it is invalid?  Or do you again wish to descend to mere attitude and declaration, not "this is invalid because etc etc" but because "this is invalid:  I have spoken!"
 
I'm in a muddle now. You seem to agree that you could practically never say that science refutes anything but you are perfectly content to invoke it right now as refuting creationism/ID (your grouping).  *sniff* *sniff*  I think that's an inconsistency I smell.

The fact is, on another thread you've gone out of your way to say that science is supposed to be 'naturalistic.'  Uh.... well gee, Cogito, call me stupid, but if you've already presupposed to only allow naturalistic interpretations or explanations of the data, than that's all your going to generate.  Garbage in, garbage out.  That's what my momma used to say, usually followed by snatching away the Snickers bar.

Do you think it is impressive to 'win' your argument by choosing to emphasize a methodology that doesn't even allow competitors on the court and which you gleefully acknolwedge may not even be in a position to support your argument in 20 years, anyway?

This goes back to my own real point of contention.  The argument is not over the 'science.'  The argument is over the assumptions, presumptions, and presuppositions.

I have nothing but scorn for a POV that says, "I don't give a rat's patootey what the best explanation is.  I'm going to go with ANY explanation that is naturalistic, and proclaim that this explanation, no matter how contrived, tortured, or unsubstantiated, is by definition, the 'best.'"

I look forward to seeing you defend your sterilization policies, next.  Oh yea.  You're just what our species needs.  [tries to decide if a smiley is appropriate... can't...leaves it go]

I'll take Marxism for a hundred dollars, Bob!

dingdingding

Let's have a fill in the blank quiz.

Death tolls from:

20th century:
Mao's 'Cultural Revolution':
Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge:
Stalin's Purges:
Lenin's Purges:
The October Revolution:

GrabBag: ________________  *all the rest    

Use this to find your answers:  http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE5.HTM

Or, start here:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

Now, just for fun, let's tuck in:

Over THREE centuries, not one...

The Crusades
The Inquisition

GrabBag ____________

Secular 'scientists' =
Christian 'fundies' =

SS-CF= _________

For the bonus round we'll take "Random arguments from atheists as to how the atheists from the 20th century were not really atheists or acting on atheistic or scientific principles, even though THEY all said they were"

Lol..snt.j

I KNOW the refomed-baptist thought on that..hehee...