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.
Never overlook the simple joy of understanding a small piece of the wonderful Universe that He created for us.
Sometimes I just stare at the stars to stand in awe of Creation.
But yeah, the e-books and stuff are cool, too.
/johnny
I can't tell if you are trying to be clever or obtuse, but either way, your comment has nothing to do with the topic of the scientific method and a theory (evolution) that hasn't been scrutinized by the scientific method.
The process of measuring a temperature has been subjected to science. At points in time it is recorded based on this foundational rigor. An authority records. It can be cross referenced across other sources. I have no idea how this is related to the theory of evolution.
Because string theorists might just maybe be right, and they don't insist on 17 mile long, multi-billion dollar circular tunnels in the ground.
Pad, pencil, laptop, living expenses... Pretty cheap science.
Keeps 'em off the street.
/johnny
What is the definition of “evolution” you’re railing against as unscientific? Maybe a better question is what do you think evolutionary biologists spend all day doing? Patting eachother on the back for figuring out the bug story? No, they study and test lowercase “e” evolution, which is the truly scientific evolution, and is based specifically on the mechanism of passing or not passing variable traits from generation to generation.
Where did he say that?
Yep, math and science is useless stuff. Keep attending that bible school!
Sad, isn't it? Sad that conservatism has been co-opted by a small but vocal faction that is utterly hostile to anything resembling science.
Oh well... Their children will one day be working for your children (as well as mine). I'll have to teach my kids to go easy around their delicate sensibilities.
It has also been used as an excuse for freedom, as one of its earliest champions and coiner of the phrase “survival of the fittest,” Herbert Spencer, was a libertarian. It has been used more by statists, though, as three of the four types of “social Darwinists” were eugenicists, bellicose nationalists, and progressives (the fourth being lassez-faireists), obviously with overlap between categories.
Science can never do justice to historical perspectives b/c there is no experiment which would allow even indirect observation of millions and billions of years of elapsed time.
Also if you study Einstein, Schrodinger, even Russell Humphreys a little closer you may realize the with gravitational time dilation 6,000 years can appear to be billions of years maybe even 13.7~15.7 when you take the big bang perspective in conjunction with shells of time. If everything was moving faster then...
Day 1 ~ 7 to 8 billion years apparent elapsed time
Day 2 ~ 3.4 to 4 billion
Day 3 ~ 1.75 to 2 billion
Day 4 ~ .875 to 1 billion
Day 5 ~ .4375 to .5 billion
Day 6 ~ .2188 to .25 billion
So one week at creation could make the elapsed time of an initial expansion appear to be longer for both a stellar and a nuclear perspective. Just some food for thought b/c
science also needs to do a good job of explaining contradictory data rather than sweeping it under a rug and pretending it doesn’t exist.
101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
Catholics might be right, too, but no one calls Catholicism scientific.
As for particle physicists’ boondoggles, if they nit dominate string theorists at least comprise a sizeable faction in every physics department of every university everywhere in the world. That adds up.
Catholics might be right, too, but no one calls Catholicism scientific.
As for particle physicists’ boondoggles, if they don’t dominate, string theorists at least comprise a sizeable faction in every physics department of every university everywhere in the world. That adds up.
He said it post #15.
/johnny
The point of this article, and one I always try to make being a scientist,
I resemble that remark and I’m hardly hostile to science. I make my living thanks to science, technology and logic.
And I continually post 2 of the best websites that skeptics such as yourself should read before making the blanket assumptions the msm and academic ivory tower types would like for you to believe. All I’m saying is you should examine all of the evidence before making any sweeping generalizations...
Whoops, I meant straw man, not strong man. Simply put, big “e” evolution is not scientific, but no one of importance thinks it is. The scientific part is natural selection. Sweeping Evolution is merely an unscientific abstraction from its implications.
It's relative. Pun intended.
So... you introduced 'apparent elapsed time'.
The bottom line is that you are arguing about what time it is?
You go with your theory. I'll withhold judgement. I don't claim to hold absolute truth.
I'm not likely to put a bunch of credence in Archbishop Ussher's calculations, though.
I expect I'll learn the truth eventually, and it doesn't affect my salvation, either way.
In fact, focusing on that can be counterproductive.
/johnny
“science has yet to produce a new explanation for the development of life or the origin of the universe”
By explanation I assume you mean scientifically tested and verified explanation, and by development of life I assume you mean how life began, in which case no. I wonder what you think scientists themselves would say. Because almost certainly they are aware these problems have never been solved, despite the unverified explanations they’ve provided. Probably they’d say such things are out of the purview of science, especially the latter which sounds metaphysical.
Thanks for asking - it's a good question since I was vague on the broad topic of "evolution".
I classify the big picture evolution as "just a theory" because the rigor of the scientific method has not been employed - where organic elements became living creatures through random events, then it propagates, and where one living species became another (a fish becomes a frog and a rat becomes a bat).
In the study of genetics, where adaptation can be observed, I readily acknowledge that the scientific method is employed. That's one of the amazing things about life on our planet - it has built-in flexibility to survive and thrive. As humans, I believe we are all descended from Noah's family. As we fanned out across the globe, different adaptations created different races from the same human stock.
I've examined the evidence of Young Earth Creationism and have dismissed it as bunk. Sorry, but I'm not buying any of it.
That’s not a pun. That’s precisely why it’s called relativity theory, because it is relative (i.e. dependent upon your relation in spacetime to the observed phenomenon)
There’s no charge it’s all free. But long ages evolution is a proven mathematical impossibility. Furthermore every living being is a testament to God’s creative genius using inticately delicate living code varying for .5 billion to 150 billion coded segments of A, C, T, & G in the cellular DNA. I’ll take God over fallible human beings any day of the week.
DNA - Simply Astounding Evidence for Our Creator God
The complexities encoded in DNA alone affirm a super-natural knowledge implanted in every living creature far superior to all of the computer code generated by mankind. Every living cell contains DNA, with only a few exceptions i.e. brain cells, red-blood cells after shedding their nucleus. Human DNA contains the estimated equivalence of 3 billion coded-letter sequences of A C T & G. If recorded in books, approx 4,000, this code would form a stack equal to the height of the Washington Monument of 555 feet. It has been estimated that the number of messages communicated between the brain, spinal column, and nervous system numbers into the hundreds of trillions per second.
This awesome computer-like DNA code is:
1) distinctly crafted for reproducing each created kind,
2) self-correcting with a wide variety of healing processes,
3) a natural clock indicative of a young earth (see my links page),
4) highly-integrated, multi-faceted, inter-leaved, & redundant logic to minimize and/or eliminate copy errors,
5) unique for each kind and unique again amongst each copied kind due to gene selection/regression, variation, mutation, and adaptation,
6) pre-programmed with internal intelligence for maturation, survivability, & adaptability regarding most every environmental variation [consider the navigating abilities for migratory birds],
7) AND on display with all lifeforms throughout all natural history [consider the complexities of all the inter and intra-dependent kinds and the many varied eco-systems supporting them] bearing witness to the awesome power of God!!! How could this not possibly bear witness to the logic-filled ~ Logos and the super-natural life-breathed ~ Rhema also described in the Bible? If/when the modern-day science ‘experts’ ever succeed in crafting their own 3 billion lines of code, how will they ever duplicate God’s breath of life?
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.