Posted on 04/17/2012 4:27:49 AM PDT by scottfactor
Members of the anti-Christian, communist Left are obsessed with banishing the presence of Christian expression from all areas of the public square. They are probably the most fervent in this crusade in the government-run public school classrooms, where teachers are persecuted for displaying even a hint of Christianity.
I have written before about a California teacher, Brad Johnson, who is fighting back against a tyrannical school district that ordered him to remove patriotic banners from his classroom walls—banners that simply included the name of God in their sayings. These banners had long been hanging in his classroom, but the God-hating tyrants in his school district decided they could no longer abide even the written mention of the name of the Lord in that classroom. How very like Satan that is!
Mr. Johnson’s appeal is still pending in the courts, and the Thomas More Law Center has vowed to take it to the Supreme Court, if necessary.
There is another American teacher being persecuted for his Christian faith. This is a case out of Mount Vernon, Ohio.
As reported at the Rutherford Institute website, which is handling the case,
“The Rutherford Institute has appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court on behalf of John Freshwater, a Christian teacher who was fired for keeping religious articles in his classroom and for using teaching methods that encourage public school students to think critically about the school’s science curriculum, particularly as it relates to evolution theories. Freshwater, a 24-year veteran in the classroom, was suspended by the Mount Vernon City School District Board of Education in 2008 and officially terminated in January 2011. The School Board justified its actions by accusing Freshwater of improperly injecting religion into the classroom by giving students ‘reason to doubt the accuracy and/or veracity of scientists, science textbooks and/or science in general.’ The Board also claimed that Freshwater failed to remove ‘all religious articles’ from his classroom, including a Bible.”
Here we have the case of a Christian teacher encouraging his students to approach the unproven, unobserved theory of evolution with the skeptical eye it deserves. The anti-Christian crusaders in our world are so viciously against any teachings that declare God is the Author of the universe and all that is in it that they will fiercely defend a terribly flimsy theory—or hypothesis, rather—that seeks to explain the origins of life in this amazing world in which we live. The hypothesis of evolution—which is not even a plausible explanation, with its gaping, fossil record holes and fantasy mechanisms—is the best the godless among us have come up with, and they cling to it with a fanatical fervor.
The fact that this school district even cited Mr. Freshwater for having a Bible in his classroom is also chilling and disgusting. We must remember that our God-given rights do not end just because we become teachers in the public school system. There is no such thing as the fabled “separation of church and state” as the Left insists. The only constitutional mandates are against the federal government establishing an official national religion in America, which it has never done, and interfering with Americans’ freedom to practice their faith, which it is doing more and more each year.
The bizarre beginning of this case was back in 2008, as reported in Mr. Freshwater’s Appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, filed last Friday by the Rutherford Institute,
“Despite objective evidence demonstrating Freshwater’s consistent excellence as an eighth-grade science teacher for over 20 years, and despite his immaculate employment record, Freshwater came under intense scrutiny following a 2008 incident in which a common classroom science experiment with a Tesla coil used safely by other teachers for over 20 years allegedly produced a cross-shaped mark on one student’s arm.
While the Referee who investigated this incident ultimately determined that ‘speculation and imagination had pushed reality aside,’… community hysteria resulting from rumors about Freshwater and the incident prompted the [School] Board to launch a full-scale inquisition into Freshwater’s teaching methods and performance. This sweeping critique focused entirely on trace evidence of Freshwater’s religious faith which allegedly appeared in the classroom. On January 10, 2011, the Board adopted a Resolution terminating Freshwater’s employment contract based upon a recommendation issued by Referee R. Lee Shepherd, Esq., on January 7, 2011 that Freshwater be terminated for ‘good and just cause.’”
The supposed “good and just cause” was Mr. Freshwater’s allowing his students to examine both sides of the evolution debate and teaching them to recognize issues in printed materials that could be questioned or debated, in other words, he was teaching his students critical thinking! The godless School Board also found offense in the fact that some of Mr. Freshwater’s counterpoints to the hypothesis of evolution involved—GASP!—arguments for Creationism or Intelligent Design. Oh, the horror!
According to the School Board, this “good and just cause” amounted to “Failure to Adhere to Established Curriculum.” That sounds like something out of Nazi Germany! Absolutely NO God talk allowed here, comrades!
