Posted on 02/09/2006 4:08:37 AM PST by PatrickHenry
We're arguing around the same point. Evolution, and ID (the two are not mutually exclusive) are right or wrong regardless of their implications on theism (or atheism).I simply stated that Atheists tend to point to Dawrin's/unguided evolution as support to their conclusions. Atheists couch the logic under the banner of materialism. What they do, or Discovery institute, has no relevance on the validity of their pet theories.
SECTION 1. 118.018 of the statutes is created to read:
118.018 Science instruction. The school board shall ensure that any material presented as science within the school curriculum complies with all of the following:
(1) The material is testable as a scientific hypothesis and describes only natural processes.
(2) The material is consistent with any description or definition of science adopted by the National Academy of Sciences.
I struck natural processes in #1, because testable hypothesis covers that completely. There is a complaint from the philosophers that this apriori assumption is unsound. I've often been accused of making that assumption when in fact I did not. It's preferable to have none. I simply rely on the scientific method, which requires a testable hypothesis. It avoids having to address all the voluminous complaints and endless verbiage.
I struck "description", because it is vague and open to abuse by the democrats. In particular the NEA rank and file teachers that wrote that to be vague on purpose. It gives them the tool they need to peddle junk science.
Like this??
2 Timothy 3:16-17
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
;^)
In 1, I see no problem with the requirement that science only describe natural processes. Science was after all once known as natural philosophy. I can think of nothing in science that describes anything that isn't a natural process.
I agree with your striking 'description' in definition 2. It's vague in the extreme.
What is 'scripture', and who decides it ?
Is the 'Book of Enoch' scripture?
What about 'Egyptians', or 'Gospel of Thomas', or 'Gospel of Peter' or the 'Gospel of Mary [Magdalene]'?
Scripture or not?
Oh.... Thank you.
You're welcome. ;^)
"A false theory is a theory nonetheless."
You're full of it. If a theory is shown to be "false", it is discarded. You know that so quit playing. A false theory can only remain a theory historically like geocentrism. It certainly is no longer a theory once it is defrocked and tossed on the scrap heap.
We are talking scientific theories here, but, again, you know that.
Should THEY be viewed as correct?
Your theory of how theories are discarded is false, but it remains a theory, nonetheless.
No fretting here. To honestly answer the first (my) question answers the second (your) question.
Is 'Enoch', 'Egyptians', 'Thomas', or 'Gospel of Mary' scripture?
Why or why not?
I'm sure you can google "where we got our bible from" and get a MUCH better answer than I could.
Craw-fishing (thx, Pres. Bush) away from the issue duly noted.
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.