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 ...
Darwinism should not be taught in schools. One reason is this: natural selection presupposes the truth of the Malthus population principle. So, when your kids emerge from state-enforced Darwinism brainwashing, they are firm believers in Malthusianism, whether they are aware of it or not. And, as you know, this is indeed a damnable and pernicious doctrine. There is no way it could ever be taught to public-school students except clandestinely, disguised and buried as part of the "biology" curriculum, without parents knowing it. But Malthus is part of the deal and that's what the students ingest when they are fed natural selection.
As I’ve said before, evo-atheists want us to believe that most organisms that are born die before they reproduce, a la Malthus. What a damnable doctrine indeed. Anybody can see that God would be a cruel and vicious God if He allowed that kind of carnage to exist in His Creation. Nature is not “red in tooth and claw”.
The evo-atheists want us to accept Malthus because they want to be the ones to “cull the human herd” to stop the imaginary geometric growth that Malthus said would happen if reproduction were to be unchecked. They want to be the un-natural selectors of death for those they deem “unfit”
“Nope, following the teachings of Christ isn’t it Buck.”
Do me a favor then—go to AiG or one of the other first-to-react echo-chamber sites and tell me what the definition-du-jour of Christianity is. I mean, surely they have a new spin based on whatever the vogue scientific objection to creationism happens to be.
It’s incredible that to creationists the definition of Christianity has to be reduced to a set of crisis-sensitive talking points.
“Nope, following the teachings of Christ isn’t it Buck.”
Do me a favor then—go to AiG or one of the other first-to-react echo-chamber sites and tell me what the definition-du-jour of Christianity is. I mean, surely they have a new spin based on whatever the vogue scientific objection to creationism happens to be.
It’s incredible that to creationists the definition of Christianity has to be reduced to a set of crisis-sensitive talking points.
“If you think that there’s no difference between a lie and an allegory and you believe that the Bible is an allegory, what exactly do you believe?”
I do so enjoy the “komodo dragon” argument approach that creationints take. What’s the komodo dragon approach, you ask? Well, here’s a hint for you to start you research: I’m Bob and you’re Ray. Now, go to YouTube.
That Malthus population principle is at the heart of the environmental/deep ecology movement also. A doctrine of “reduce the population by some means because there will never be enough for all.”
And as you say, pernicious because it seems logical. Draw a graph with lines showing this and such, all very reasonable looking and wrong.
Malthus's theories have been modified or adapted in various ways by neo-malthusians and communists. But Malthus's original full-strength theory is the insanest of all, and it is that theory which Darwin relies on for natural selection to work. You see, Malthus believed that populations are not just tending toward their maximum level of sustinence. The geometric growth is such that populations are always at their maximum level of sustinence, and, as a consequence, they are plunged into inescapable vice and misery when they go beyond it. Right now the paupers are beyond their maximum level of sustinence and that's why they are miserable and vice-ridden. Any more babies they have incurrs more punishment of this natural law that doles out more misery and vice to them. This isn't a catastrophe to happen in the future. It is supposed to be happening now and always. The purpose of his theory was to explain why the rich class existed alongside a huge class of miserable vice-ridden paupers in England, and what to do about it.
You cannot demand a from someone to select an option when neither option is acceptable. I gave you my position in very clear words.
But as insane as Malthus’ views were and however discredited they’ve enjoyed a comfortable existence in Darwinism and as you said those accepting Darwinism are getting more than just Darwin, they’re getting Malthus too unto the point they hardly recognize it.
I mentioned the environmental/deep ecology movement because one logical conclusion of Malthus’ doctrine is that increasing the sustenance supply would actually be a waste of time and only put off the inevitable.
An increased food supply would increase population and another cycle would start, leading one to the idea that only a major decrease in population made sense.
Of course we know who would be selected to be decreased.
No doubt you'd like your version of physics taught in schools also?
Is there a creationist version of mathematics also?
Every living, reproducing thing, has the ability to produce more offspring than necessary to replace itself -- assuming nothing bad happens. The observed fact is that populations are generally stable. And in the unusual cases where populations temporarily expand without check, they invariably collapse.
Most plants and many animals produce tens of thousands of offspring. Simple arithmetic requires that most do not survive long enough to reproduce.
I've wondered for some time if you aren't a mole posing as a religious person. Certainly this post reinforces my suspicion.
Let's take a look at your line of reasoning:
What this disguises is the rather obvious syllogism:
Theodicy is a tricky business. There are reasons why most religious people do not pretend to know the mind of God and do not presume to speak for His motives and intentions.
Both of the arguments I outlined are crap. And whether you close your eyes to it or not, the Malthusian check on population is both an observable fact and an inevitable mathematical conclusion.
Birds typically have four babies a year, and yet the population of birds doesn't double every year. Two thirds of polar bears die before age three -- before they are sexually mature. Most die of starvation. This list could go on and on.
You would do less damage to your cause by acknowledging the existence of pain in the world. I believe you have a doctrine that covers it. Maybe C.S. Lewis could help.
