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.
It seemed like it was a leading question. If it was upfront, good. I could retrace what trap I thought was being set, but is that really worthwhile now? My answer, to clarify, was based on an understanding of the question as seeking to get at the fact that Big Picture Evolution doesn’t tell us how life began, which was what the thread’s article was on about. Furthermore that it is not scientific because there is no basis upon which to say we know it’s true, rather than have a “pretty good idea,” which was my phrase you quoted.
“What are you talking about?” ×3
My guess as to what was behind your question, which can easily have been wrong.
“I said nothing about the Big Picture. I asked the man a question.”
A question which could only be answered by Big Picture Evolution, if evolution at all, so that I assumed that’s what you were getting at. I’ll go ahead and say I have no idea what motivated the question now.
“You seem not to be able to grasp the idea of a simple question”
I grasp that idea fine but didn’t think you were asking one. The other poster clearly didn’t think you asked one, either. Why would one ask that question simply, anyway?
Sorry, the question was about the history of life, not specifically the origin of life. I continue to wonder what the point of asking whether we know that Darwinism correctly explains the history of life was if not to highlight that we have no such knowledge (beyond a pretty good idea).
About “ASSumptions,” yes, science is impossible without various presuppositions. It does pretend not to need the humanities, but it also doesn’t pretend to be its own metaphysics. It just leaves the ground under its feet unlooked upon.
For science to be possible first we must assume there is such a thing as reality, and that our senses can tell us true things about it. Experiments can be so arranged to account for human frailty, but not Descartes’ Malicious Demon. We must assume there is a continuity of reality, and that it is not for instance constantly being destroyed and recreated in different iterations. We must assume that causal relationships aren’t coincidental, and that effect proceeds from cause instead of the other way around. We must believe in the principle of sufficient reason. And so on.
The beauty of science is that no matter how much we assume if we’re ever confronted with contradictions we aren’t forced to ignore them, say like Christianity had to deny heliocentrism and evolution. Should the laws of physics be observed suddenly to change science can revise itself. This happens often. Take the Michelson-Morley experiment, which exposed a tiny little crack in the impenetrable citadel of Newtonian physics through which shortly after came the flood of relativity.
Some despaired, others came up with any wacky excuse they could, and that crackpot patent clerk was one of them. Time not a constant, pshaw! Then came the 1919 eclipse, and behold Einsteinism confirmed. Just like Darwinism required a long wait in the doldrums before genes put wind in its sails again.
Science marches on, is the point. That should take some of the sting out of its ASSumptions.
Did you mean "straw man" or did you mean Matthew 12:29
"Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can rob his house."
If you wanna go after charlatanism posing as science, attack string theory. It, too, cannot be empirically tested. Instead of treating it as mathematical games, for whatever ungodly reason most physicists take it seriously.
The two of you might enjoy this:
As Supersymmetry Fails Tests, Physicists Seek New Ideas
Cheers!
Don't worry, they're being overrun by Muslims.
(Who *are* outbreeding them; what's the 'survival value' of sexual immorality as practiced by homosexuals, or Eurosluts in the form of blow jobs, and contraceptive-laden sex followed by abortions as a backup plan?)
Cheers!
Presupposing supernatural causation of physical phenomena is not science
It looks like atheist physicist Sean Carroll, and atheist biologists Jerry Coyne and P. Z. Myers didn't get the memo:
Detecting the supernatural: Why science doesn’t presuppose methodological naturalism, after all
Cordially,
And no use has or will come of these scientists diversion into nonsense and nonscience. Creationism is useless.
Rather than reading a piece full of cherry picked quotes, it may be more illuminating to read the essay that initiated it.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2010/11/01/is-dark-matter-supernatural/
Allow me to provide Sean Carroll’s opening paragraph:
“Is Dark Matter Supernatural? No, it’s not. Don’t be alarmed: nobody is claiming that dark matter is supernatural. That’s just the provocative title of a blog post by Chris Schoen, asking whether science can address ‘supernatural’ phenomena. I think it can, all terms properly defined.”
In one sense, evolution IS science. I can take a culture of bacteria, say, E. coli, and incubate them with low concentrations of, say, ciprofloxacin. At the start, 99.99% of the E. coli are sensitive to Cipro, and after several days (hundreds of generations), all of them are resistant. So, in this sense, evolution is proven fact.
