Posted on 05/03/2005 2:12:35 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
This would be due to the (unchekced) stereotype that scientists are in love with themselves and their work. They praise the invention and the discovery, but not the laws that make them work, or the source of the minds that grasped them.
It is secular humanism.
Who said I asked that they remove anything?
Panda's Thumb
Further, I'm confident that most of those expressing anger at I.D. in the classroom would not object to the Blind Watchmaker in that same classroom.
I ask you - if you have this much faith to accept macro evolution, can you also accept that Jesus Christ died on a cross 2,000 years ago and rose from the dead?
Just for the fun of it Google: art beautiful "golden ratio".
Our perception of beauty may reflect preception of some mathematical relationships.
I think of it like mowing the grass. It's somehting that needs to be done every week.
The root of the problem is a category error. The subject of the origin and development of life is ultimately a philosophical and theological one. It can also be studied scientifically, but there are questions regarding life that cannot be studied scientifically in principle.
For example, science cannot define life, scientifically. And it remains for philosophy to determine the definition of science itself. These definitions are beyond the scope of science, and fall into the sciences of philosophy and theology. Theology is the queen of the sciences and philosophy is its handmaid.
True. And science is outside the field of religion. Opinions of religious people on the subject of science should be known for what they are. Outside their field.
None of that goes out.
Correlations would have to be presumed due . . .
Correlations can be (and should be) recognized without presumptions. Why would you need evolution to determine that a particular drug affects a rat this way, a man this way and a fly that way? Or that a fish can live in this environment but a man can't & vice-versa?
Though I do not disagree entirely (a pastor would HARDLY be the one to go to in the event of a nuclear reactor failure) I must say this:
If science is based on observation, why shouldn't common sense and observation of cause and effect be enough to qualify a theistic student to answer physical science questions?
There's another boogyman. Just like Darwin himself is demonized like he was the boogyman.
It's amazing how easy it is to get followers by demonizing something or somebody. Note the environmentalists that bring in the cash by demonizing capitalists, loggers, and drillers.
I know several science high school teachers where I work. They started in temp. summer positions and were offered full time positions becsue they did good work in chemistry. The local school board, desperate for science teachers tried to counter offer, but could not even match half the pay rasie they both got by switching to the private sector. One, a good buddy, said his salary was almost doubled when he joined our company and that's after 8 years as a high school chemistry teacher. What are the schools to do if the best and brightest head for the private sector. The schools cannot attract and retain talented science teachers. The compensation isn't there.
I teach this stuff.
There would be a simple list of data points and only "God did it" as an explanation.
No discussion of co-evolution of parasite and host, similarities among primates, common physiologic pathways... maybe "Isn't is neat that God did it that way" but nothing useful.
Yet they were unwilling to consider that evidence germane.
Evolutionists have nothing but a few dots and religious conviction.
Which was very similar to the claim of the OJ jury, that the prosecution merely had some DNA and blood and timeline.
You merely choose to dismiss the evidence, exactly like the OJ Jury.
What are they good at besides political correctness and silly zero tolerance codes?
My thing is history. I terrorized a first year teacher trying to teach high school world history course because the textbook was poor and I knew more about the subject than she did.
I have to admit, though, thinking back on it that I did have a few good ones. It would really help if teachers took degrees in the field they will teach and then added on a year of professional school rather than taking undergraduate degrees in "education." At least they would know something about their subject.
I don't demonize Darwin. He was brilliant for his time. His more devout followers are the issue. The one's who use his theory to claim that their is no God.
Ahuradidit placemark.
If the theistic student had the knowledge to comment on a scientific subject, then such a comment is outside theology.
You wouldn't want someone who is ONLY a theistic student commenting on HOW they thought a nuclear accident should be contained. Merely that it SHOULD be contained.
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.