Mr. Freshwater was also accused of “Disobedience of Orders,” because he was told to remove certain items from his classroom, which he did, but there was a patriotic poster featuring Colin Powell that he did not remove, but said he did not recall being told to remove it. That poster was handed out to teachers by the school office and was displayed in other classrooms in the district besides his. He also had a couple of school library books: one was a Bible, and one was titled “Jesus of Nazareth.” Because he had these things in his classroom, he was accused of “defiance.”
This is an outrageous injustice, and this case is extremely important for the future freedoms of teachers and students alike. As the President and founder of the Rutherford Institute, John Whitehead, stated,
“Academic freedom was once the bedrock of American education. That is no longer the state of affairs, as this case makes clear. ... What we need today are more teachers and school administrators who understand that young people don’t need to be indoctrinated. Rather, they need to be taught how to think for themselves.”
The godless people who aggressively push the hypothesis of evolution in our public schools cannot tolerate opposing viewpoints, and if Mr. Freshwater ultimately loses this battle in the courts, all of America will have lost yet another chunk of our Christian liberty at the hands of anti-Christian tyrants.
As reported by the Rutherford Institute, two lower courts have already sided with the School Board against Mr. Freshwater, ignoring the First and Fourteenth Amendment violations by the school district.
The conclusion of Mr. Freshwater’s appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court states,
“The [School] Board's actions constitute a violation of the First Amendment academic freedom rights of both Freshwater and of his students, of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, and of Freshwater's right to Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Because of its significant implications for academic freedom in public schools and the continued vitality of teachers' First Amendment right to openly practice and discuss their religious faith, the case is one of monumental public concern. As no reviewing court has yet examined these critical civil liberty components of this case, Freshwater prays that this Court will grant his petition and undertake that essential analysis.”
We should all be praying that Mr. Freshwater is given a victory over this anti-Christian, public school district. Ultimately, we are all Mr. Freshwater, and if he loses, we all lose.
We should also pray for, and consider financially supporting, the Rutherford Institute, which is made up of front-line, legal warriors who provide free legal services to people who have had their constitutional rights threatened or violated. From the Institute’s information page,
“The Institute’s mission is twofold: to provide legal services in the defense of religious and civil liberties and to educate the public on important issues affecting their constitutional freedoms.
Whether our attorneys are protecting the rights of parents whose children are strip-searched at school, standing up for a teacher fired for speaking about religion or defending the rights of individuals against illegal search and seizure, The Rutherford Institute offers assistance—and hope—to thousands.”
So when Darwin offered his hypothesis in opposition to that days convention he was demonstrating his opposition to science? When Einstein proffered the general theory of relativity he was unscientific and demonstrating his opposition to that days convention. When Eddington took measurements and proved Einsteins theory to be correct he was going against convention? When Hubble confirmed the origin of the universe he violated convention and thus was unscientific? When Freidman and Lamatreyia again proved origin and threw in with Einstein they were unconventional and thus unscientific? When Hoyl agreed to dispose of the steady-state theory and threw in with Einstein, he was violating his duty to 'science'?
I guess my point is, these men seemed committed to truth, and the search for the truth, not a presuppositional committment to their comfort zone. As you know, Einstein's committment was so strong that he conjoured a cosmological constant to actually make void his earth-shattering theory...and finally, to Hubble, at the telescope at Mt.Wilson, just outside of LA, as Einstein himself looked at Hubbles findings, he finally admitted that his cosmological constant was the biggest mistake of his life.
Some of us ask questions....some criticize those questions.
So when Darwin offered his hypothesis in opposition to that days convention he was demonstrating his opposition to science? When Einstein proffered the general theory of relativity he was unscientific and demonstrating his opposition to that days convention. When Eddington took measurements and proved Einsteins theory to be correct he was going against convention? When Hubble confirmed the origin of the universe he violated convention and thus was unscientific? When Freidman and Lamatreyia again proved origin and threw in with Einstein they were unconventional and thus unscientific? When Hoyl agreed to dispose of the steady-state theory and threw in with Einstein, he was violating his duty to 'science'?
