Posted on 11/29/2012 7:56:08 PM PST by kathsua
The new standard for teaching science in public schools should prohibit teaching religious beliefs like evolution as if they were the equivalent of scientific theories.
Science should be defined as using experimentation and observation to discover information about physical reality. Explanations of what happened in the ancient past cannot be verified using experimentation and observation.
----------advertisement-----------
Contrary to a popular myth pushed by those who want to make science a substitute for religion, science has yet to produce a new explanation for the development of life or the origin of the universe.
The idea that the universe came out of a black hole (the "Big Bang" theory) became popular in the 20th century, but it is hardly a new explanation. An account attributed to the biblical patriarch Enoch (Noah's great-grandfather) first described an event in which "all of creation" came out of an invisible object with a fiery light inside (i.e., a black hole) thousands of years ago. Many cultures use the word "egg" to describe the object the universe came out of.
The idea of one species changing to another, particularly the idea of humans being related to apes, was around long before Charles Darwin wrote his "Origin of the Species." Darwin was reluctant to say we are a monkey's grandchildren, so he just suggested that we are distant cousins. The ancient Tibetan religion had no such inhibitions and claims that we are descended from monkeys.
Evolutionists ignore the fact that humans use gradual changes to develop complex equipment. Development of biological life through gradual changes implies that an Intelligence developed life.
“No one who matters thinks Big Picture Evolution is scientific in the same manner as that which can be empirically tested.”
The truth of that statement all depends on who you believe matters. For example, the public purveyors of the atheistic-Darwinist package of philoscience, like Dawkins, do actually assert that your “Big Picture Evolution” is experimentally confirmed and unquestionable. Now, those guys may not matter to other scientists, but they are out there selling their message directly to the public, bypassing the normal gatekeepers of “good science”.
Now, if everyone knew they were cranks and dismissed them, even that wouldn’t matter, but that’s not the case. They are hailed as heroes by a growing segment of society, especially amongst the youth. The scientists who also believe in evolution, and thus would have the most credibility on the subject, could go to the public and point out at least the most grievous overstatements of Dawkins and company, but they hardly ever do. So, it’s left to us creationist cranks to try to present a countermessage, since nobody else seems to want to bother.
I’m with you on the matter, but this is a flawed argument:
“The Big Bang ignited the whole universe a million degrees and I would think that would pretty much sterilize any material that thought about springing into life right there.”
Nobody proposes that the ingredients of life were present at the time of the Big Bang, or for a long time afterwards, except for the most basic elements like hydrogen, electrons, and subatomic particles. They believe all the magical assemblage of enzymes and proteins happen way later, when the universe had cooled off.
That is a too broad statement really, but there is some truth to it. I’d say that we can’t directly observe events in the ancient past in our locality, and we can’t experimentally verify many of the key phenomenon with our present limitations.
For example, if you hypothesize that the proto-Earth was composed of a certain ratio of elements, at a certain temperature, distance from the Sun, etc, and it evolved along a certain path, how can you possibly test that hypothesis? You can make a computer model, which could only model the evolution based on other speculative assumptions that you provide to it, but that is not experimental verification. You can’t simply create a reduced scale experiment, because reduction of scale would affect at least one hugely fundamental experimental variable, namely gravity, in an unacceptable way. If you were lucky enough to find a protoplanet with similar variables, orbiting a similar star, you couldn’t even observe that “pre-made” experiment, because the timescale is unfeasible.
So what is left? Thought experiments? Help me out here.
There’s also a neat theory I read recently which posited that the apparent age of the universe, the redshifts, radioactive decay, and all the associated phenomena, could be reconciled with a young universe simply by speed of light decay.
There’s more than one way to skin a cat, and there are more than two ways to explain the observed phenomena.
“Certainly not creationism’s bete noire, Richard Dawkins.”
Oh no? Did he reverse his position and I missed it? I clearly remember him arguing that inducing mutations in fruit flies was some type of experimental verification of macroevolution at work. I’m not kidding, it didn’t make any sense, but he tried to argue it. His disciples do too.
“What are your theories on absolute true and mathematical evening and morning?”
How do you calculate an evening and morning if the sun hasn’t been created yet? Things might not be as straightforward as one would assume, just saying.
Your statement would imply that those that go to the bible schools aren’t educated? Most bible schools that I’ve seen up here in the pacific northwest put out some very bright and educated young folks.
