Posted on 11/11/2009 7:52:41 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
Yup. I own it.
After enough evos complained that being an evolutionist did not equate to being an atheist because they believed in God AND evolution, I used the term to distinguish those evos who were atheists and had the atheistic agenda of trying to destroy or eliminate religious faith and those who did not.
But as usual, evo twisted and distorted it and refused to recognize the distinction and presumed that I was implying that all evos are atheists, which I never said or implied.
But considering how evos like to lump everyone who expresses any kind of confidence in the truth of the Biblical creation account as 6 day, 6,000 year, must read the whole Bible literally in all contexts, YEC’s, that doesn’t surprise me that they would come to that conclusion.
Evos tend to be great at projecting and extrapolating and misrepresenting.
The ToE itself is based on philosophy, the interpretation of the fossil record based on a philosophical world view and as such does not belong in science class either.
Teach all or none.
Don’t give one creation account precedence over another.
If it were simply a matter of real science, I’d agree, but the ToE is one of the biggest tools used in the attack on Christianity going.
And besides, there’s not one shred of evidence that teaching creation and ID along with evolution is going to harm one’s science education in the least.
The teaching of evolution only has had a monopoly in the public school system for decades and our performance in the sciences and math has continued to tank worldwide over the same time period.
Most private Christian schools and homeschoolers teach both and consistently have better standardized test scores and SAT/ACT scores than their public school counterparts, who are not taught to think for themselves.
I’ve asked the evos several times to provide evidence that teaching creation and/or ID hurts a student in the scientific fields and have yet to receive any response other than mockery and ridicule.
No one has to date, provided one source of verifiable data to support their contention.
The students in public high schools aren’t even getting the teaching of evolution right at that grade level. It’s a pretty sure thing that grade schoolers won’t. All this just smacks of trying to brainwash the kids at an earlier age in the hopes that more will come to believe in the ToE, although why that’s so important to some is still a mystery, which is another reason that it puts the whole issue in the ideological arena.
One can understand the ToE as presented and not accept it as true or accurate, but that seems to be irrelevant. One must ACCEPT the ToE as true to satisfy the evos.
You “conservatives” on FR will bemoan big government trying to use tax dollars to indoctrinate kids and using high taxes to create a welfare state until it comes to doing so by forcing Darwinism. You rant about the media and the schools teaching leftism to the exclusion of other ideas until it comes to Darwin. You get angry about Marxism but support the Marxist school system. You’re all frauds.
Well, as all the faux conservatives who post on these threads regularly point out, so called science should be forced on kids. Sex has plenty of scientific implications, prohibitions on sex-ed are forced by theocrats. I’m speaking as a fool.
You’re a great example of a blue blood RINO that’s destroying our party.
Which is exactly what earns the evos the label of *liberal*.
It isn’t because they are evolutionists but because they support big government control of education and because of liberal positions they’ve taken on other subjects.
Science most certainly does NOT have unlimited scope!!!
They have even starting limiting what little they could see/observe when the ‘consensus’ agreed to abide by naturalism. Acting as if there is no God b/c anything super-natural may not be repeated nor proven. And in the process many have made themselves and/or their science a god.
The biggest problem for evolution claiming to be science is that most of its’ claims are based on assumptions and interpretations of history. Nothing scientific nor empirical is involved in its’ most grandiouse claims.
Neiher are any of its’ weaknesses allowed to be discussed. I’d guess from your own comments that neither of you two are even aware it has any weaknesses?
I’ll give you a simple analogy from computer programming. A good programmer can write code to perform all the requested functions flawlessly. If not the first time then all the flaws can be eliminated upon subsequent testing.
The problem? 99.9% of the time, the real world wants and needs changes. These often cause the code to include more functions and logic paths. Over time the code can end up going through multiple programmers who may not even have the time to understand all of the logic. They change one or many lines of code to ‘enhance’ the functionality. Along with those changes come bugs - usually hidden bugs.
The point of this analogy? Anyone who studies DNA should quickly realize it represents the ultimate ‘computer code’ for each and every life-form. God declared it good or perfect when completed. The corruption of the fall (sin) has been wreaking havoc on all His intended code (purpose) ever since, with one caveat He does not allow Satan complete dominion over those changes (see book of Job).
For more in-depth answers read all of His book - The Bible.
Bravo Sierra. I am not playing by your rules. I am not converting anyone else's work product into personal gain or signing my name to it and claiming it as mine. I am putting facts on the table which is what make you feel uncomfortable. If you can refute the content of posts you might have a legitimate complaint. I recognize that you would rather debate in the absence of facts so that your accusatory, belligerent, bullying, tattle to the mods approach eventually makes those who see through your bovine scat go away. That ain't gonna happen. While you are (self)absorbed in "catching" people in grammatical and protocol errors I will continue to "catch" you on scientific and theological errors.
What is immoral is for you to continue to lie about science and scientists to advance your view of how things ought to be.
That would be a reasonable opinion, IF there were the ability to have a non-science based ID class also. Since there is not, the attempt needs to be made to get it in somewhere.
If you can’t stand truth (the recognition of reality) get out of the kitchen.