I can “see” that there is no “center” to the surface of a sphere (there is a center to a sphere, yes? but that is a different and unrelated matter, no?). For this analogy to have any significance, FAQA.ORG would have to be proposing that the Universe is a two dimensional spherical surface, and that we can neither look into (towards the center of) the sphere nor “out” from the sphere, but only along the surface of the sphere. Otherwise, I don’t know how it is helpful (conceptually speaking).
Is this the latest state of scientific thinking on the nature of the Universe? Einstein would be amazed.
Anything less than understanding that Christ is your savior and forgives you of your transgressions when you ask Him of forgiveness, is a successful attempt in diverting you from the truth.
I honestly don’t need a website to understand this and it has nothing whatsoever to do with creationism, creation websites or whatever strawman people drone on about.
Feynman ping
What lawsuits to “silence” Creationists? I hear this garbage all the time. Creationists never seem to shut up, so who the heck is suing them to silence? What cases are you talking about tpanter, the ones the voices tell you about? The same voices that whisper “ACLU, NEA, liberal strawman”?
LOL!!!!
There’s probably treatment for that in your area.
It’s telling that when you get yourself painted into a corner you come unglued like this allmendream, you should reflect on that awhile.
Metmom’s posted links, I’ve posted links, as if it’s some obscure secret.
So now that you’ve gotten all your tantrums out of the way, where ARE the lawsuits to silence algore’s hot air cult?
string-theorists?
multiverse-theorists?
Pretending like there aren’t lawsuits by the hundreds by the ACLU and others to silence Christians across the board, and yes including science class, (heck, even before a textbook can get INTO class the minions of liberals with God-hang-ups are suing to get stickers off of textbooks); doesn’t even come close to getting you off the hook!
You're confusing the theory with the cult. Well, what's left of the theory.
Moreover there is no “right” to have your views taught in science class, so if by “silence” you mean, “rejected as part of the curriculum” you are making a laughable claim; that Creationists have the “right” to teach their religious views in public schools in conjunction with science education, and that lawsuits are depriving them of this “right”.
js: No doubt you'd like your version of physics taught in schools also?
I guess "edge" and "center" are too abstract for students...
Sheesh! Liberals.
Like Klintoon and his insane that depends on what "is" "is" nonsense.
And I keep forgetting, liberals believe that everyone has a right to have input to their children's educations, except Christian conservatives.
It would help to understand the terms...
evolution...not to mention what version, the theory or the cult.
darwinism...still trying to sort through this one myself, like nailing jello to a wall.
In your frenzy you left out the reading comprehension part...
no lawsuits over string, multiverse...your fellow liberal algoreacle...
your asserting such rubbish as “it ain’t science unless it’s measurable and observable” died waaaaaay up thread allmendream.
Come to think of it on several threads now.
One death is all that’s necessary allmendream.
No, that's the same old tired liberal strawmen liberals are desperate to interject into their failing debate.
Secondly one must assume that there are no measurable or observable predictions that could be made for string theory.
Then one would have to ignore the fact that nobody is lying and perjuring themselves in an attempting to have “multiverse” or “string” taught in public schools.
If one assumes all that then you might possibly have a valid point. But those assumptions are asinine.
tpanther”where ARE the lawsuits to silence algore’s hot air cult? string-theorists? multiverse-theorists?”
Not to mention “warped passages.”
I don’t recall that you’ve ever said that lawsuits have been successful in silencing “Creationists” (that is, Christians). It seems to me that you and many others (Hi! metmom) have been identifying various ways (lawsuits being one) that attempts are being incessantly made to silence Christians. The difference is not difficult to discern. It cannot be attributed to a failed effort to understand, made by hopelessly confused, conscientious thinkers. The answer must be found elsewhere. Perhaps it is a question of sincerity and intellectual honesty?
Do you think any religious group has the “right” to teach their beliefs in public school? Which ones, and based upon what criteria?
Can an evo ever just answer a question?
Do they ALWAYS have to create a strawman to knock down to think that they’ve made some point against non-evos?
IOW, you would not favor an opt out option for evos who don't want their kids to hear about creation in public schools. Only a complete ban of the topic will suit you, eh?
No surprise there.
Then if we’re not going to have all of them, we should have none of them, even the secular humanist creation account, aka the ToE.
But the Hindu story is a myth, while the Biblical account is God’s Word. This country was founded on His Word, and was understood to be a Christian nation for most of its history until the godless evo-atheists turned to the courts. It’s only for so long that Christians will sit idly by while this persecution continues. God doesn’t smile on nations that treat the Gospel with such disdain.
Bible reading and prayer were a part of this country’s education system for centuries. The creation account of the Bible was part of that.
I don’t see that it hurt scientific progress during that time.
It isn’t like creationists want something new taught in the schools, as if evolution was always taught in schools and creation never was. We’re simply asking that it be included as it had been for all those years.
It got kicked out by the evo/atheist crowd and people just want it back, and expecting the creation account of the Bible that this country is founded on, is not unreasonable.