As an added bonus, you learn about salvation, if you’re not already saved, therefor when this life on earth ends, it’s off the to the good stuff, not the bad stuff, which is ultimately what really matters.
Life on earth is but a blink of an eye compared to eternity.
Perhaps the real question should be - what would be the benefit of proving evolution? What is the likelihood of proving evolution vs. proving a Creator as the source of life? What are the odds of some accidental start to life and then the evolving of all the plants/animals/insects/fish from further accidents? Who benefits from any of it?
““It’s like giving a chimpanzee a typewriter and expecting the chimp to write some magnificent script for the next blockbuster film... “
Nah, it’s a lot worse odds than that. It’s more like smashing a typewriter into a thousand pieces with a sledgehammer, then putting a lobotomized monkey in a room with the pieces, and coming back in a few years and finding a reassembled typewriter.”
I’d add with all of Shakespear’s works neatly typed published and arranged - except there was no paper nor other materials in the room when you left [have to throw in a few miracles for this to even approximate the true odds :’)].
The only benefit I see is a convincing feeling of triumph for those who wish to deny God, and argue that there is freedom from disbelief. It’s all about the ivory towers.
Just wanted to say I appreciate your posts. Saw some things I may add to my library too.
Yes, I read years ago regarding the decay of light which lead me eventually to Russell Humphreys [see my links page].
For my money though the hydroplate theory assembles the most intriguing mysterious pieces of the puzzle. More than any other theory and/or all of the known true science. Explains the 2 biggest dilemmas of all - Where all the water came from and went to regarding the global flood.
Maybe a unifying theory goes too far but have you read ‘11 Great Christian Men of Science’? - gives many biographical insights into the greats of the past several centuries. I love science but I’d never read nor heard about even half these guys growing up in public/catholic schools nor college either. Off the top of my head not Maury, Morris, Hmphreys nor Brown.
Problem is the universe and time puzzles can not be assembled clearly until we can get another major paradigm shift - one where true science cleans up it’s act and begins to reveal hidden truths and decimate known lies like long ages evolution, global warming, and all the ivory tower strongholds that have proven useless and a source of major distractions, irritations and overall waste of taxpayer dollars.
Believing God’s Words above all else leads me to believe we may not have enough time for this paradigm shift. The pieces are in place but how much negligence and head burying will be allowed by THE POWERS THAT BE. Maybe all the worldly successes have dumbed down the masses to accept whatever is electronically bleated
and repeated by the majority accepted talking heads
"....In our effort to demonstrate the essential unity of religion and science, we specifically want to avoid the superficial and metaphysically incoherent approach of the materialists, which essentially reduces to magic -- no different than the young earth creationist who sees God as a kind of magician. But creation is not magic; rather, it is thoroughly rooted in, and infused with, order and Reason. Yes, there are myths that describe creation as if it were a giant magic act, but the purpose of myth is to awaken Truth within, not to force consent from without. ..." HERE
“Creation Science” fails the test of being legitimate science by the standard laid down in the article.
The book I referenced in prior post above...Brewster and Kelley were the other 2 I had no formal educational references
Christian Men of Science: Eleven Men Who Changed the World
by George Mulfinger and Julia Mulfinger Orozco) devotes a chapter to Brown. It may be read by clicking http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Julia.html#wp1023692.
<>
“I believe that Christianity can still be believed, even if Evolution is true.” ~ C. S. Lewis
bttt
What are you typing and communicating your snarky comments with?
If you want to criticize terminology, then check your definitions first. You said
"occasionally a law is also developed that mathematically describes the process"But...
"A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'."Computer science and mathematics uses theorems and proofs. In my studied scientific branch (math and comp sci) "proof" means:
"A theorem is a mathematical statement that is true and can be (and has been) verified as true. A proof of a theorem is a written verification that shows that the theorem is definitely and unequivocally true. A proof should be understandable and convincing to anyone who has the requisite background and knowledge."
I agree in part b/c hard science is never historical science but thanks to mankind’s very nature it is still fun and informative to ponder our origins and the oft hidden mysteries
- the ones folks have been asking since they learned to talk -
WHY? WHAT? HOW? WHEN? & WHO?
So can we put you two down for? - science by consensus - which by the way flys directly in the face of every major scientific breakthrough/paradigm shift.
Just glanced at this wiki entry - interesting that they fail to mention those same 6 men for whom I had nor formal education regarding their weighty contributions...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science
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.