Skip to comments.Science Becoming a Religion
Posted on 06/10/2007 6:38:21 PM PDT by kathsua
click here to read article
Absolutely- the discussions really should just stick to the facts of science. One of the problems though with radiometric dating of course is the fact that it kinda leaves strict science and relies on assumptions- which of course can’t bew avoided as we obviously can’t speak from experiential experience about the past.
I do however think that anyone can discuss the facts that are presented, and I think we should discuss them, but should, as much as possible, just stick to the facts. One doesn’t need a degree to discuss issues that can be logically annalyzed.
[but technical decisions about the space shuttle should be made by our most knowledgeable technical people]
I dissagree- there are many fine minds who don’t have engineering degrees who can take the facts and come to intelligent conclusions based on the facts presented.
>>But I havent really seen creationists argue that all that decay took place in 6,000 years - generally the answer is that God created the isotopes in that their recent proportions, possibly to test our faith.
Thats actually pretty hard to disprove.<<
I agree- it’s hard but I don’t htink it’s impossible to discover pretty strong scientific evidences that might indicate this could or did happen- some would have different opinions about such evidneces of course, but science is about strengthening positions that are hard to prove.
>>Sciences job is to look at the available evidence and construct the best model and testable theories and to never stop trying to learn and explore.<<
You get no argument from me on this- I absolutely agree, and I believe that there are indeed strengths and evidneces to both positions
>>The only conflict come when we ask science to disregard evidence based on faith. Then the system breaks down.<<
Noone in ID is suggesting we do that- they gather scientific evidences that strengthen their position- the evidences aren’t religious based, evidences stands alone- outside of opinion- it’s our opinions of what the evidnece suggests that differs- the eivdnece itself is the science- anything beyond hte evidence, such as opinions- supporting one hypothesis or the other, is just that- opinions- opinions that either have the scientific evidences to strengthen them or not.. The arguments from ID for design have some strong scientific evidences that help shore them up, as does evidences for scientists who study microevolution- Macroevolution however rests simply on assumptions with very little to back it up scientifically, but that doesn’t mean the pursuit should end, it would however be ncie if it was explored and taught more honestly with both sides of the story being told, and with the scientific problems of both being discussed- It is when folks explore the problems that we begin to find solutions, but hiding the problems from people in education really is nothing more than teaching doctrine.
Ahayes >>Amen, brother in pondscum!<< Lol Good one.
Archaeologists engage in historical research,not scientific research. They look for evidence about the past and base conclusions on that evidence. Scientific knowledge may aid in that research such as by helping determine diets and diseases of people in the past. But the study of the past is not a science.
Geology is a science when it examines such matters as determining what geological formations might indicate locations where petroleum could be found. Determining how those formations developed involves historical research.
The global warming issue demonstrates political efforts to control science. “All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists—a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.
Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.’s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.
And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest.”
We apply scientific tools, using the scientific method, but we are not practicing a science?
That is crap, and you know it.
If you don’t, I feel sorry for you.
Please educate yourself.
If funds are tight, audit a few college-level classes in biology, nuclear physics, and geology.
Then come back and let’s discuss.
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.