The way people use the term “evolution” in these discussions is much broader, however.
All that demonstrates is adaptivity and natural selection, which are not evolution as evolution today is claimed to be. They are merely Cipro resistant E.coli. Nothing more and nothing less.
In case you didn't get the memo, nothing in science can be proved, only disproved.
Perhaps this one example didn't disprove the ToE but that does not by default *prove* that it's true or a fact. All that happened in this case is someone got the expected result - in this case.
Micro-evolution, yes, all life forms exhibit this trait, but macro-evolution or change from one kind to another has never ever been observed nor any missing links found in the fossil record. Darwin stated plainly we’d need to find ‘thousands upon thousand’ of these hopeful monsters to prove evolution.
The majority of mathematicians agree that the multi-faceted inter-leaved number of DNA reprogramming type changes required for macro-evolution is beyond any meaningful degree of statistical probability even if given trillions of years to accidentally change hundreds of millions of DNA mutations, good ones though not the bad mutations.
Of course no missing links have been found. Once a link is found, it's not missing any more.
None of the links that have been found count? Is that your claim?
None are transitional. Simply one fully formed kind or another. Vestigal organs? Nope, turns out appendix is useful for the immune system, removing them only reduces a bodies defenses.
Really? There are no transitional fossils? None?
Needless to say, I agree with Jastrow!
Science has no answer for the "origin" of anything. It can never "see" beginnings, for the simple reason that empirical science is based on direct observation — from "inside" the system of which scientists are parts and active participants — and no scientist was ever around to "observe" the beginning of life on Earth or anywhere else.
And yet it seems many scientists have a quasi-religious commitment to the idea of "spontaneous chemical reactions" as fully accounting for the origin of life (from "pure" matter) and its development ("evolution") here on earth. The fact that this is ultimately an untestable hypothesis doesn't bother them in the least — it is simply taken as an act of faith.
Indeed, science has tried to test this hypothesis, called abiogenesis. So far, no luck. And I predict unless a non-material factor (mind, intelligence, information) is taken into consideration, the origin of life and its evolution cannot be explained in principle. A further problem is that many scientists regard mind, intelligence, information as mere epiphenomena of physical processes — evidently another act of faith. But that expectation leads exactly nowhere.
In comparison, it appears to me that belief in a Supreme Creator of Life is more rational than belief in spontaneous, clever chemicals being drawn into living, active form by the edicts of "blind," that is to say purposeless natural selection.
There is a way to understand that there is "evidence" that we can observe that validates our faith in the Supreme Being, Who is Creator and sustainer of Life. As Romans 1:20 puts it:
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:FWIW. Great post, dear spirited! Thank you so very much!
To be more clear: I cannot turn E. coli into Staphylococcus aureus, no matter how many generations pass or what environmental stimulation is used.
Obviously it depends upon who you ask, and you’re free to search the net for yourself.
But outside of some scientists or otherwise qualified FR type posters who have a ‘quasi-religious commitment to the idea of’ macro-evolution most experts would agree there are no conclusively proven transitional fossils.
"God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth" are the words of Jesus in John 4:24. In this comment, Jesus clearly is defining reality. In His worldview, God is real; Spirit is real; "those who worship" in the physical realm are real; and the intersection of the spiritual and physical "worship in spirit" is real.
Therefore, if reality is comprised at least of the subsets "spirit" and "physical", then the greater realm of reality is "spirit", since that is the nature of God (God is Spirit).
Your poor, mechanistic evolutionist is left denying a good portion of reality. That is one reasom they must deny mind, intelligence, identity, for it touches on the subject of spirit. And, sad for their lives, they will eventually realize that they must deny love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, and faithfulness for these are all fruit of the Spirit.
In their search for the meaning of Life, their presuppositions have forced them to deny life itself.
What hard scientific proof do you have that the physical laws will continue to operate tomorrow the way they do today? I really don't know why we bother to teach anybody anything, since there's no way to know if it ever was or will continue to be valid!
We teach what we know and observe at the present.
That’s what’s happening now and that’s what we have to deal with.
What will be is beyond the ability of science to predict.
But I do duly note that you failed to answer the question.
As expected.......
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.