The first great mistake of creationists is that they set up the strawman of “proof” and say that science fails at it. But proof is not the goal of science. The true goal of science is to see which explanation/model holds up best against challenges which attempt to disprove its predictions. ID makes no testable predictions; it is a static model.”
Good post but I have some questions. No flame.
Is the Big bang scientific since “it only offers an explanation without disprovable hypotheses or testable predictions of as-yet unobserved things.”
If the big bang is "spiritual cosmology" should we expunge it from the science books? Thanks.
You are close. As in solving any problem unknowns are represented by a variable. In solving the Creation - ID - Evolution mystery the various theories can be represented by "x" in an effort to rationalize or reject the supporting data. The possibility / probability / certainty of each of the three competing theories cannot yet be fully established, hence the often heated debate.
The part of my post you referenced was in quotes where I was quoting and responding to another poster. No problem, just wanted to clarify.
“Intelligent design makes a lot of sense to me, but it’s not science and does not belong in a science class”.
Alot of scientists disagree.
www.dissentfromdarwin.org
Alot of parents if not most, also disagree.
And I know most FReepers disagree.
Virtually all conservatives and Christians disagree.
I don’t vote rino or rat. ‘your’ party destroyed itself which means you are responsible for your failure.
I think you're talking about something other than, or at least much larger than, the theory of evolution. You seem to be talking about an alternate Creation Story or something (one not based on Genesis).
Different target entirely. You are railing at the Religion of "Evolution", which is (I agree) quite non-scientific at times.
But the scientific theory of evolution is much simpler, not grandiose at all. It seeks to explain the growth and interconnections of species over time, something that is so self-evident I don't feel it needs defense or explanation.
> Neiher are any of its’ weaknesses allowed to be discussed. I’d guess from your own comments that neither of you two are even aware it has any weaknesses?
You're joking of course.
Did you actually read any of what I wrote? The entire business and purpose of scientific method is to challenge and disprove hypotheses, to postulate better ones based on observation, to make predictions that can be tested and disproven if incorrect, and to ferret out weaknesses.
Some theories are quite strong, and have few known weaknesses. Others are still hypotheses, with numerous weaknesses. Evolution (the scientific theory, not the religion) is quite robust, has withstood countless challenges, but has many more to go.
But Evolution-as-Religion is not science, any more than Creationism is science. It's religion, and can be debated as religion (or perhaps philosophy). You can't tart up a religious position as science just by calling it science, whether it's Evolution (the religion) or Intelligent Design (the religion).
Neither is amenable to the scientific method of inquiry, prediction, testing, and disproving. So they're not science -- it simply does not apply.
> Science most certainly does NOT have unlimited scope!!!
Sure it does (for all things where the scientific method applies, of course). To limit the scope of scientific inquiry, challenge, testing, etc. is to say that "it shall not go here". For what conceivable reason?
The only places science does not go are those where the scientific method does not apply -- religion, philosophy, emotion, metaphysics, etc. But the entire physical world, past, present, and future, is completely within the scope of science. And it is unlimited.
> They have even starting limiting what little they could see/observe when the ‘consensus’ agreed to abide by naturalism. Acting as if there is no God b/c anything super-natural may not be repeated nor proven. And in the process many have made themselves and/or their science a god.
God is not amenable to the scientific method, and the scientific method does not apply to God. God is not science, and science is not God. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar and a fraud.
Thanks, and I appreciate that. ;-)
> Is the Big bang scientific since “it only offers an explanation without disprovable hypotheses or testable predictions of as-yet unobserved things.”
The Big Bang theory does actually provide quite a few testable predictions of as-yet unobserved things. The description of the events and conditions in the first few instants following the Big Bang are surprisingly well defined by the mathematical models developed over the past decades. They offer lots of opportunities to find flaws, to disprove assumptions, to trim and improve the model and the predictions one can make from the model.
There are, of course, numerous competing variations on the model, and the math, and the challenges fly fast and furious when the better scientists get together.
The high-energy particle colliders (like the LHC) are for exactly that purpose -- to test the predictions that can only be checked under conditions similar to the first instant of the Big Bang.
> If the big bang is "spiritual cosmology" should we expunge it from the science books? Thanks.
If it were, I would say "yes", but it's not -- it's actually very decent scientific theory at this point. All the best scientists have basically lined up behind it, but continue to challenge it and test it and try to poke holes in it, because that is the scientific method.
Did you know that the scientist who first advanced the theory (Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître) was a Roman Catholic priest? ... in addition to being a professor of physics and astronomer at the Catholic University of Leuven. Quite a guy.
It is wonderful and pleasing to me that the theory of the Big Bang, the best science can offer for the start of the universe, maps surprisingly well into my personal idea of how God created the universe. But my spiritual cosmology doesn't weaken the scientific basis for the BB -- it merely coincides well with it.
you wrote >> in the process many have made themselves and/or their science a god.
I wrote > God is not amenable to the scientific method, and the scientific method does not apply to God. God is not science, and science is not God. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar and a fraud.
There is, of course, one exceptional circumstance.
God can do anything. If God wanted to play "scientist" and run some experiments, of course He could and would. And indeed, one of my personal thoughts has been that our universe is one of God's "experiments".
But that's just my personal thought, and has no bearing on reality, whatever that may be in this context...
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.