Answering Theology Archaelogy

Having declined to post my final comment (which as mentioned in prior posts, is his right) TA has written a page ‘answering’ some of the points I raised. He has stated I am free to reply, but from previous experience I doubt my replies will get by unless they meet his rigid criteria.

If you are following this, you may wish to check out the comment train. I should point out that TA has since published my most recent comment, so in fairness he has opted to tackle it head on.

You might also want to look at my original rebuttal to some of his claims, and my follow-up too. The direct links to his articles are within those pages.

That being said, let us address what he said in what can be considered an ‘open reply’ by him. His comments will be in pink, and where he has quoted me, my comments will be in blue.

Darthtimon has provided us with a couple lengthy comments under the Secular Science & the Believer post so we have decided to reply in a post to make things a bit easier. We will skip duplicate comments by him.

#1. I urge you to take a look at your first sentence and consider that it is in fact, you who is distorting science.

We took another look at our first statement and we did not distort anything. Science is responsible for a lot of evil that takes place in the world and we only have to go as far bask as the angel of death, to see that medical science is not as pure as Dart. makes it out to be. As you will see in his comments, people distort what secular science does for many reasons and they choose not to include the negative items that field of research produces.

I will simply refer people to my previous posts. I believe it is clear that TA has repeatedly distorted science and what it aims to do. He also (as I put it in a comment to him) ‘throws the baby out with the bathwater’ when it comes to what we’ve accomplished thanks to scientific research. He accuses me of considering medical science as being ‘pure’. I never claimed anything of the kind. The human element of how our knowledge is applied defines whether something is ‘good’ or ‘evil’. The raw science itself is neither. Science is neutral. The application… That varies.

Having talked with many scientists over the years and many science supporters their thinking is that technology and medical research/application is science only when it benefits their arguments and as soon as you point out the negatives they get all upset and start crying foul. They do not like the reality that comes with secular science.

I wonder if TA understands both the irony and hypocrisy in his position. He has been quick to dismiss the benefits of scientific achievements, in favour of the negative implications. When it was pointed out that thanks to science, we have medicines that have saved literally millions of lives, he retorted with a strawman about the costs of procedures and the ethical dilemma of keeping someone alive via a machine. These issues are not to the scientific processes that led to the development of these machines and the development of medicines. It’s an attempt to conflate the issue. 

Likewise with the issue of pollution. TA claims science is responsible for this, and for the depletion of natural resources. Once again I must point out that it’s not science itself, but rather it’s application, and once again TA ignores the benefits of our pursuit of knowledge. I am at a loss to understand how he can call science evil, and yet simultaneously use a computer and the internet, which we wouldn’t have if not for research into computing. I don’t know whether TA drives or uses public transport, but cars and trains are the result of the development of technologies we wouldn’t have without study. 

#2.In the original post, you adopted examples that have nothing to do with science and tried to use those examples to disprove the scientific method. This demonstrates horrible ignorance of the scientific method. You are also ‘painting a partial picture’ of science (I imagine this means you too are lying, no?). Plus, once AGAIN you conflate science with other fields.

This is a good example of what I was just talking about. In one of his original replies Dart mentions the following items

Also, we wouldn’t have cars, trains, planes, the Internet, refrigerators, advanced farming, or power for our homes without science

Cars, trains, planes pollute so pollution is from secular science. Advanced farming also includes pesticides, products like Round-up DDT etc., as well as tractors which use up natural resources like gas and oil. The internet helps ISIS so science has contributed to that tragedy as well. I could go on but what is the point, Dart is going to close his eyes and just say that is not true. I will only say that medical science produces medicine with side effects that are sometimes worse than the disease.

Where I referred to him conflating scientific methods with other ideas, I was pointing his erroneous example of a couple seen leaving a hotel room when he discussed the principle of observation, and his injection of criminal investigations into a discussion of prediction. The examples and the manner in which they were given were misleading. TA doesn’t acknowledge this, and instead attacks my arguments for presenting only a partial picture of science, whilst going on to do exactly the same.

Nowhere is this more true than in his paragraph above. Pollution is a byproduct that wasn’t understood when cars, trains and planes were first developed. Since then, the rapid proliferation of these products and their impact upon our environment has far more to do with consumerism than science. In his rush to refer to pesticides and such, he ignores our ability to feed people far more easily than we could before. In his haste to criticise medicine for side effects, he completely overlooks how many lives have been saved by it. To declare that science has contributed to IS is a stretch beyond belief, not only straining for credibility but completely snapping the elastic. Once again – science is neutral – it is the application of it can be defined as good or bad.

