Delete comment from: Debunking Christianity
Purpose
To illustrate that much supposed “scientific objectivity” is subjective. Science is often tainted by human pre-conceptions. One cannot pursue science while disconnecting themselves from presuppositions, experiences, and an a priori belief system.
An adult may see a brown rabbit at 50 meters in a field of brown dead grass whereas a 2-year-old child may fail to locate it. An adult may see a green frog on a lily pad but a 2-year-old child may fail to locate it. Even though the child may have 20/20 vision, the child fails to locate the hard-to-see animal. Why? An adult has knowledge that the child does not. The adult has learned and memorized attributes of the rabbit and frog that the child has not. The adult has learned to differentiate between near-same colors. The adult has learned to be more patient and persevering than the child. The varying theories of cognitive development illustrate that the actual mechanisms are little understood. For example, the following link explains how multiple theories are supplanting Piaget’s traditional theory of cognitive development:
Theory of cognitive development
Instead of a child simply knowing where to look because the rabbit was previously in “that place”, the child may have a built-in “core knowledge” which gains them success in locating any object where previously first discovered. What has this got to do with an evolutionist deciding that men and monkeys have a common ancestral relationship because of homological and sequential similarities? It has everything to do with it. The Wikipedia link states: “Recently Piaget's theory has been falling out of favour for a new theory called Ecological Systems Theory. This is based on the contextual influences in the child's life like his/her immediate family, school, society and the world, and how these impact the child's development.” If this is true, and I believe it is, then we can readily see that one’s interpretation of a fossil or DNA sequence is HIGHLY dependent upon family, school, society and the world. Is looking at a fossil and drawing a conclusion a simple matter? The required mental processes are far more complex than what many assume:
Congitive Learning Theory
Information Theory
Is it possible for an adult to behold an object without drawing upon previous experience? If one thinks he is objective and free from prejudices when evaluating evidences, then that person is blind to his own inner-workings. I often hear the amusing words, “My interpretation is based solely on the evidence.” Something must be learned before one can analyze an object. Some people have a knack for finding 4-leaf clovers while others do not. Some can see the hidden objects in 3-D art prints whereas others cannot. People who suffer brain damage in an accident are more apt to understand that previous mental faculties were taken for granted.
Who is more “scientific”?
1) Theists who consider natural causes.
2)Atheists who consider ONLY natural causes.
Conclusion
If God is exchanged, ignored or denied prior to pursuing “science”, then one’s interpretation of evidences may be far removed from the actual truth, if he indeed exists. Reality as seen through naturalistic science alone may be nothing more than an illusion.
“Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” - Richard Dawkins
“Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.” - William Provine, Cornell
Jul 1, 2009, 12:03:05 AM