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.
Oh, I quite agree. I do not find, however, that a disagreement with you qualifies as a “pejorative” or an “epithet.”
I wouldn't worry about it. Not everybody is good at finding stuff.
If you want science taught, then drop the humanist/atheist creation account of evolution. It’s philosophy and doesn’t belong in a science class.
It’s not based on the scientific method but rather forensic evidence and extrapolation (read:speculation)
Why? Is it because that you ASSume that physical laws don't and haven't changed and thereby feel justified in your ASSumptions?
What hard scientific proof do you have that all the physical laws have always operated as we observe them to do now?
Assuming it happened by miraculous intervention is useless and inapplicable to anything else.
Then how do you explain miracles, those events which happen which break the physical laws that govern the universe?
I am sorry that you think that science is anti God. That attitude says a lot more about your limitations than it does about the limits of science.
No, that's not true at all. I don't think that SCIENCE is anti God, but only that some scientists like you are.
Reduced to infantile snarkiness . . . pathetic.
What causes you to gag ... what you can’t stand ... is that Creationism is a tenet of Christianity and is the wellspring of America’s devotion to liberty for all mankind.
Have you always been telepathic, or was it the result of some sort of traumatic experience or head injury?
Evolution isn’t science.Sir Francis Bacon expresses surprise that you are able to summarise the argument of Novum Organum Scientiarum ('New Method') (1620), and yet miss the whole point.The whole theory is based on forensic evidence and extrapolation.
"forensic evidence and extrapolation" has been the meaning of "science" for close on four centuries.
So what happened to the scientific method and testability and observability and repeatability?
Seems that way too many people are ready to change the definition of *science* at a moment's notice based on what best fits their agenda.
YHAOS doesn’t need telepathy to see what is blindingly obvious to the most causal observer of these threads.
If you can't take . . . don't dish it out.
I’m glad you’re feeling better.
I didn't realize you found being questioned so offensive.
Contrarily, I have always been well aware that you can't deal with ideas different from your own.
That's amazing. Inutero?
Курсы для беременных и подготовка?
If you're going to speak Russian, you'll have to translate.
Otherwise . . .
Is the purpose of words meant to convey meaning? Or to control meaning? Presumably you would claim the former. Your practice seems to demonstrate the latter
Words can be ambiguous. Constrained meaning contributes to clarity and coherence and minimizes opportunities for obfuscation and sophistry.
Cheers!
Cheers!
I think that being true and correct is the conservative viewpoint. Claiming that you prevail by default, even if you're wrong, is an insult to conservatism and FR.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'
Cheers!
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.