Posted on 10/01/2002 6:32:12 AM PDT by Phaedrus
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:34:48 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Which world, by implication, contains entities not fully accessed by the scientific method.
Or maybe the scientific method is the only legitimate mode of knowledge.
Either way, the statement that religion has no place in a science curriculum would be false.
Here's why. On the one hand, a singular mode of knowledge must be able to treat the full range of human experience. But if you follow the other way, with several modes of knowledge, these several ways must be related or subordinated somehow.
.
Are you saying that agnosticism and atheism are points on one continous 'line' of believes? I disagree. They are orthogonal.
"Confusion usually arises when people assume that "agnosticism" actually just means that a person is undecided about whether or not a god exists and also that "atheism" is limited to "strong atheism" - the assertion that no gods do or can exist. If those assumptions were true, then it would be accurate to conclude that agnosticism is some sort of "third way" between atheism and theism."
(more: about.com)
True enough. That's certainly the problem with trying to "prove" God to skeptics. It's also the problem facing atheists, which was my original point.
Theologian Karl Barth had a good discussion on the difficulty of "proving" God. The difficulty lies in the finding evidence (facts within the universe) about a God who is "bigger than" the universe. It's an example of the blind men and the camel -- and for this reason God's revelation of Himself is the necessary means by which He can be known.
Please. The doubting of evolution is a major cash industry in several states. Few people outside of creationist circles have ever even heard of ID.
True scientists should applaud competing theories.
And we do. If you come across a competing theory, let me know. ID doesn't cut it.
And they should not be afraid to differentiate between law, theory and hypothesis.
Tell me, how do you define each?
[T]here is no plausible scientific mechanism for the origin of life, i.e., the appearance of the first self-replicating biochemical system. The staggeringly high information content of the simplest living thing is not readily explained by evolutionists ...
The major feature of the fossil record is stasis, long periods in which new species do not appear. When new developments occur, they come rapidly, not gradually ...
I find no satisfactory mechanism for macroevolutionary changes. Analogies between a few inches of change in the beaks of a Galapagos finch species and a purported transition from dinosaur to bird (or vice versa) appear to me inappropriate.
Nice contribution. Thank you.
I salute you as a brother. (or sister.) But you have an odd name.
You are welcome. My sister works for Dr. Shaefer, so I have been following his comments on the controversy. His quatam chemistry stuff is over my head, but his editorial made sense to even me.
Aw c'mon, please explain that to me. What do you think a law, a theory and a hypothesis is?
"Church Dogmatics"?
Nice point. For example, we know that AntiPope Gore MMM judges religions, even ones that are very closely related to his own, as heretical non-Christian. Of course, he may be the only member of his particular cult ...
The... post---was on a thread 'defining conservatism'!
What? I'm shocked, shocked. That you didn't see it the first twelve times he posted it, that is.
Please. The doubting of evolution is a major cash industry in several states.People sell anything in this country. After all, this is America remember?
Few people outside of creationist circles have ever even heard of ID.Consensus has no place in science.
If you come across a competing theory, let me know. ID doesn't cut it.As if by divine decree, you invalidate your opposition. What rapier whit; what fabulous inspiration; what irrefutable logic!
Tell me, how do you define each?Was Physics 101 that long ago? You should like this page.
Personally, I am simply amazed at the amount of time scientists waste waging war against a philosophical stance. And I am not talking about creationism or ID. It is your own convictions you battle.
Yes, basically -- though in point of fact I've only read his sketch of the discussion as it's laid out in "Dogmatics in Outline".
I want to know what you think is the difference between a law and a theory.
So, where and when did you lose your sense of humor? Has that loss moderated your mood swings?
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.