I guess my point is, these men seemed committed to truth, and the search for the truth, not a presuppositional committment to their comfort zone. As you know, Einstein's committment was so strong that he conjoured a cosmological constant to actually make void his earth-shattering theory...and finally, to Hubble, at the telescope at Mt.Wilson, just outside of LA, as Einstein himself looked at Hubbles findings, he finally admitted that his cosmological constant was the biggest mistake of his life.
Some of us ask questions....some criticize those questions.
....I'll come back to this one.
....I'll come back to this one.
This is not what you just said.
I don't have to be a bull rider to grasp how unpleasant it must be to be on the wrong end of an "ivory enema."
Thank you ever so much, dear Texas Songwriter, for your trenchent (and hilarious) observations!
Wow! You would agree that it is important to know the truth about this important issue. As you know the phrase "separation of church and state" is not enshrined in the Establishment clause. Likewise the word "church" nor the word "state" are contained therein. The publics' often misunderstanding of the first amendment has been molded by the Court's often-repeated usage of the phrase. The fact that all of the original 13 States which were signatories to the Constitution had state constitutions which prescribed Bible reading, Old and New Testaments, and were obliged to take an oath, for example in Delaware, Article 22 says, "Every member who shall be chosen a member to either House or appointed to any office or place of trust shall make and subscribe to the following declartion, to wit: "I ______do profess faith in God the FAther, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, and in the HOly Ghost, one God blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scripture of the Old and New Testatment to be give by divine inspiration." A similar statement was given in each state. This was extant political reality in the day of the writing of our Constitution and was likewise in each state. These men were sent to the Constitutional Convention.
A strong proof that the First Amendment was never intended to separate Christianity from public affairs came in the form of legislation approved by the same Congress which created the First Amendment That legislation, originally entitledl "An Ordinance for the Government of teh Territory of the United States, Northwest of the River Ohio" and later shortened to the "Northwest Ordinance" provided the procedure and requirements whereby territories could attin statehood in the newly United States. After all, there were thousands of Americans in the wilderness and the western territories facross the Ohio River. Article III of this Ordinance said, ""Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind_____________________shall forevermore be encouraged".
In the United States, the origin of the phrase, "Separation of Church and State" was written by Jefferson in response to a concern put to Jefferson from the Danbury Baptist church, from Danbury, Conneticutt. On Jan.1, 1802 Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists and said, "I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. This phrase was not recorded in the Constitutional Convention in any of the recordings.
As one Freeper told you, Article 52 of the Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics says: "The churh in the USSR is separated from the state, and the school from the church."
As is the case with most historical sciences. Do you have the same problem with all of them? Do you have an issue with the idea that South America and Africa were once joined, or that the Himalayas are the result of India crashing into Asia? We've measured the movement of continental plates (I suppose you could call that microtectonics) but never observed the creation of a continent (macrotectonics) (and speaking as someone living in California, I hope we never do).
How about the formation of the moon? We're not going to see that again either, God willing. Do you complain when people talk about the moon being formed from part of the Earth that got knocked off 4+ billion years ago?
If you're consistently refuse to believe in things we can't directly test or observe, that's one thing. But if you're singling out evolution with a criticism that can apply to a lot of other theories--well, I just want to point out the inconsistency.
[Of course, I am here speaking of the macroevolution component of the doctrine.]
And here, I think you're rigging the game. Can you define where microevolution becomes macroevolution? I don't think you can--I think you just "know it when you see it." I mentioned a while back a population of lizards that developed larger heads and a whole new gut structure to accommodate a changed diet in a new environment, and asked if that was macro enough. I expect--maybe I'm wrong--that you'll say "they're still lizards." Well, yes, and you'll be able to say that no matter how much they change because you know they started as lizards--that's what I mean by rigging the game. (You know they're not going to turn into cats or birds, right?) Each new generation will look like and be able to interbreed with their parents, so you'll be able to say "they're still lizards" even if they end up feathered and flying.
You also know tigers and lions can reproduce, right? What's your explanation for that--are they really just microevolutionary variations of the same animal? What animal is that?
In that very sense, it is no different than the offerings of any religious sect.
In the sense that both deal with things most people haven't seen, yes. But that's a trivial sense. In more meaningful senses, such as whether you can make predictions based on it (as allmendream keeps pointing out), they are nothing alike.
And so the beat goes on.... interminably. Without respite, without light, without grace.