Notice he uses the words ‘scientific method’ but no one was talking about the scientific method just science. He tries to change the subject in order to defend his position even though his position was shown to be erroneous. Oh and those same scientists I have talked to include all the fields of research as part of science. Dart. changes the scope of science to ensure he is not exposed as wrong.

I’m not even sure what he’s talking about here. It was TA whose first article started out by breaking down the scientific method! In any event, this is a meaningless paragraph – it doesn’t change the fact that science is neither good nor bad – it’s how that knowledge is used that defines it – and TA himself is happy to take full advantage of it, regularly, when using the internet, driving his car, using electricity, and buying frozen food from supermarkets. He doesn’t realise just how it influences his own life, and actually makes it better.

#3.The cost implications of medical treatment have nothing to do with the science behind those treatments. You are using the strawman argument (yet again). The cost (or lack thereof) of medical treatments varies from one country to the next, and is based on a variety of factors, none of which are to do with the actual procedure itself. Trying to mislead with false statements about ‘science ruining lives’ is a deliberate and wilful misrepresentation of what we’re discussing.

If the cost factor has nothing to do with science then why are not the pharmaceutical companies offering their products for free or at a drastically reduced cost? I am not using a straw man argument because the cost of those scientific advances do ruin people and science is responsible for their existence. But like I said in the previous point, we do not have to worry about the cost factor for the medicine Dart so proudly touts is not as healthy as he claims.

TA denies using a strawman then repeats the same strawman. The development of life-saving drugs through research has nothing to do with the policies that businesses enact when it comes to charging for these products. The cost of medical treatment varies around the world and depends on a variety of factors from country to country. TA has not addressed this, he has ignored it.

In Korea doctors routinely prescribe medicines to go with the medication you need for your ailment just to counter the side effects the drugs you need bring. Science ha snot provided people with good medicine and they cannot even cure the common cold, cancer, TB, malaria, and a host of other diseases.

If TA wishes to understand the beneficial impact of the development into medicine, he can take a look at the following:

The World Health Organisation’s evaluation of vaccination.

The PRB’s article on the same.

He will also want to look at how improvements to medical care have saved lives and helped prolong lives.

Finally, he can take a look at another, similar article.

Medical science, like all sciences, is a process that continues to develop – we may not have the cure for cancer yet, but we’ve advanced our treatments to the point where less people are dying from it. I’d call that a good thing.

#4.Likewise your comment about the Hippocratic oath. You do know what this oath is don’t you? It’s first rule is to do no harm. Letting someone die might be considered the ultimate harm – but obviously letting people suffer in pain is doing harm as well. It’s an ethical dilemma, but it’s NOT a scientific dilemma. This is once again a wilful and misleading statement from you.

we will give him that this is an ethical dilemma but the oath doe snot allow for harm to be done and when harm is done no matter what you do then you cannot keep your oath. You need to find a better one that guides doctors in their care of others and keep the quacks and evil medical practitioners at bay. When a doctor prescribes treatment he knows the patient and his/her family cannot afford then they are doing harm and I mad no misleading statements.

A doctor doesn’t control the economic or political circumstances that lead to some countries have private healthcare which can be costly. A doctor also doesn’t prescribe treatment on the basis of cost, but on the basis of how likely it is to do the job and save someone. This is also still not a scientific problem, but a social and political one, so yes TA, your statement was misleading, and so is your new statement.

The oath is part of medical field thus it is a scientific dilemma for they are not providing doctors with medicine or treatment that will not allow the doctors to uphold their oaths. if secular science is as good as Dart claims then they should be producing perfect medicine for the patients.

The Hippocratic oath has nothing to do with the development of treatments and procedures. It is about ethics. TA also keeps putting words in my mouth – I don’t claim science is perfect.

#5.Science has not actually produced directly anything of the things you claim science has produced. The manner in which scientific knowledge is used is a different question, but you’re trying (yet again) to confuse the two. Torture techniques… seriously?

This is just flat-out head in the sand denial and not even worthy of any rebuttal for his train comment does the rebutting for us. Dart seems to think that when he mentions an item it is produced by science but when I point out the negative products of science then they are not of science. Double standard and just absurd as well.

I don’t claim ‘science produced the train’, but it’s true we wouldn’t have trains, or cars, or electricity in our homes, without research into these things. Once again, I am forced to remind to remind TA that science is neutral – it certainly isn’t ‘evil’ – that’s how the knowledge can be used, but it can also be used for great benefit, something TA seems determined to ignore.

#6.Science is neither good nor evil. It is how that knowledge is USED that is key, and you would throw the baby out with the bathwater in your haste to dismiss all the good that knowledge has managed. Millions of people survive illnesses and injuries that just a century earlier would have been fatal. People have heat and light in their properties, we have the means to stay in touch with people who are all the way around the world, developed the means to protect crops and grow more, hardier crops, and generally moved on from the Dark Ages that you would have us live in.

