Replies

I don’t expect that either position would negate anything.

I only point out that the gobul warming is very dangerous, because it is killing people, and killing our economy.

Disagreements about scientific methods can be a valid argument. I am certain disputes about methodology has been with science from the beginning. It is how science got here in the first place. But the material view is a distortion of life, love and what makes us human. Any world view the ignores part of what life is about, is a distortion, and not complete.

Disagreements about the politicizing of hand picked facts, the way environuts do, has nothing to do with science at all. Keeping models that predictions are based on secret is not science either. There is not any science going on in gobul warming at all. That is what I find so amazing.

Science can not and will never explain human life as it is lived, experienced, felt and ends in death. Science does not answer all questions, all important questions that any reasonable person ponders. Materialists give the impression, and some endorse, that only material things matter, that anything outside of materials things become unscientific, and unimportant to the questions that people ask. The question of origins is central to that building of a worldview. And there is nothing scientific about it. But the materialists seek to discredit ANYTHING that is not material. That is disturbing.

I agree about the global warming hoax. It’s a bizarre social phenomena, with various interest groups playing roles crucial in its continuation with tens of billions of dollars now chasing after hundreds of billions.

If this film was simply part of an attempt to expose creationist bashing in academia, I’d be more sympathetic to it. But I think the reaction they’re reporting on is as I suggested, academia’s push back at activist attempts to insert ID into science curriculums as a scientific theory (then promote the resistance here as an assault on free speech.)

There are more appropriate disciplines in education to promote creationism and promote as you say, “human life as it is lived, experienced, felt and ends in death”. Science will of course effect and be effected by that, but that does not justify teaching it in science.

I think you’re suggesting that creationism’s absence implies the promotion of a materialistic ideology in science. I don’t recognize that scientific exploration outside a religious framework is necessarily materialistic. Here’s an article I like relating to that, but it’s focused on metaphysics and epistemology rather than science: Objectivism Rejects Both Materialism and Idealism: The Monist/Reductionist Fallacy. Unfortunately I’m not able to give the discussion the time it deserves today. Thanks for your reply.