Without using some reliance on both reason and metaphysical presuppositions, nothing at all can be proved.
Science is only valid is so far as it makes sense. It is based on human reasoning. Thus all of which it determines is not based solely on evidence, but on human reasoning.
But let us suppose that Irish is not correct here, then why would we trust human reasoning at all? Are not all "thoughts" just something that appear to happen to the "brain" by mundane physical processes? Who are we to trust such a process? What in the world do such processes have to do with being "true" or being "false"? You see, without some presuppositions, there is no logical reason to proceed further and justify any form of human reasoning, including that which justifies science.
Sorry GunRunner, but the standard of evidence you demand of Irish, can not be met by any belief system of man--at least without divine interference.
Keep your religious beliefs out of science class!
If unprovable reasoning about metaphysics is what constitutes "religion" in this sense, we must then teach nothing in science class at all. For myself, I would prefer to see the government out of the school business and let the demand drive the nature of the product. Until then, seems an examination of the philosophy and justification of science and a consideration of its limitations is quite a reasonable part of science curriculum.
Its very simple; show some evidence other than you saying so.
Are not all "thoughts" just something that appear to happen to the "brain" by mundane physical processes? Who are we to trust such a process? What in the world do such processes have to do with being "true" or being "false"?
Speaking in broad philosophical terms and spouting ambiguous gobbledygook is neither proof nor evidence of the supernatural. This is not the Matrix and you are not Morpheus.
Andy,
Of course the base foundation of science requires some beliefs that are beyond the scope of science itself.
Namely that we have some capacity to observe some portion of reality accurately (i.e. the old prove you aren’t just a brain in a jar somewhere proposition).... and that reality is at least somewhat logicaly consistant in how it works (i.e. do the same thing under the same conditions and get the same results 1000 times and you can resonably extrapolate that the results will be consistant the 1001st time). That proposition neither invalidates science in general nor evolutionary theory in particular.
We trust in the process of science, for the same reason we trust that we are not just brains in a jar somewhere, because it provides a practical advantage for us to do so.
Science allows us to discover new things on our own initiative.... it allows us to find out we are actualy wrong about certain beliefs we currently hold... it allows us to advance our level of knowledge about the physical workings of the universe.
In simple terms... science allows us to use things like gunpowder and electricity.
Religion, by comparison, tells us that we don’t need gunpowder or electricity... we can rely on “Alah” to swat F-16’s out of the sky for us instead.
Not really working out so we for the folks not putting thier faith in electricty and gunpowder is it? And history is replete with similar examples.
If the above sounds like I’m hostile to religion...I’m not.... and neither is science... not even evolutionary theory.
Science reckognizes that there are things we can study...and things we can’t. The things that we can study we should try to do in an organized and testable fashion and be willing to revise our presuppositions as the results of those tests indicate. It says we should try to look for explanations that we can test to explain the things we observe.... because looking for untestable explanations is futile. We can never prove those explanations right or wrong.... We can never learn anything from them that we don’t already believe.... therefore devoting time in an attempt to study them serves no practical utility. It doesn’t say that things beyond the realm of what we can observe/test don’t exist.... it just says that it is unable to address them.
Likewise, Evolution doesn’t specify that no such thing as God exists. It simply specifies that there is a natural mechanism by which ancient life forms became modern life forms. It is completely silent about what might have created such a mechanism or set the rules (i.e. physical laws) under which that mechanism operates.... or even if some force occasionaly gives that mechanism a little push in ways which we can’t readly detect.
If government is out of the education business,
how are the leftists/secular humanists going to forcefully indoctrinate the kids into their “value” system against the will of the parents?
/sarc