False. Science works on the assumption of naturalism, that is, it works with what can be observed. Ideally it works by repeatable experiment, but in many fields that is not possible. But by following the scientific method it manages to do pretty well.
Your gripe with science seems to be that it does not confirm your particular idols and demons. Perhaps if you could produce any measurable or observable evidence science could evaluate what you claim.
You can’t see beyond your teaching on this and have discarded your God given commonsense for a discredit theory...discredited by many scientists. Fact.
Scientists who abandon the scientific method for religious dogma and belief are no longer doing science. It doesn't matter if they have "five university degrees" --science is defined by adherence to the scientific method. The fact that some scientists convert to a fundamentalist belief and start preaching its dogma has nothing to do with science and everything to do with religion.
[[False. Science works on the assumption of naturalism, that is, it works with what can be observed.]]
BS- Macroevolutionary science works PURELY on assumptions and dogmatic beliefs!
[[Ideally it works by repeatable experiment, but in many fields that is not possible. But by following the scientific method it manages to do pretty well.]]
Yup- it does pretty well IF you’re willing to IGNORE the fact that Macroeovlution is a biological impossibility- IF you’re willing to IGNORE all the refuting science- IF you’re willing to jump to conclusions and make wild leaps of reason trying to connect species that are biologically entirely different in order to make hte case for Macroevolution. But alas- this is your ‘science’ you hold in such esteeme while belittling and maligning the opposition.
[[Scientists who abandon the scientific method for religious dogma and belief are no longer doing science.]]
You are so fulkl of crap- you sit htere prtetending your ‘science’ isn’t a faith based science and you pretend the serious problem of biological impossibility doesn’t exist, and you pretend Macroevolution is strictly science- but hte fact is coyote- it is EVERY BIT as much a faith as Creationism is- infact it is MORE a faith and religious belief than Creationism/ID because ID studies empiracle evidences and points to a logical plausibility not some fairy tale biologically impossible imaginary scenario.
ID isn’t a ‘fundamental belief’ it’s a logical annalysis of hte empiracvle evidence- period! It makes NO claims about who or even hwat the intelligence is- it simply forensically and scientifically determines that nature is incapable of producing IC and that is fact- that is not a belief. Biology confirms this- if you can dispute htis- then do so- but don’t sit there and pretend Macroevolution isn’t a religious belief because doing so just exposes the fact that you’re nothing but a pot calling hte kettle black
perhaps you should look at the various definitions of science...many like you have tried to redefine it as only including the scientific method. This is done in an ackward attempt at discluding the pointers of a creator. The amazing dna code is most certainly part of science and has creator implications all over it. Because you have a deep denial of God does not give you the right to say what is and is not science. Just doesn’t work....never will and is very transparent to any inquistive mind.