[bondserv]

Commentary in green fonts provided by Creation-Evolution Headlines staff.

[bondserv]

Ping!

[Strategerist]

Creation-Evolution Headlines making a strong effort to pull back ahead of Joseph Farah in egregious idiocy.....

[Logophile]

This principle is known as methodological naturalism.  One is free to believe in God, but forbidden from invoking Him (or Her, or It) in scientific explanations. 

Well, yes, that is how science is done. No teleological or supernatural explanations are permitted.

I note that the writers do not offer an alternative model to explain what is observed. Can they?

[Solamente]

Perhaps they were put there at the behest of Jesus Christ to perpetuate the Mystery Of Faith, and yet allow scientific exploration of our solar system to continue.

[Turbopilot]

He did it:

[ScreamingFist]

“At each stage [of the calculations], there are several knobs you can twiddle,” he said, “There are so many free parameters it’s hard to make a strong statement.” The modelers are continuing to twiddle the knobs till something resembling the real Enceladus and Iapetus emerge.

I.E. "we don't have a clue but given enough time and money, we'll keep guessing".

[Unknowing]

There is no moon but Luna, and Aldrin is her pilot.

[VadeRetro]

Some moons actually are young, relative to the rest of the solar system. They get captured. But creationists don't know old from young anyway.

You don't have to eat a whole omelet to know it's got a bad egg. I've had enough of CvE Headlines and its offensively silly nonsense for a while. I'm not even going to read this one.

[RightWhale]

RCH has a better idea than Al-26.

[TYVets]

Nature, however, often refuses to submit to our presuppositions.

Required reading for global warming freaks.

[Fester Chugabrew]

This discussion is not really about God at all, but about the truth claims of methodological naturalism in dealing with the unobservable past.

Which essentially means the debate, while it may involve science, is not about science per se. In arguing from the specific (empirical science) to the general (natural philosophy), each observer will begin with a set of rules into which the evidence may fit. What a shame we are encouraged and free by the laws of our land to engage any assumption, yet prohibted by cultural zeitgeist from letting divergent viewpoints have a voice in public schools.

[The Red Zone]

I wonder if/what the noted OEC, Hugh Ross, has to say about this. He comes up with some intriguing stuff.

[pageonetoo]

Recent Photo: