Skip to comments.What Is Science?
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 ...
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.