Replies

"Do you have any idea how the scientific method works? The method is designed to be as objective as possible. It is based on a never-ending process of observation, hypothesizing, and testing. Note that there is no room for baseless conjecture, personal feelings, or beliefs."

This method is not difficult to interrupt. AT its CORE is the Heavenly Father did not create fully grown adult human beings (more than two). This IS NOT a new idea or belief, to remove the Heavenly Father out of the thoughts of human beings.

Now you have at it, I do not care what fully grown adults believe, that is a choice they are free to make, however, to teach children the TOE a the vehicle to their existence is NOT right. The majority of these children within the public school system have NO foundation upon which to build their lives and to be groomed and trained with the ideology they are nothing more than mere an extended chain of animals is WRONG, especially considering I as a taxpayer am required to fund this supposed scientific methodology.

"We don't reject the possibility of a "higher intelligence" (i.e. God); the existence or non-existence of God just isn't a factor. The issue of God is as irrelevant to our work as, for instance, the issue of mad cow disease is irrelevant with respect to the logging industry."

Who do you think you are kidding, to claim flesh human beings origin comes from a primordial "hot" bowl of soup does in fact reject the Heavenly Father, and further more it removes from Christ that perfection HE was in the flesh as being the only one for that final blood sacrifice.

Now you have at it, I do not care what fully grown adults believe, that is a choice they are free to make, however, to teach children the TOE a the vehicle to their existence is NOT right.

Exactly why it's stupid to draw philosophical implications from a scientific theory! They have nothing to do with each other!

The majority of these children within the public school system have NO foundation upon which to build their lives

...and they're not going to get it from the theory of evolution. Or gravity. Or electrodynamics. These are not "foundations upon which to build their lives". I can just imagine the philosophy you'd extrapolate from quantum mechanics.

Who do you think you are kidding, to claim flesh human beings origin comes from a primordial "hot" bowl of soup does in fact reject the Heavenly Father, and further more it removes from Christ that perfection HE was in the flesh as being the only one for that final blood sacrifice.

They don't even have anything to do with each other. By definition science can't address anything that's not naturalistic. How many times do we need to state this before it sinks in?

You're rambling a bit, and that makes it hard to follow what you have written.

The teaching of science has nothing to do with religion, and vice versa. If you want to argue that it is important to give children a good grounding in moral religious beliefs, then, fine, I have no quarrel with that. We need a moral framework in order to have a decent society.

The problem is, you're trying to mix religion and science. I specifically chose the example of mad cow disease concerns being irrelevant to the logging industry, because both mad cow disease and logging (forest management) are important issues, and people feel strongly about both of them, but they have nothing to do with each other. Just like science and religion have nothing to do with each other, yet they are both important.

I do feel sorry for you. If you feel that the only way your faith is valid is by "proving" that scientific theory is false, then you have weak faith. That also means that YOU believe that if the world was not created literally according to Genesis, then there is no God, no Jesus, no salvation. It is your weak faith that makes you upset with scientists pursuing science. Scientists do not believe as you do. The faith of religious scientists is not challenged by any scientific data they collect; their faith is strong.

No matter what you keep telling yourself, scientists are not out to disprove the existence of God. We can't do that. We're out to learn as much about the world and universe as we can.