I know...right???...it’s as if not seeing the forest for the trees isn’t enough, it’s as if there’s a back-breaking effort to only allow ones-self to see the trees and nothing else. Ever.
Interestingly DNA, benzene, ketones all the organic molecules in a human being can be stacked onto a platform, every single solitary atom of a person accounted for and carefully placed together just exactly and perfectly so, and yet only some intelligent designed energy or force with purpose is going to make it all breathe, dream walk, talk, love.. have a soul.
It can’t happen just because we want it to be so.
I don't think I've ever witnessed hostility towards the "nonphenomenal", just indifference. The kind of person who tends to be drawn to science is very focused on and fascinated with the physical world. I remember, as a small child, watching the (then new) show Star Trek and adoring Mr. Spock; I wanted to grow up and be relentlessly logical and analytical just like him. I doubt anyone will have much luck trying to turn a scientist's attention away from the tangible; our brains simply aren't wired to care about metaphysical matters.
I can't say I disagree with Dr. Monod. Chance *does* have a huge effect on the physical world. Everyone sees how meteorologists incorporate the role of chance into their work ("Today will be partially cloudy, with a 60% chance of snow or sleet.") The role of chance in other sciences may not be as visible, but it plays a huge role in everything we do. A radioactive half-life, for example, is the empirically determined time it takes for half of the atoms of a given radioisotope to undergo radioactive decay. Or, to put it another way, any specific atom of that isotope has a 50% chance of undergoing decay during a half-life. Specific decay events are random and unpredictable, yet we can use that random process to precisely measure various quantities. In fact, I have seen no method of quantitation that is as sensitive or precise as radioactive methods. That is just one example; the role of chance is ubiquitous in biology and, indeed, in our everyday lives.
I will take a moment here to point out that, unlike any of the philosophers mentioned in these discussions so far, Jacques Monod, along with his colleague Francois Jacob, has had a lasting influence in the fields of molecular and micro- biology. Their elegant work unveiling the function of the lac operon is discussed in many classes, and parts of the lac operon are used in many experimental projects. I've used it myself.
And he seems to know the downside of this sort of thing:
"… When faced with questions that they really don’t know how to answer — like “How does a single cell turn into a mouse?” or “How did the structure and activity of Beethoven’s brain result in Opus 131?” — the only thing that natural scientists know how to do is turn them into other questions that they do know how to answer. That is, scientists do what they already know how to do."
That isn't quite accurate. We address such questions by breaking them down into questions that we can answer. For example, we know that when a lethal dose of a certain poison is administered, death occurs within a few days or weeks. We don't know how. My entire graduate school career was spent looking for a stepping stone between the very well characterized initial events that occur upon exposure and the later event (death). I did not find that stepping stone, but I found hints of what it might look like. Even if I had found and characterized it, that only would have meant that someone else would be looking for the next stepping stone. The fact that the large questions in science must always be broken down into small questions does not mean that the large questions are unanswerable. It's kind of like taking a road trip. You know where you want to go, but not how to get there. So you study some maps and determine that you must first take road A, then road B, then C, etc., and by driving along a series of roads, you reach your destination. Of course, science doesn't have road maps, and we make a lot of wrong turns along the way--but the stepwise progression towards the goal is similar.
I believe we've had this discussion before. It simply is not accurate to call sciences that depend mostly on observation "historical" sciences. Furthermore, the science of evolution has many components that *are* directly testable, and many evolutionary biologists spend their careers designing and performing hypothesis-driven experiments.
As for any supposition that evolution "calls for" unobserved and unobservable things, that simply is not true. You have previously expressed frustration that scientists only care about that which is tangible, observable, measurable--but here you are now, accusing us of incorporating nonexistent components into the theory of evolution! Your previous characterization of us as being too focused on the physical world is essentially correct--please keep that in mind the next time you are tempted to accuse us (or to repeat someone else's accusation) of engaging in philosophical flights of fancy vis-à-vis evolution.
Also, if you want to talk about the supposed "unobserved and unobservable" aspects of the theory of evolution, please be specific about what they are.
[Of course, I am here speaking of the macroevolution component of the doctrine.]
What, exactly, is "macroevolution"? I'm familiar with the term as coined by literal creationists, but I don't think it has a definite scientific meaning. I suppose the distinction would be the time scale...
