Braveheart’s Commentary of 9/11/08

(Footnotes in brackets [] refer to my response)

 

Well, I don't know where to begin. You wrote 19 pages to answer the first 4 pages of my attempt to explain my article to Lisa's thesis research. Assuming the same ratio, we would have a total of 38 pages to answer my 8 pages to you. Very quickly it is becoming the writing of a book to answer each other. At this time I am roofing a large porch, adding a deck, overseeing the drilling/installation of a new well, ending the gardening season, & getting ready for winter by installing drain guttering, weather caulking, fixing brakes on pickup, steering brake on my crawler, & need to get back on the hydro elect. & install a 4 ft. culvert. In short, I simply do not have the time to write a book each week.  [1]

I think I was clear & concise in my answers to you on how I reached my conclusions in the points I was making to Lisa. As I said to you last time, I was not writing a "science paper on evolution vs. creation". I really do not have a burden to convince anyone about creation vs. evolution or politics. I am in favor of liberty & freedom to believe whatever you want. I hope you also are for this same freedom for all others.  [2]

The problem in communication (between us) seems to be that we do not speak the same "language". I was surprised that you didn't try to prove theory was "evidence based explanation". Instead you chose to try to prove that science is not "facts", "tested truths", "verified" & "validated" knowledge. Wow! That is bold!!  [3]

I see the word "science" as the dictionary describes it, "knowledge based on observed FACTS & TESTED truths arranged in an orderly system of verified knowledge: that is knowledge that can be validated & communicated to others".

When I see/hear the word ”science” I see it as the dictionary describes it, a “noun”, which is the body of “knowledge” about any subject which is/are the “FACTS”, “TESTED TRUTHS”, “VALIDATED & VERIFIED” information of that subject.  [4]

From my perspective you see the word “science” as a “function” which “establishes the most coherent explanation”, “subject to modification or complete rejection”.  Your understanding seems to b e that science is a process of “testing”, “validating” & “verifying” the theories /ideas of that subject.  In this case “science” would be a verb of action.  My problem with this view is that all “facts”/”truths” are really only temporary just waiting “for “modification” or “rejection” and thus there is/are no eternal truths of facts.  [5]

 

Another problem with “science” being a “function” or process is that the dictionary gives evidence that the word is a “noun”, not a verb.  Science is the BODY of tested, verified, & validated evidence, not the process of testing & verifying of ideas/theory.   [6]

What part of “facts”, “tested truths”, “verified & validated knowledge” are subject to “modification or complete rejection”?  If any “facts” or “tested truths” are subject to modification or complete rejection, they are not facts or truths and have not been tested, verified, validated & demonstrated.  [7]

 If the body of “science” is subject to “modification” or “rejection” it remains a theory.   [8]     

Another word we see much differently is the word “theory”.  I see the word “theory as the dictionary describes it a “noun”, “thought based explanation”. We get a “theory” from “theorizing” (dictionary describes as “speculation”) and end in a “theoretical” explanation which the dictionary describes as “thought based”, “worked out in the mind”, not from “experience”, “not fact(s)”, “limited to theory” (thought based explanation).   [9]

Theories (“thought based explanation”) are theories because they have not been tested, verified & validated.  Only after theory has been tested, verified, validated and demonstrated does it become part of the body of science of that subject.  [10]

From my perspective you see the word “theory” as “evidence based explanation”.  The “theory” (thought/speculation) is constantly being tested and revised/replaced as necessary.  The problem here is that the system of testing is always trying to prove the theory or “thought based explanation”, rather than building on known science facts/truths.  [11]

In my opinion, the educational science world is always proceeding backwards.  From ideas (theories) to spending its time trying to prove the idea/theory. In my "science" world/reality, I discount theory as simply an opinion/idea, no better & no worse than any.  [12]

I accept the science body of "facts", "tested truths", "verified" & "validated" "knowledge", which is not subject to "modification" or "rejection" because they have been tested, verified and validated and can be demonstrated. I prefer to base my understanding/beliefs on facts, tested truths, verified, validated & demonstrated knowledge and then theorize/speculate on the meaning of that body of science. For example, consider gravity. Its body of "knowledge" is not subject to "modification or "rejection". If you think it is just drop something over a cliff ( or jump off) & watch it prove itself.  [13]

Your obvious question is "how then can you believe in creation"? The longer I look at the "facts" & "truths" of the universe, its complexity, its orderliness, self sustainability, and at the earth & its inhabitants, right down to atoms and their complexity & orderliness, I can only come to the conclusion that there is a much higher intelligence than human. Humans are constantly pursuing, & stumbling after this higher knowledge. The chance that all of the universe is accidental & has evolved is beyond belief for me.  [14]

So, I have taken out the life insurance policy known as Christianity with pro-life family values!! From known facts and observations I have chosen to believe in what I cannot see. I dwell in the hope/belief that there is a higher intelligence that has recognized the evil in this world & dealt with it, to give us meaning in our lives here & the life to come. I have nothing to lose and everything to gain, a better life here and possible life after death! !  [15]

So, the first thing we would have to do is write a new dictionary, or I could have you define your meaning for each & every word or I could go through the same "education" you have been through. I don't have the time, desire, need, or passion to argue for the sake of arguing, or forcing my reality to be your reality.  [16]

I will read/study your answers to me. I have enjoyed the challenges to my understandings of the meaning of life. I hope my responses have given you meaningful challenges to your reality and meaning in your life.  [17]

In the end, we may disagree but I hope that doesn’t make us disagreeable.  [18]