Posted on 12/19/2006 2:19:29 PM PST by Sopater
>theory relating to the origin of the species.
Oh, you mean realating to the origin of species. The Big Bang Theory?
The reason there is no other theory taught is because there is no other theory on the evolution of species.
You sound just like those that yelped when science was moving away from the geocentric model of the solar system!
Are you a member of the flat earth society also?
ID/Creationism is a dogmatic based belief. The conclusions are made in advance (its in the bible, therefore it happened) and then any data is produced to try to support the conclusion.
I know you don't want to hear it, but this cartoon explains it for you:
Judges are not irrelevant, if they were, there wouldn't have been a court case now would there?
As for Kelo and all the other stuff, that is just noise and not relevant to this case.
Focus
No, this is a fundamental weakness of the 'scientific' requirement. 'Scientism' is limited to naturalism. Only naturalistic models are acceptable.
In that context, to think that 'science' (or naturalism) is qualified to be the ultimate arbiter of truth for the question of supernatural vs natural creation is simply illogical.
'Science' is deliberately limited to 'natural' explanations and you have them. Even to the extent that 96% of the requirements for the theory are invisible. That is the result of 'scientism'. No surprise there.
http://www.discover.com/issues/dec-03/cover/
At what point does 'science' admit that it hasn't a clue?
The fact that science was wrong in the Dark Ages and is wrong now is certainly no reason to accept it as an ultimate arbiter of truth where supernatural vs natural creation is the question.
Science is a naturalistic philosophy that requires a naturalistic answer and that is what you have. It is actually an inferior standard because of the limitations it has placed on itself. Science, by definition, is not equipped to answer the supernatural vs natural question and should not pretend that it can.
And Darwin's theory has no more place. If you want to teach it, do so in a hippy-liberal coffee shop. Not in school, at least not in a science class. Maybe in a history class, perhaps. But in a science class? Nope. The scientific method is simply incapable of dealing with origins.
False.
The theory of evolution is a science because it is approached using scientific methods.
It could also be studied in a history class, or a philosophy class, using the particular methods of those disciplines.
The scientific method is capable of dealing with origins. However, origins are a completely separate study from the theory of evolution--scientists know this, but science-deniers apparently do not in spite of being repeatedly advised of the differences between these two fields of study.
The theories of origins (abiogenesis) are in their infancy, unlike the theory of evolution, which is well supported by fact and theory.
In the US, the primary opposition to the theory of evolution comes from a few fundamentalist religions. Individuals frequently attempt to use the trappings of science in their arguments, but they have to so distort and misrepresent actual science that they quickly expose their intentions.
On these threads we see the weirdest science imaginable: just a couple of recent examples are carbon 14 dating spanning millions of years and the second law of thermal documents. Those of us who have actually studied science can readily tell who is posting apologetics (defense of religion) and who is posting arguments based on actual science. Unfortunately, as of late we see little actual science.
>>No, this is a fundamental weakness of the 'scientific' requirement. 'Scientism' is limited to naturalism. Only naturalistic models are acceptable.
A fundemental strenght of science is that it does not stop with "The Earth is flat and the center of the Universe".
>>'Science' is deliberately limited to 'natural' explanations and you have them.
Uh, you would rather the science books say that:
"Planes fly because the angels hold the aloft"?
I see that you avoid the argument that a fundamental weakness of the 'scientific' requirement is that it *requires* a naturalistic answer.
You should avoid that argument because you have no answer for it. Better to try to shift the discussion away from that fact.
You are criticizing science because it doesn't allow for supernatural intervention. Miracles. Stuff completely outside of, uh, science.
If those things could be tested and verified, they'd be part of science.
You're demanding the impossible, and criticizing it because of your impossible standard. That's completely illogical, but you obviously don't care because you keep replying to me when I've already said that further conversation would be fruitless.
You don't like science and you don't trust it. WE HEARD YOU.
>>I see that you avoid the argument that a fundamental weakness of the 'scientific' requirement is that it *requires* a naturalistic answer. You should avoid that argument because you have no answer for it. Better to try to shift the discussion away from that fact.
I addressed it. Remember? I said it was a strenth of science that it did not stop with "And God created ..."
Excuse me for wanting a better answer than storks bring babies.
Fair enough. We'll take natural explanations.
You can have magic, superstition, wishful thinking, divine revelation, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, Ouija boards, tarot cards, black cats, witch doctors, the unguessable verdict of history, and a host of other un-natural phenomena.
You don't understand science and you want religion taught in its place.
You see, there are religious schools, where you can teach this stuff. Not public schools.
You don't get it.
Is your faith in God threatened by evolution?
Good response, I counter that I have yet to have someone explain the Noah's ark story. Here is a discrete story that supposedly happened on earth, and there was no supernatural events in it.
I want the creationists to prove it, or to even offer evidence that is reliable and testable, and to be able to answer some questions that must arise if the story is true.
We have to explain evolution (endlessly), but they don't have to explain Noah's ark?
(other than, It was a miracle!!!)
What is illogical is insisting that science can answer the supernatural vs natural question when you yourself say that it is impossible for science to do that.
I know that and you clearly know that, but that doesn't stop all of the naturalists from pretending that naturalistic models are somehow superior because they are 'scientific'.
It is merely my responsibility to continue to point out that science is an inferior arbiter of the truth of supernatural vs natural creation question *because* it is deliberately limited to naturalistic models.
"You don't like science and you don't trust it. WE HEARD YOU."
No, you misrepresent me again. I never said that I didn't like science and I never said that I didn't trust science when it operates within its self-imposed limits. Science is very useful within those limits.
My objection is that people take perfectly good science and pretend that it can do things that it cannot. Like serve as the ultimate arbiter of truth in the supernatural vs natural creation question.
Science simply isn't designed to answer such questions and the proponents of naturalism shouldn't pretend that it can. That is a *completely* different argument than your constant misrepresentation claims.
Therefore, I cannot let you continue to misrepresent what science is and what I am saying about it.
I remember watching the old Spencer Tracy movie about the monkey trials. I remember how at the end, Spencer Tracy is making his last plea in the court room, and is saying something about how evolution is just another idea and science is about new ideas and being open to everything. Funny how, now, that it's the other way around. Now that evolution is the strong man at the school, evolution cannot tolerate any room for anyone else at all. Not even a little sticker in a book that says "It's just a theory, not a fact."
Again, you misrepresent what science can do and what I say about science.
Simply, science is limited to naturalistic methods and is not equipped to answer the question of supernatural vs natural creation.
You should not pretend that the fact that science has a naturalistic answer is a superior position. It is a requirement of science.
As I pointed out earlier. Science will follow a theory even when 96% of the substance required to produce the required effects is invisible. This is on the same level as magic, superstition, wishful thinking, divine revelation, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, Ouija boards, tarot cards, black cats, witch doctors, the unguessable verdict of history, and a host of other un-natural phenomena.
You should not pretend that this is 'scientific'.
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.