The other issue is that the ToE is of so little consequence for most people in this world. It has next to nothing to do with what most people choose as a career in life. Even among those who choose a scientific field to pursue a career in, evolution doesn’t necessarily enter into it.
Looking at physics, astronomy, chemistry, geology, oceanography, etc. the ToE does not enter into them as necessary to be proficient in those areas.
Those who need the ToE for their chosen career fields can take it at the college level. The only reason to push it in high school to kids who are never going to need it, is to push an ideology on them.
What I find interesting is that it’s the creationists who want equal time and the evos who are demanding a monopoly for their pet theory. Talk about trying to impose an ideology......
Learning biology is not learning an ideology, but learning about the results of a scientific discipline. And anybody who wants to be in physics, astronomy, chemistry, geology, oceanography, etc; is ill served by the claptrap that creationists have put together to try to explain how physical constants of the universe must change, starlight is fake evidence of things that never actually existed within the span of this universe, atomic decay doesn’t happen the way science says it does, the fossil record and geological evidence of an old earth is false, etc, etc.
Do you think any secular group has the "right" to teach their beliefs in public school? Which ones, and based upon what criteria?
It's not possible to create and present a values-free education. Which set of values do you advocate be taught in the public schools?
There's only one reasonable conclusion one can make with respect to "public" schools. It's always a bit of a kick watching the contortions some people on both sides of this issue put themselves through avoiding that conclusion (assuming there are only two sides).
Sure they can . . . When it fits their agenda. Otherwise, it's alaman left, dosey doe, and great billowing clouds of smoke.
All of which has nothing to do with what I said.
Those physical sciences do not depend in any way, on the ToE. Anyone who goes into one of those fields does not need to know it.
It's only relevant to a few fields of science. Let those who need to know it, learn it if they have to.
Ethan, excellent posts on Malthus.
It was a long wade though the valley of the shadow of brown noise and static (courtesy our fiends from DC), but it was worth it.
“You see, Malthus believed that populations are not just tending toward their maximum level of sustinence. The geometric growth is such that populations are always at their maximum level of sustinence, and, as a consequence, they are plunged into inescapable vice and misery when they go beyond it. Right now the paupers are beyond their maximum level of sustinence and that’s why they are miserable and vice-ridden. Any more babies they have incurrs more punishment of this natural law that doles out more misery and vice to them.”
What a deceptive fairy tale. It’s wrong in so many ways, but I’ll handicap myself; let’s assume that you’re interpreting Malthus correctly. Your point is still completely irrelevant to evolution and to Darwin’s role in its development. You have created the very type of strawman that creationists on this site accuse rational Christian scientists of putting forth at the slightest injection of reasoned debate.
I thank God (quite literally) that creation, based on such nonsense, is not taught as science in public schools.
Good question. Do Malthusians have the "right" to have their population ideology taught as fact in public school? The state is presently enforcing that "right".
If Creationists were on the war path against biology alone then maybe if we ceded this ground to the zealots they would all go home happy? NO. They would move on to geology, astronomy, history, chemistry, and physics to try to get their ludicrous garbage taught as science, or tell people that those subjects (as they describe an ancient universe that directly conflicts with Creationists claims) are not relevant and should not be taught.
Science is science, and kids need to learn science. And all fields of science are in direct opposition to the “cdesign proponentists” garbage that they want people to swallow.
I imagine not learning any science would leave people more ignorantly amenable to creationist propaganda.
Have you ever read Origin of Species? Specifically, the part where Darwin explains that the Malthus population principle is what causes natural selection?
Anyone who wishes to be considered well educated should know the sciences of geology, biology, chemistry, astronomy and physics; all of which have findings that “cdesign proponentists” have problems with.
Do you think any science that's findings conflict with a particularly peculiar religious view should not be taught, do you think it is your “right” not to have science that conflicts with your religious beliefs taught to other people's children?
1. Natural selection, like Christianity, isn’t “caused”, but they coexist beautifully...
2. Evolution doesn’t need Darwin, but a handful of wacky creationinsts with extremely weak faith need a villain, so have at him!
3. As a Christian, I would like to politely ask you to please stop making the sizeable majority of us look so silly. Thank you.
And again, I point you to the biotech industry. Seriously, FRiend, you freely accuse those who would make an ID hypothesis of "not looking," when you're ridiculously guilty of doing the same thing.
No you see Einstein, the assumption that was assinine was your incessaant “measurable, testable, blah blah” nonsense you keep spweing when tryin to denounce and silent dissenters of your cult.
Try to stay focused for just this once.
Not to mention the point was allmendream keeps demanding science always be natural or measurable or testable...but we don't see him spending any time whatsoever trying to silence, let alone even criticize all these others that do no such thing.
As several have pointed out time and again, it's got little to do with science and everything to do with multiple hang-ups with God.
Notice when a cultist fails at one argument, they just pull out another long failed argument?
In this case, allmendream failed in making the case creationists should be silenced, then he pulls out the long ago destroyed “teaching their religion” in schools.
Later, if someone dares question his cult, he’ll squeal some “anti-science” nonsense again.
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.