Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: gobucks
I don't agree with changing the definition of science. Science can only test the 'natural', or more specifically, the material. Only what can actually be observed (science can however theorize about things which can't be observed). It's not the definition of science that limits IDer's, but rather the incorrect application of the definition of science to materialism (what we observe is all there is) that causes the limitation.

-The Hajman-
2 posted on 01/30/2005 2:38:51 PM PST by Hajman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Hajman
"Science can only test the 'natural', or more specifically, the material."

Who sez so? And wouldn't that mean science actually helps create materialists if that is the 'only' thing kids are allowed to test in school?

Isn't it a bad idea that science should paint itself into a 'anti-God' corner like that - can science afford this approach over the long term?

I mean, really now .... there's an awful lot of future grant money riding on questions like these, especially given how many Christians pay the taxes from which all that grant cash flow originates.

5 posted on 01/30/2005 2:47:05 PM PST by gobucks (http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/students/Ribeiro/laocoon.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson