I respectfully say this person knows little of science.
The GOP already has plenty of dumb leaders in it.
Science is not a tool for validating where we came from. It is a forum for theories to be tested, refined for the purpose of understanding how the many facets of Universe works.
Christianity is based on faith which is removed from the scientific method. There is no test for G_D or lack of G_D. We can use science to investigate historical facts but really not much more than that.
To try to use science to validate a particular belief, other than historical injects into the argument the same issues which invalidate traditional Global Warming theory.
You end up chasing for facts to support your theory and then ignore those
theories which call your “facts” into question. Even worse, you begin to manipulate the data to make it appear one position is stronger than another. This is not how true science works.
When Madam Curie discovered that the rock Pitchblende was more radioactive than the known metals it contained, she theorized that possibly a new element might be in Pitchblende.
Before she managed to extract Radium and Polonium after years of tireless work, she was accused of being a poor scientist and careless in her readings by other scientists who should have known better.
It is EASY to create a theory which can never be challenged. With any foreseeable technology, it is impossible to discover life outside of our solar system. There is some value in debating it but it is rather pointless do to the time required to travel between stars.
Please GOP, you are loosing brilliant minds daily as many of them think the GOP is filled with idiots. I know about 50 engineers, many leaders in the Reagan GOP who have moved to the RATS for just this reason.
Ted Cruz DOES seem to understand technology but he needs help from technical people. The concepts being discussed in Silicon Valley right now are very complex and hard to grasp. Our next President will need the best technical advisors he can find.
“Christianity is based on faith which is removed from the scientific method. There is no test for G_D or lack of G_D. We can use science to investigate historical facts but really not much more than that.”
Incorrect. Christianity is based on a reasonable faith rather than a blind faith.
It is ridiculous to suggest there is no test for God so that faith is inconsistent with the scientific method. Apply the same logic to the assassination of Lincoln. How do we know Lincoln existed? Have you personally met him?
Most scientific knowledge is based on tests done by “other people” which is why scientific fraud exists and sometimes takes a while to discover. But observation is a basic element of the scientific method. History is the recording of observation. We cannot directly test the existence of Lincoln because the historical observations are not repeatable.
But nowhere and at no time will you hear an argument being made that Lincoln’s existence is unscientific because it is not falsifiable.
Likewise, when there exists credible eye-witness accounts of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection, we have OBSERVATION - a basic component of the scientific method.
Testing is for theories. Observation is for facts. The historical shell game of evolutionary theory misapplies this basic principle constantly. The idea of species all having a common ancestor is pure speculation. What is it based on? Archaeology? The claims of the Bible are supported by BOTH archaeology AND written records of observation. Does common ancestry speculation have BOTH? No. The resurrection of Christ is far more testable than common ancestry.
God has appeared many times throughout history. He will appear again. There are prophecies which are irrefutably dated in history which have been fulfilled centuries later also with solid historical evidence recorded. These are not scientific theories to be tested. These are historical facts to be observed.
When it is well supported that there exists at least one super-intelligent entity which transcends space-time, then a deity, for all practical purposes, exists. The nature of deity may be a question for theologians rather than scientists, but this does not preclude deity from the realm of the scientific.
What we have with the broader evolutionary theory which includes a Universal Common Ancestor is speculation about a historical event which is not observable, testable or falsifiable. It is a blind man looking in a dark room for a black cat that isn’t there.
There is no test for G_D or lack of G_D.
...
That would require an accurate definition of God.