We put in bold the words that convey the same message we were told by all those scientists we have discussed with over the years. They said ‘all science is good science’ and that is a crock for if all science is good then no one can complain about the Nazi angel of death or his experiments, nor can they find fault with eugenics and other scientific programs that ended the lives or reproductive abilities of human beings too vulnerable to protect themselves.

Nor can they claim ideas like Piltdown man are hoaxes or anything they do not accept as faulty science or pseudoscience. All science is good so the field must be infallible, holy, sinless, incorruptible or God. Sorry dart but science is sinful, led by sin and evil influenced by evil and very corruptible as so many police DNA labs would not be producing false results in order to get convictions. Secular science is far from perfect and it can be wrong which puts it on the evil side of things not the good side.

It increasingly sounds to me like TA does want the Dark Ages back. Nor does he understand what neutral means.

I say that science is neutral. To which TA replies with scientists saying ‘all science is good science’. I’ve never heard a scientist claim this. At any rate, it’s certainly not the argument I’m making, so what exactly is TA replying to, the points I’m making, or an argument that he’s inventing to distort my own?

Perhaps we should do away with hospitals, and irrigation, and electricity, and refridgeration, and so on. After all, science is sinful and evil and has unduly influenced the development of these things. Does it matter if disease would become rife and people would starve? Well, it would be holy and sinless and therefore ok, right?

Here he repeats his mantra of all the good things science has done and ignores the fact that groups like ISIS communicate around the world in hopes of killing others but repeating his mantra does not support his point but shows that he has no argument. I hate to break it to him but we do not need science to grow better crops. Coming from farming stock, we were better off when science minded its own business and stayed out of the food-producing industry.

Hypocrisy at its finest. TA ignores all the good our pursuit of knowledge has done, and continues to do so. Shall we take a look at how agriculture has developed? Quoted from here:

Farmers use technology to make advances in producing more food for a growing world. Through the use of technology, each farmer is able to feed 155 people today, compared to 1940, when one farmer could feed only 19 people (Prax, 2010). Farmers use technologies such as motorized equipment, modified housing for animals and biotechnology, which allow for improvement in agriculture. Better technology has allowed farmers to feed more people and requires fewer people to work on farms to feed their families.

Keep in mind that the arguments proposed by Dart come from a person who feels like a woman and dresses like one even though his precious science has told him he is not a woman. So his position on science is based upon whatever benefits him and not the truth. Oh and we do not need science to determine what gender a person really is, we just have to use our eyes and look between the legs.

I don’t even know what TA is on about here. He thinks I’m transgender? If I were, what difference would that make to fact-based arguments? Precisely none, so it would be an ad hominen fallacy. It’s also an attempt to poison the well, so in fact it’s two fallacies for the price of one!

#7.As I am not certain I pressed ‘reply’ when I typed out a response last time, this is my latest: What evil is that? Treat everyone fairly without judgement based upon my religious beliefs? A refusal to impose my beliefs upon others?

We saw his responses but we are tired of his tired, old, repetitive arguments that distort secular science and come from hypocritical positions.  If science treated everyone without judgment then evolutionists would not be fighting for a monopoly on the science classroom, it would not be seeking to ruin people’s careers because they happen to mention ID or creation and they would not attack those who disagree with them. Yes Dart has blinders on concerning his favorite field.

Let’s not forget other things that science does like lie to people, brings false theories and conclusions promoting them for decades even though they have been shown to be false and impossible. I am sorry but secular science is not as wonderful as Dart maintains.

Well the comments in his second post were mostly duplicates so we will end with the one above. Suffice it to say those who argue for secular science do so without a real foundation, without truth and without any rational or logical thought. he ignores facts and evidence to paint a picture of secular science that is not only idealistic but unrealistic.

Dart is free to respond in the comment section but we may not answer him because we are tired of those arguments that do nothing but lie to people.

A string of self-justification for distorting evidence, and tremendous hypocrisy. I don’t think TA understands just how much of the tools at his disposal during the course of any given day are available to him because of our development of technologies based on scientific study. Are there bad applications to some of these studies? Yes, I never denied that. TA however, denies the good applications out of blind faith, dismissing reason. I have made him aware of this rebuttal, and even gone so far as to post it as a comment, but I am not confident he will share the link, or indeed post the comment. We shall see.

6 comments

  1. As for your transgender, I quoted your own website to you where you announced to everyone you were. You may have altered or edited your site to make your argument so maybe you should deal with your dishonesty before coming to my website to have further discussion.

    1. You didn’t quote my site, you wrote an inaccurate statement, intended as a diversion from the discussion we’ve been having about science. I suggest you heed your own advice about honesty.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *