Posted on 01/03/2006 12:12:37 PM PST by PatrickHenry
Science undertaken with the presupposition of natural law is science undertaken with the presuppostion of intelligent design. The fact that an intelligent agent may at any time override natural law is no more "supernatural" than the fact that the owner of a car can intervene, soup things up, tear things down, build them again, or make something up altogether different out of the very same raw materials.
"Set phasers to 'FABULOUS!'"
So, then... And please answer this seriously as I mean it seriously. Is the science of embryology and human development "atheistic"?
I've never seen a science text of any description anywhere that teaches embryology as anything but a purely naturalistic process. Yet the Bible asserts repeatedly (sometimes directly quoting God) that God is personally and intimately involved in the creation of individual humans beings; and not just "souls" but the physical body as well. See the standardly cited anti-abortion proof texts: God "forms inward parts" in the womb, he "knits" fetuses together of bone and sinew, etc.
If embryology is not atheistic, then how is it not atheistic while evolution is? Or if embryology is atheistic, then why has no one ever (to my knowledge) complained about it's teaching.
I'm genuinely curious about this.
For example: Science can't tell us that the God of the Bible does not exist (but that hasn't stopped many of it's practioners from doing so).
For example: Science can't tell us that the claims of the Bible are not true (but that hasn't stopped many of it's practitioners from doing so).
Science is the study of observeable processes...natural as a qualifier to processes presupposes a philosophical/religious bias, which is unscientific.
Science in no way demonstrates that "the supernatural is not necessary"...but thanks for providing evidence for my hypothesis and for making my point for me.
You went way out of the bounds of "science" by making that claim!
You posted: There is no separation of "religion and government" other than the government can't establish a state run church/denomination.
Reply:
You seem unfamiliar with the First Amendment. It states: "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
The Constititution also states in the original, in Art VI, "there shall be no religious test for public office".
Note carefully: the words are "religion" and "religious". It is not about a church establishment. It is about religion. The courts have, for 200 years, understood this in its original intent--there shall be no establishment of religion. And Deism and other non-religion counts. The Constitution never mentions "churches". The economically non-productive clergy were often excluded from participating in town councils in colonial times as being parasitic and having nothing of value in practical affairs of men. (Matters of women were rarely considered in those times.)
First, human intelligence took the raw materials and, assembled the technology and substance needed to make X-rays. Second, although unseen, all the particles necessary to complete this process and make it repeatable have remained organized and consistent so as to make the application of human intelligence possible.
The fact that X-rays themselves are not mentioned in the Bible has no bearing on whether or not they are intelligently designed. When the Bible speaks of intelligent design as related to the things science has to work with, it denotes all the substance and processes science has heretofore been able to indentify, plus many things science has yet to identify.
As a non-scientific person I was attempting to craft a response, but your's is far more eloquent and "scientific." I would only add that it takes far more faith to believe intelligent humans can evolve from mindless slime than to believe that an intelligent Creator created the heavens, the earth, and humans to populate the earth. So... I guess I could argue that all classes that teach evolution are classes of GREAT faith.
But God has chosen the things which the world regards as foolish, in order to put its wise men to shame; and God has chosen the things which the world regards as destitute of influence, in order to put its powerful things to shame. (1 Corinthians 1:27)
"Atheistic" is an adjective, and it applies to all science that is undertaken with the assumption God is forever and always outside of its purview.
#181
Science undertaken with the presupposition of natural law is science undertaken with the presuppostion of intelligent design.
So, if science appeals solely to natural law, then that excludes God and is atheistic. But, if science appeals solely to natural law, then that also presupposes ID and is therefore theistic. So does this make science polytheistic? No, that doesn't work. How about paratheistic?
Thomas you should read Rehnquits dissent in Wallace v Jaffree for a primer on estabishment clause jurisprudence and original intent. You're lost in a lost world.
Note also (pby) that the establishment and free exercise clauses share the noun "religion". The word is only used in the establishment clause and simply referred to in the free exercise clause: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
Therefore if you construct the establishment clause such that "religion" must be understood to mean something like "state religion" or "national religion," then the government would only be prevented from prohibiting the free exercise of "state religion" or of a national church. But this construction is (one would hope) obviously absurd.
Was that a repeat?
See above. And 200!
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.