In that very sense, it is no different than the offerings of any religious sect.
Religion concerns itself with the unseeable and unprovable; it is very different from science. Each has its place, and scientists never confuse the two.
This would be a lot easier to answer if you had some knowledge of chemistry.
Chemicals like carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, etc., react spontaneously to form molecules because it is their nature to do so, just like it is the nature of magnets to seek physical contact when placed a short distance from each other. Each carbon atom can form covalent bonds with up to four other atoms. Each nitrogen atom can form up to three bonds with other atoms. Each oxygen can form up to two bonds, and hydrogen only forms one bond. As long as energy is present in the system (in other words, the mixture is warm enough), those bonds will form--it is unavoidable. And since they form randomly, a variety of organic molecules results.
As for how the oxygen and carbon came to be, they were produced from the fusion/other nuclear processes of hydrogen atoms inside stars. As to where the hydrogen came from--well, I believe that is a topic of discussion among physicists, who will tell you that everything came to be in the big bang, but don't really have details (or, at least, an explanation of how all this matter came into existence from nothing during the big bang). I can't answer that, and I don't spend time worrying about it.
Next, the early earth did NOT contain free O2 and early organisms did not respire the way all eukaryotes and many prokaryotes do now. All of the O2 currently in the atmosphere is there because of biological activity.
So many questions. Are you really meaning to say that DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) consists of 4 letters.. A,T,C, and G. Or did you mean those letters represent nucleotides. And if so, please tell us how chemical nucleotides convey this 'tangible information'. Would it be more accurate to express this 'tangible information' as the physical expression of information contained in the genetic code. If you agree with that expression, then how did chemicals 'tell' messenger RNA to move to ribosomes and produce a protein. Information -> Nucleic acid -> mRNA ->ribosome ->expression of information. Now, what is the physical makeup of information.
Of course, the letters represent nucleotides. Within the scope of this discussion, and, indeed, within the scope of many scientific discussions, the pertinent information about those nucleotides is conveyed by referring to them as letters.
Now, when I speak of those chemical molecules carrying tangible information, I am being absolutely literal. Every atom, every molecule formed from atoms, has a unique shape. Carbon, for instance, is a tetrahedron. Molecules have more complex shapes than atoms. When a messenger RNA molecule is threaded through a ribosome, a single word (or "codon" in scientific speech) is placed in a specific position on the ribosome. A transfer RNA with an amino acid attached sees that word. If its word ("anticodon") is the exact opposite of the word at that position on the message on the ribosome, it fits that word just like a key fits a lock. The entire process is very physical. Here is a video that shows the process of protein synthesis on a ribosome. Although it's only representing the nucleotides as letters, the actual nucleotides do have specific shapes that only attach to other nucleotides with complementary shapes. A can only attach to U, and C only to G.
Now that you have the obligatory insult laid at my feet....you may presume that I have some knowledge in the area of chemistry. But you may also assume I am ignorant in many areas...of that I plead guilty.
We will bypass the fundamentals on covalent bonds, ionic bonds, electrovalent bonding, and nucleosynthesis. Presume I have a working knowledge there.
Molecular oxygen and carbon you account for via nucleosysthesis. Then you hand off the ball to the physists as to the origin of Hydrogen, helium (not mentioned) and subatomic particles which must have existed very early on in that event which you referenced as the Big bang. The fundamental question which I originally asked was,....As we know, and you affirm an origin to the universe (hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, etc), and given that science does not deny, yes, it affirms that the universe came to be from nothing, (the eternity of the universe has thoroughly been scientifically dismissed-(see Borde, Guth, Vilkin) please account for the Cause of the big bang. Everything which comes to be has a cause....the universe came to be....therefore the universe had a Cause. (Please, before you go into the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, Copenhagen Model, the above referenced authority has disposed of it). This was my question to you.
Next, the early earth did NOT contain free O2 and early organisms did not respire the way all eukaryotes and many prokaryotes do now. All of the O2 currently in the atmosphere is there because of biological activity.
Therefore you say these early organisms were anaerobes. I will assume you will agree with this. Do anaerobes give off elemental O2 as a byproduct of their physiological process (For now I will not ask you where and how the enzyme process survived an atmosphere in which was highly reduced.) So how did they respire? BUT, before you answer that question how did this 'primitive life' come to be?
Now, when I speak of those chemical molecules carrying tangible information, I am being absolutely literal.
Tanglible...ok. I understand that word. Now INFORMATION....we need to look at that word. That is an interesting word. Is it a 'piece of knowledge', as Webster indicates or, as Websters also indicates, is it 'the attribute inherent in and communicated by alternative sequences or arrangements of something that produce specific effects'? By this last definition it indicates a string of characters, specifically which indicate a particular outcome or performs a communication function. So DNA contains particular sequences to a specific effect. What humans recognize as 'information' always originates from mind or consciousness when applied to our technology. The information in the books of Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, and Shakespeare originated in the minds of those men. In nature the only place we find 'information' is in our biology, indeed in the cells of every living organism. So my question is...."How did this information arise?" Who or what wrote this book of life? It seeems to me that DNA is the medium which holds the information, not the the information itself. DNA is like a CD. It is not the music recorded by the Os and 1s sequenced in the CD. Who wrote the song? What wrote the song? As you know you can go into the lab and extract the molecule DNA (or pieces of it) put it in any medium which you desire, and you will not produce an organism. There is all the information you need to produce an organism, but there is no execution of production.
Thank you for the link to the video.
What is Information? See my last post to exDemMom. Bill Gates stated that DNA is very much like a Computer Program, but much, much more advanced than any software ever created. So, who created the software of which you speak, DNA?` Who or what designed that program? DNA contains the building instructions for many cellular machines found inside the cell. But, as Bernd-Olaf Kuppers explains, “The problem of the origin of life is clearly basically equivalent to the problem of the origin of biological information.”
It's obviously a macro change. Rats are way bigger and meaner than mice; anyone can see that. If rats were only slightly bigger and meaner, then it would have been a micro change. ;-)
From my post #137: As a scientific methodology, creationism *is* useless.
From your post #143: To assert what you are saying is to assert that Christianity is useless.
It appears that I had the qualifier there all along. It was also apparent from allmendream's previous post that he was specifically talking about creationism in that same context, even though he didn't place the qualifier in the same sentence.
Don’t be insulting. The reason you would Google “Passover recipes” is because of your guests’ religious beliefs. Now you are proposing that a Torah (or a bible) must be read as though it were a recipe book?
I had specifically said creationism is useless for COOKING, whereupon you tried to inflate that statement to claim that I was talking about Jewish dietary laws. Even if I were (which I was not), I can still say that creationism is useless as a guide to those, as well. The Jewish dietary laws are set out in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, not in Genesis.
Yeah, and witness the number that are used by religions. Both Judeo-Christian and others. Likewise the presence of the Judeo-Christian tradition in the concert repertoire. Your narrative seems to prove in your mind that the presence of other influences obviates the Judeo-Christian tradition. This is not surprising.
You're still missing the point. The use of a tool for good or evil does not make the tool itself good or evil. Remember the old saying, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people"? You seem to be trying to convince me that things are good or evil, which is not a premise I accept.
You don’t care to discuss philosophy except when you care to discuss philosophy. Don’t start a brawl and then announce you’re leaving the party. If you don’t care to discuss philosophy . . . don’t discuss philosophy.
*I* haven't brought up philosophy. In every case in which it has been discussed, it was brought up by someone else. My *only* discussion of it has been to say that I avoid it.
So, there is ethics in Science? Or is that only when it’s convenient for there to be ethics in Science?
See above. Science is a methodology, a tool, and as such, has no intrinsic ethics. Just as with the use of any other tool, the ethics are contained within the practioner. Remember, guns don't kill people--people kill people.
The “evolving” ethics just weren’t advanced enough? A fuller discussion of the “lapse” somehow makes it all OK?
Does the fact that the field of applying ethics to research is still evolving somehow make it invalid? Do we expect fields of human knowledge to spring forth, fully developed and in their final form, in order for them to be valid? The question of how to conduct research ethically and humanely is still a huge topic of discussion--in PubMed, there are about 160,000 articles on "ethics" alone. The fact that we're still trying to come up with answers doesn't invalidate the effort.
So you don’t endorse those who look to divorce Science from cultural values (as do some)?
Again, see above. Cultural values may be brought to the practice of science, but science is not a driver of cultural values. Guns, people, kill, etc.
By “Christians in general” do you include the Creationist beliefs shared by all Judeo-Christians? I have to hand it to you. You’ve maintained plausible deniability better than do most.
By saying "Christians in general", I am expressing the fact that those who believe that the Genesis story is a literal accounting of events that happened ~6,000 years ago are only a subset of Christians, and are not reflective of all Christians. You can certainly believe that God created the universe without doggedly holding to a literal YEC belief that is directly contradicted by physical evidence.
Old naval tactic: when outgunned make much smoke. My post #143 pointed out that your post #137 was the first introduction of your qualifier “scientific methodology.” You haven’t introduced a counter argument, just smoke. Great billowing clouds.
“It was also apparent from allmendream's previous post that he was specifically talking about creationism in that same context”
The assertion does not prove the fact. Repeating the assertion does not change the status of the fact. allmendream’s assertion has been categorical (and uncompromising). Great billowing clouds.
“I had specifically said creationism is useless for COOKING”
I hear just fine, thank you, but I’ll take your remark as an instance of emphasis, not of shouting. Your assertion was in response to my observation that passages in the Torah were important to an observant Jew for food preparation (COOKING). Your response was simply to restate your original assertion. Great billowing clouds.
“*I* haven't brought up philosophy.”
“God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.”
Who recently quoted the above? You did (in case you’re gagging on the answer). Not a philosophical observation? Something you found in a science textbook? A peer-reviewed article perhaps? An ancient script found at an archeological site? Or, is it “Existential nonsense”? “Thought meandering”? Then why did you bother to mention it? It couldn’t be because the quote had any value.
I won’t bother with the balance of your post. It’s simply more of the same: an insult and a series of sidetracks down which you hope to send me galloping.
Great billowing clouds.
Except one thing:
I asked you if ethics are to be found in Science. You responded, “Science is a methodology, a tool, and as such, has no intrinsic ethics. Just as with the use of any other tool, the ethics are contained within the practioner.”
OK, so Science has no ethics. You’re on record.
“You can certainly believe that God created the universe without doggedly holding to a literal YEC belief”
Then address yourself to YECs and stop aiding and abetting in the slandering of a whole people.
“Remember, guns don't kill people--people kill people.”
Is that a philosophical remark? Thought meandering? Existential nonsense?
Yes, post #137 *was* the first time I used the qualifier "scientific methodology"--right in the same sentence where I first used the term "creationism is useless". Seeing as how the first time I used either term occurred in the same sentence, you have no basis on which to say I ever made a blanket statement. So quit putting words in my mouth, or claiming that I said things I did not say.
The assertion does not prove the fact. Repeating the assertion does not change the status of the fact. allmendream’s assertion has been categorical (and uncompromising). Great billowing clouds.
In other words, you did not read allmendream's post in its entirety, and you are committing the same dishonest tactic that we can see used among the charlatans selling young earth creationism: using quotes out of context to try to "prove" scientists mean something different than what they actually said.
Your assertion was in response to my observation that passages in the Torah were important to an observant Jew for food preparation (COOKING). Your response was simply to restate your original assertion.
I have to repeat it, since you apparently did not (and still don't) understand the context. Taking things out of context is no different than putting words into people's mouths. The creation story of Genesis =/= the Torah.
OK, so Science has no ethics. You’re on record.
Well... it *almost* seems like we're getting somewhere. Scientists have ethics, science doesn't.
“God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.”
Who recently quoted the above? You did (in case you’re gagging on the answer). Not a philosophical observation?
No, that's not philosophy, and neither is the statement "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Those are sayings--short statements illustrating pieces of wisdom, formulated from people's empirical observations of human behavior. They have nothing in common with non-empirical philosophical questions such as, "If all the contents of awareness are ideas, how can we know that anything exists apart from ideas?" That, according to Wikipedia, was the basis of Descartes' existentialist nonsensical ramblings. GIGO, as they say.
Then address yourself to YECs and stop aiding and abetting in the slandering of a whole people.
I've been addressing YECism all along, and have taken care to indicate that. You *chose* to interpret my criticism of YECism as an indictment of all Christians, which it is not.
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.