Replies

Your faith in God is something out of the realm of the natural world.

I think we can agree that I myself, am part of the natural world. Even assuming that God does not really exist my faith in God is part of the natural world, as is my faith in science and in chairs.

You cannot ever test your faith in God. In fact, it isn't even relevant.

Heck my faith in God gets tested all the time. Like when people cut me off in traffic. So does my faith in chairs. I'm a heavy fellow, and some have broken under me.

I maintain that testing for the existence God is not something that is subject to the scientific method (at least not how I define it. Others with a looser definition of science might disagree).

God seems content to let the natural laws of nature prevail in almost all cases, and does not seem to be willing to cooperate with super natural intervention at the whim of scientists trying to reproduce results. Which makes it about as testable as trying to see if Darwin was actually right (O.K. God, please back up time a few million years again, we are trying to fine tune Darwin's hypothesis).

The best we can do is look at evidence after one time events in both the case of miracles and the origin of life through evolution. In both cases experience and common sense guide us, but not strict science.

If we discuss one in Biology, lets discuss the other as well. And lets treat neither as dogma in the classroom.

I think we can agree that I myself, am part of the natural world. Even assuming that God does not really exist my faith in God is part of the natural world, as is my faith in science and in chairs.

Nice dishonest shift of topic. The comment was referring to God not being within the realm of the natural world, not your faith in God.

Heck my faith in God gets tested all the time. Like when people cut me off in traffic.

How do people cutting you off in trafic provide a test regarding the existence of God? How would God be falsified or have his/her/its existence better established as being likely as a result of someone cutting you off in traffic?

So does my faith in chairs. I'm a heavy fellow, and some have broken under me.

What has this to do with God?

I maintain that testing for the existence God is not something that is subject to the scientific method (at least not how I define it. Others with a looser definition of science might disagree).

Good. Then this God and anything that it has allegedly done is not in any way relevant to science, and certainly has no place in a science classroom.

God seems content to let the natural laws of nature prevail in almost all cases, and does not seem to be willing to cooperate with super natural intervention at the whim of scientists trying to reproduce results. Which makes it about as testable as trying to see if Darwin was actually right (O.K. God, please back up time a few million years again, we are trying to fine tune Darwin's hypothesis).

False analogy. Darwin's theory makes testable predictions that could potentially fail to pan out, thus falsifying the theory. What testable predictions can be derived from God? How would the existence of a God be falsified?

The best we can do is look at evidence after one time events in both the case of miracles and the origin of life through evolution.

How exactly does a scientist examine evidence for miracles? What kind of test would reaffirm the existence of miracles or falsify them entirely?

In both cases experience and common sense guide us, but not strict science.

Actually, strict science is applied to the theory of evolution at all times. It's not a failing of the theory of evolution that you don't understand how the scientific method applies to it.

If we discuss one in Biology, lets discuss the other as well. And lets treat neither as dogma in the classroom.

So you want to lie to students about dogma (belief in God) by claiming that it is not dogma?