Posted on 01/19/2006 3:35:07 AM PST by Mr170IQ
Of course there is a difference, but there is also a similarity contained in the negative. To the extent, and only to the extent, science declares itself to be incapable of seeing God, or even considering God, it is atheistic. In most cases there is nothing wrong with practicing atheistic science, just as in most cases there is nothing wrong with undertaking science with the understanding that all organized matter is a manifestation of God's handiwork.
It is mere opinion, and not a scientific matter, to assert that God is beyond the purview of science. You cannot make such a statement and be scientific at the same time, especially since science has not, and probably cannot, settle the matter to begin with. You are entitled to that opinion. The federal government, OTOH, is not entitle to establish and support that opinion alone by law. Public schools are obligated by law to allow the position that organized matter is a manifestation of a higher intelligence to be presented in a scientific context.
Maybe not to an ostrich.
You claim to understand the difference, and yet don't seem to understand the difference. If science says it is incapable of seeing God, it is not saying God doesn't exist.
In most cases there is nothing wrong with practicing atheistic science, just as in most cases there is nothing wrong with undertaking science with the understanding that all organized matter is a manifestation of God's handiwork.
One can gain theological insight by doing science (i.e., being motivated to do science to understand the work of God, or some such), but that insight isn't, itself, scientific. It is theological. And if, on the chalkboard, the words, "then God did a miracle" appears, that isn't science either.
It is mere opinion, and not a scientific matter, to assert that God is beyond the purview of science. You cannot make such a statement and be scientific at the same time, especially since science has not, and probably cannot, settle the matter to begin with.
Nope. Science can determine what is, and what is not, within the abilities of science to examine. Theological insights, however, are not open to scientific investigation.
For example, if science existed in First Century Jerusalem, science could determine the chemical content of the jug at the wedding at Cana which is purported to have turned from water to wine. It could determine the chemical composition of the contents before the supposed miracle, and afterward. It could even eliminate all known natural causes if, in fact, the material afterward is found to be wine. It cannot, however, draw a scientific conclusion that a miracle occurred, because that is not a scientific concept. It can only say that no known natural cause is at work. From that one can make the theological conclusion that a miracle occurred, but that would not be a scientific conclusion because it is untestable.
You are entitled to that opinion. The federal government, OTOH, is not entitle to establish and support that opinion alone by law. Public schools are obligated by law to allow the position that organized matter is a manifestation of a higher intelligence to be presented in a scientific context.
Nope. By law, school science classes must serve a secular purpose. You may wish to define this as "atheism," but your peculiar vocabulary does not change what the law is.
You're repeating yourself. You are not saying anything I do not already know and understand. I've also repeated myself in stating that the atheistic aspect extends only so far as the opinion of some that God is beyond the purview of science. That is not the same thing as saying God does not exist, only that the consideration of God does not exist within science. That makes science, per se, in such a person's view, "atheistic." It is a limited application of the word.
Science may not know whether or not God is within its purview (either directly or indirectly). It is not qualified to make such a judgement. You've only adoped the opinion, like many others, that science has that prerogative. Your distinction between science and theology, like your distinction between natural and supernatural, is arbitrary. It is hardly a scientific distinction, but very much a philosophical one. It is not a distinction that may enjoy enforcement by law. But, as long as we know where you are coming from - as long as we know you undertake science as if God is beyond its purview - at least we will know why you make the conclusions you do when faced with evidence.
By law, school science classes must serve a secular purpose.
That is a point of view that shows ignorance as to the original intent of the authors of the Constitution.
Ah, "original intent."
Be careful when you argue that the Constitution means more than it says - otherwise, you have to admit "intent" such as Jefferson's Wall.
That advice should be reserved for those who believe the Constituion mandates the establishment of non-theistic science in public schools.
Mph... so many to choose from. The first one I read was the Four Lords of the Diamond series. It's still one of my favorites. Some people swear by the Well World sagas (starting with Midnight at the Well of Souls). I also think the Quintara Marathon trilogy is fantastic (Demons at Rainbow Bridge, The Run to Chaos Keep, and The Ninety-Trillion Fausts).
He's fairly lightweight compared to some others on the list, but he's a lot of fun.
Speaking of the list, how in the world did we forget Harlan Ellison?
LOL... If you think that the distinction between science and theology is arbitrary, then there really is nothing left to discuss. Yours is a lost cause.
That is a point of view that shows ignorance as to the original intent of the authors of the Constitution.
Understanding what the current law is is in no way indicative of ignorance regarded the purported original intent of the drafters. It merely recognizes that what the law is is not always the same as what we thing the law should be.
Interesting. Wayback is sometimes flaky, so it's most likely a temporary glitch. If it was intentional, it was a sloppy job of putting things in the memory hole - here's the same page (unchanged, at a glance) from a few months later:
http://web.archive.org/web/19971008110453/www.discovery.org/crsc/aboutcrsc.html
Just so we don't lose it again, here's the text of the October, 1997 version of the "About" page for CSRC:
You are free to believe anything about what the law should be, but the law does mandate secular education. (And properly so.)
Again with the made-up words....
Like science itself, the Constitution is objective in asserting the limits of law and the freedoms we as citizens enjoy under the same. It in no way specifies or mandates secular education. It specifically prohibits the government from establishing and favoring non-theistic pursuits.
LOL... The law is not wholly subjective, but anyone who says that it is objective has, I believe, very little experience with it.
It in no way specifies or mandates secular education.
Sure does. First Amendment establishment clause. If you take my money at gunpoint to force your religious doctrine on my kids against all of our will, that's an establishment of religion if anything is.
It specifically prohibits the government from establishing and favoring non-theistic pursuits.
I trust this is a typo. If you really mean what this literally says, you are crazy, 'cause you're literally saying you think the Constitution only permits the government to establish or favor theistic pursuits. Where are we, Saudi Arabia? Iran? This is the first time I've heard we live in a Theocratic Republic...
I mean, sure, the First Amendment outlaws establishing atheism as well as theism, but not secularism. It permits (mandates, really) secularism. (Of course, you do have a tendency to get "atheism" and "secularism" confused...)
You don't understand genetics? What a surprise...
Therein lies your error. They are not the same thing. Not even close.
Public education by law is obligated to allow theistic viewpoints a hearing in a scientific context.
No it isn't. The Dover decision lays out the current state of the law quite clearly, if you need to get up to speed. Science is to be tought in science class.
If you equate this with "forcing" your children to hearing something from which their virgin ears ought to be protected, then you expect way too much of the federal government.
Nope, I just expect them to abide by the establishment clause and the principle of individual freedom it represents. And part of that entails respecting my sole right to determine the content of the religious education my children receive. Neither you, a church congregation, a imam, nor some half-wit IDer who was able get himself elected to a school board has the right to interfere in that decision. And telling my children that wholly natural occurances, such as the diversity of life through the evolutionary process, "just might" be the work of Allah, Thor, Shiva or whoever, is interference in that decision.
Public schools mean just that. All religious viewpoints are welcome, including that of atheism, non.theism, untheism, etc. and may not be prohibted by law.
Depends on the context. In the context of a comparative religion class, sure. You can teach about religion. You can't teach religion; can't proselytize. That is for parents and churches to do, if you're into that sort of thing.
The Dover decision was an error of judgment and will eventually be overturned, at least if we ever get jurists who know what the Constitution means.
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.