Actually, that’s my point: I’m talking not merely about the difficulty of proving a negative, but of falsifiability. Also, you appear to be largely ignoring my point, but I’ll let that go.
If you say that the story was given, I ask: on what grounds? You’ve provided nothing to support it. You’ve provided no way to falsify the idea. And, in the words of Christopher Hitchens, “that which is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence”; upon those grounds I dismiss your point as irresolvable.
Evolution, on the other hand, has a massive amount of scientific support, to the point that it is scientific fact. Based upon its evidence, I accept it as sound.
Also, I really don’t know how this relates to K-12 education, and I suspect it’s merely a red herring.
“Actually, that’s my point: I’m talking not merely about the difficulty of proving a negative, but of falsifiability. Also, you appear to be largely ignoring my point, but I’ll let that go.
If you say that the story was given, I ask: on what grounds? You’ve provided nothing to support it. You’ve provided no way to falsify the idea. And, in the words of Christopher Hitchens, “that which is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence”; upon those grounds I dismiss your point as irresolvable.”
You and Hitchens make/made the pre biased mistake that a lot of “scientists and science wannabe’s” make; that is to create thesis/antithesis conflicts over the notion of the falsifiable idea vs the tautological(can never be proven true or false)idea. It is true that the practise of pure scientific investigation must look at the evidence and form hypothesis based on evidence. Yet, the ethical scientist crosses the line when he makes biased opinions regarding the tautological. Another words when an arguement can’t be proven true or false, then the arguement for said tautology must be assumed false and an adherent of said arguement must be considered “irrational” and therfore a “nutter” as the Brits like to use the term and banished from all scientific journals and the halls of elite God scientists...as E. Forest Mims was!
A truly scientific mind will be pure in his/her investigations but he/she must be intellectually honest by not using science to claim that an arguement of a tautological nature that can’t be falsified or verified must be automatically considered false. He may only say that science can not speak as to the tautological as existent or nonexistent. Ony a Pre-Biased scientific mind which has gone off the rails of true scientific inquiry will assign qualities of “good/evil”, “rational/irrational”, superstitious/nonsuperstitious, or I like this one..”Intelligent/stupidly ignorant” to those who hold more numinous tautological views of the nature of the universe.
There will always be epistomological gaps between what are observed from objects and from the objects themselves. What fills the gaps are the stuffs of legends, or there be Dragons, or perhaps the God in Flesh who poured out his life for us...or just “crazy nutter superstitious talk”. The ethical scientist too must account for his own biases when he considers that epistomological gap, if his own work is to have any coherency at all!
(Yes, I know what it is, I'm trying to find out if *you* know. And can articulate the significance either way, and what the risks are.)
As far as evidence, you were the one who asserted without evidence "what if Satan had a test so only those who rejected heaven got into it" and expected an answer.
The problem is not that there is no evidence: the problem is a much more subtle metaphysical one dealing with the roots of the scientific method.
I have yet to run across an atheist who's thought of it.
Cheers!
This is a strawman. I have said nothing about the origins of Genesis. Perhaps you have me confused with some other poster. Perhaps this is a strawman question of your creation.
My point is: ( again)
It is amazing that this ancient creation story ( Genesis) is, indeed, as accurate as concisely and beautifully accurate as it is a story that conforms remarkably well with what we know from science today.
My second point is ( again)
You have proven *** twice** now that you are grossly unfamiliar with Genesis and what is written there, yet feel free to criticize it.
Finally....
1) Evolution would not be a hot topic except that we have **forced** attendance and **forced** funding of a system of socialized K-12 schools.
2) Not only should there be complete separation of school and state, but there should be complete separation of science and state. The **only** exception to this would be for military defense and the prevention of the spread of highly infectious diseases.
3) When it comes to being bullies evolutions are the biggest defenders of forced funded socialist schooling and socialized science.
Yes, you do. You have already admitted that evolution would have non-neutral religious, political, and cultural consequences.
Get government out of the education business, better yet, get government out of the science business ,and the **only** people who would be worrying their brains about macro-evolution would be the handful of scientists working in this **narrow** field.