Posted on 02/19/2009 9:24:24 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
What Is Science?
"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."
—Dr. Scott Todd, Kansas State University, Nature 401(6752):423, Sept. 30, 1999
What You Will Learn
Many people do not realize that science was actually developed in Christian Europe by men who assumed that God created an orderly universe. If the universe is a product of random chance or a group of gods that interfere in the universe, there is really no reason to expect order in nature. Many of the founders of the principle scientific fields, such as Bacon, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton, were believers in a recently created earth. The idea that science cannot accept a creationist perspective is a denial of scientific history...
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
“Many of the founders of the principle scientific fields, such as Bacon, ... were believers in a recently created earth. “
Bacon rejected the Bible itself as a basis of scientific knowledge.
Rational thought leads to discussions and questions and conflicts. People of weak faith cannot withstand that experience.
“But there is no place for Intelligent Design studies in a science classroom.”
Then there is no place for MY money in a science classroom.
No it’s not exhaustive but what God does cover, he’s right about.
“God gave us a brain to identify allegory as we gain a greater understanding of the natural universe.”
That’s the essence of Humanism.
“...there is no place for Intelligent Design studies in a science classroom...”
I would agree, except to the extent that evolution IS intelligent design!
You label ideas, then vilify them. No, it’s not humanism.
500 years ago, you would have referred to my position in support of heliocentrism as humanism, and then you would have burned me at the stake. The bad news is that your faith remains as weak today. The good news is that you’re out of matches.
“No it’s not exhaustive but what God does cover, he’s right about.”
Is it conceivable that any of what is not in the Bible may shed additional light on what is in the book?
I think this is a revealing assertion right out of the gate and couldn't possibly be further from the truth.
Scientists themselves haven't agreed on what "is or isn't science", let alone the "rules of science" (whatever that is), from the outset of whatever it was that science can call it's beginnings to this present day. And there's simply no credible evidence that things will change tomorrow on this front.
They (and no one else btw,) can agree on what is or isn't scientific, or what constitutes "science" let alone pseudo-science, alchemy, etc. etc. etc.
Look at manmade global warming for starters...people, including scientists, call that a cult, pseudo-science, etc. on this very board daily!
Science is about as open a system as there can possibly be!
Scientists have studied and performed scientific experiments on prayer for instance, and have probably received YOUR tax money to do it, and nothing could possibly be more subjective!
Scientists come up with wild ideas about multiverses, string theories and again, get govt money to come up with them!
When someone tells you science is closed, what they really mean is closed to everyone but godless secularist NEA liberals who have appointed themselves as gatekeepers.
Everyone else has been 'Expelled'.
There's no room for intelligence and/or design in science simply because they say so.
NOT based on evidence, or anything else but merely because they're under the misassumption someone gave them and them alone the keys to science!
No one did, of course.
The humble view would be: the process by which man continually proves himself wrong.
The one thing science always adheres to is pragmatism. Any idea that can be tested is useful, and any idea that limits the questions that can be asked is useless.
The idea that an unspecified agent having unspecified capabilities did some unspecified something at unspecified times and places for unspecified reasons, pretty much puts an end to inquiry.
The idea that processes and phenomena are the same from era to era at least leads to testable conjectures.
Your comment is unscientific. Here's why.
You've made two huge assumptions, both of which are offered to support your pre-determined result. That, I'm sure you'll agree, is not how one would describe a "scientific" process.
First, you are committing the cardinal scientific error of a priori excluding a valid hypothesis from the realm of scientific study.
Second, you assume that "intelligent design" = God. You've made it into a religious issue, rather than a scientific one. The truth is that an "intelligent design" hypothesis need not be a proxy for "God did it".
Both of your errors can be spotted just by considering the field of genetic engineering. It is quite obviously a field in which biological development must be considered in the context of the intelligent designers who are doing the engineering.
If science is about explaining phenomena, how would a scientist correctly explain a genetically engineered organism (say, insulin-producing bacteria) without reference to an intelligent designer? The answer is: accurate "science" cannot exclude a "design" hypothesis in this case. In fact, the design hypothesis would be appropriate and valid in this case.
Likewise, it's easy to see that it is not necessary to hypothesize "God" in order to hypothesize "design."
Liberals always operate under the misguided assumption that someone somehow appointed them the gate-keepers of what is or isn't science; so it comes as no surprise that they and they alone think they have the keys and unique understanding of what is or isn't allegorical in the Bible.
What I love are these “open minded scientists” who claim that they will “pursue the truth wherever it leads”...
unless of course, it leads to them facing the Creator.
Yup, but that something crawled out of a soup of mud, by itself, forming itself, with no purpose, for no reason, by complete chance, with no intelligent cause or design, should be given ga-jillions MORE years to be "proven" without question.
Just wait.
Some more.
You'll see. :0
Everybody, please give a warm welcome to Buck W. (aka buckw), DC’s newest troll.
I’m very much looking forward to your peer-reviewed paper demonstrating the world’s first ID hypothesis and the world’s first ID predictive and testable statements.
Isn’t claiming that the ID’er isn’t a deity sort of blasphemous? Or at least a lie?
Let's not use the word "God" then. Let's just say omniscient, omnipotent agent, having no specific properties, methods, motives, or times or places of action.
Indeed, and then they go to extraordinary lengths to contort themselves into pretzels while excusing multiverse theory, or string theory...or even subjective scientific studies and experiments about prayer.
Apparently in their world science is off limits to God, unless it’s a one way street of course, as they and they alone see fit, because they’re soooo much brighter. LOL
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.