Posted on 10/28/2005 3:29:36 PM PDT by Crackingham
When you don't know, you don't know. Teach both sides, the truth will someday be known.
"When you don't know, you don't know. Teach both sides, the truth will someday be known"
If you don't require any evidence to teach something then there are not two sides but thousands.
That's why science prefers teach the stuff that's backed up by evidence.
"When you don't know, you don't know. Teach both sides, the truth will someday be known"
If you don't require any evidence to teach something then there are not two sides but thousands.
That's why science prefers teach the stuff that's backed up by evidence.
I don't know about the US, but government schools are certainly hostile to science, indeed to education and children altogether.
"It is alienating young people from science. It basically tells them that the scientific community is not to be trusted and you would have to abandon your principles of faith to become a scientist, which is not at all true," he said.
"alienating young people from science..." - You mean the way "evolution" has been alienating people of faith for many years now?
No.
Is the US becoming hostile to science???
Not at all, it IS however, HOSTILE towards the Christian faith.
So basically that is a "yes" evangelical conservatives or anybody else who insists, despite evidence to the contrary, the bible is literally word for word true must become hostile to science.
But it does not help for science to become hostile back. Scientists need to recognize the combination of sincerity and fear behind the anti-science movement and act appropriately - by stressing that science doesn't claim to know how life originated and that nothing in science exclude the possibility of intelligent design.
On the other hand you don't compromise on know facts like the earth being billions of years old and more complex life evolving from simpler life.
Sure it does. Genomic evidence strongly supports common descent, and shows features that are hard to reconcile with design, intelligent, or otherwise.
Science is also discovering more and more about how life originated.
"You want to teach me there's no God!"
That's another source of the anti-science sentiment - ignorance about science - attacking things that science doesn't say and yet blaming science.
Nothing evolves like Evolution.
It became a science how? By designing experiments that are repeatable? You don't have to believe in ID in order to have deep suspicions about the TOE.
When the two best things the US had going in the general area of science, the Apollo program and the Supercollider, were killed off in one generation, it was obvious that the US was, sooner rather than later, no longer to lead the world in science.
"Sure it does. Genomic evidence strongly supports common descent, and shows features that are hard to reconcile with design, intelligent, or otherwise.
Science is also discovering more and more about how life originated."
Science has not proved where the very first life came from.
How does common decent (shared common ancestors), which is a fact, eliminate the possibility of the process being guided somehow?
" Having said that, there is no shortage of prominent scientists who us their public platform to mock the very idea of God."
They are entitled to mock or not mock but they cannot say they have proved there is no God.
Science doesn't deal in proof, it deals in evidence.
How does common decent (shared common ancestors), which is a fact, eliminate the possibility of the process being guided somehow?
Guided how? Which physical law would you like to suspend?
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.