Posted on 05/03/2005 2:12:35 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Answer enough How questions and you get to a lot of Why questions.
Disease, birth defects, storms, drought, earthquakes, floods, meteorites, etc. All of these have at one time been Why questions, and are now How questions.
Because Creationists are not capable of comprehending the answers.
There is no way they can ignore the "other side" if they are in public school.
There is no way they can ignore the "other side" if they are in public school.
Sorry for the double post!
"All of these have at one time been Why questions, and are now How questions."
Yet "Why" remains unanswered. What benefit does it serve for us to have disease, if disease is in fact only here to kill and make things live a painful life? We can know "How" from any number of positions, but we still can't come up with a scientific REASON for it. Only an explanation of it's mechanics.
Diseases do not exist for our benefit. They are not explained in these terms.
"I don't want to ever be in a confrontational mode with those kids ... I find it disheartening as a teacher."
That's right children, just keep your mouths shut and accept whatever the teacher tells you. After all, we know that they know all there is to know.
"They are not explained in these terms."
Exactly why science is not the complete way of knowing.
If it exists, it must have a good. It must also have a bad.
That sounds like new age, hippie-dippie claptrap. What does it mean?
I don't remember that part in Genesis about the dinosaurs. It couldn't be that Genesis left something out, could it?
Nah....
Actually, if you read Job you may recognize the description of a dinosaur.
What you are calling "hippie" is Daoist philosophy, not anti-esablisment druggy-speak. My point is that you advocate a way of knowing, yet you refuse that others may also have an opinion that may be valid in this regards.
It means that EVERYTHING has a reason and a flaw. Love, hate, murder, even opposing philosophies. Science has a reason, but it also has a flaw.
The flaw is it's own egotism combined with its recent willful dismissal of dialectic thinking (conversations with laymen isn't an option to many "true scientists" as it is seen as "wasting time")
It's benefits are seen in our worldly progressions.
Your scientific views are incomplete in it's search for what is. And willfully so.
There is no conflict between faith and reason. At least there shouldn't be. Here is an article about the newest book by Thomas Woods about how the Catholic Church has one of history's great patrons of science. Maybe we can get Pope Benedict to be a witness for the evolutionary side in this farcical Kansas debate.
There is no conflict between faith and reason. At least there shouldn't be.
Agreed and agreed.
Science willfully limits its inquiries to those things that science can study. It also resists inclusion of methodologies that have no history of being helpful in scientific inquiry.
I think the real problem is that science has a long history of producing useful knowledge -- medicine, digital watches, and so forth. Non-scientists would love to associate themselves with the prestige that comes from centuries of achievement, and would like to call themselves scientific.
I notice, for example, that ID calls itself scientific, and not Taoist or Buddhist or Christian or Marxist or Deist, or spiritualist or whatever. If these other ways of knowing are so great, and science is so limited, why does everyone want to ride the coattails of science?
Someone once said "if you remove religion from people's lives, they won't then believe in nothing, they'll believe in anything". The primary reason those places forcefully removed religion from public life was so they could replace it with a secular religion worshiping the government, or a particular leader.
Religion still existed in those places. Just the particular diety was changed.
Bingo. Macro evolution, i.e. man evolving from another animal, cannot be described as a scientific fact. However, micro evolution or small changes within species can and so the evolutionists love to mix it all together, call it evolution and say it's all scientific fact.
"I notice, for example, that ID calls itself scientific, and not Taoist or Buddhist or Christian or Marxist or Deist, or spiritualist or whatever. "
And this is fro two reasons:
1) if they said "religion" anywhere, you would dismiss them, and they would not have a say in the conversation that you would even bat an eye to.
and
2) Science, being a philosophy (reasoning, way of knowing, etc.) SHOULD include the idea that ID is a legitimate means to existance. Design is more readily observable than random chance. And Science's methodology professes that we can only assert what we observe.
An intriguing insight.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.