You are confusing the term evolution for the Theory of Evolution, which deals ONLY with biological organisms. As a word that just describes *change*, it doesn't explain anything. It's descriptive. When you use it in the vernacular sense to mean *change of any kind*, it is NOT a theory. It is an observation, nothing more. The ToE is COMPLETLY different.
"Everything can be explained without God, too. Does that make such an approach more "scientific?" No. No matter how much you thnk it does."
Are you now arguing that God is not testable? Think before you post, Fester. If everything is explainable without God, then there is no phenomena that could be observed that could not just as easily be explained as being from natural processes as being explained by a Designer (God). The idea of science is to be able to make a weighted choice between different options, such that your can have confidence that your choice is the better one. If both options have the same explanatory power, then NIETHER can be chosen over the other. :)
"And the claim that God is always and forever outside of science cannot be tested, so such a claim can never be science, or scientific. You dig?"
The claim that God is not examinable by science is an epistemological reality, it is not in and of itself a scientific statement. As you already know though, I have REPEATEDLY stated that the examination of God by science is NOT Forever outside of science. Why do you keep restating falsehoods that I have corrected you on already? God may be examinable by science at some later date. Right now, He isn't. You have already stated He isn't testable now. Why do you want to make a mockery of both science and theology?
You're finally getting somewhere. Congratulations.
God may be examinable by science at some later date. Right now, He isn't.
For whom do you speak, and from what knowledge?
Why do you want to make a mockery of both science and theology?
It is hardly a "mockery" of science to posit the idea that organized matter that behaves according to prectable laws is best explained by intelligent design. Nor is it a mockery of theology to suggest that God really did, and really does do, what He says.
But should the possibility of God be banned from scientific discussion? This is where you and I likely have a disagreement that can't be bridged.
I'm not for turning science classes into theological discussion sessions. But I wouldn't completely ban the possibility of God from the realm of science any more than I would ban science from religious discourse.
I have no idea if there are intelligent beings on other planets in the universe. None have ever been observed. Is it possible that someday we may receive a signal or visit from them? Sure. But until then there's no reason for science to take a firm position either way on the issue. It would be absurd for science to be structured in such a way that denies the possibility that such life exists (or conversely that insists on it).
Given that we can't at this time scientifically determine whether such life exists, I wouldn't spend any significant time in science class on this issue. But I wouldn't judicially shut down such discussion, or have judges sit in judgment on the motive someone had in placing a paragraph in an Astronomy textbook suggesting that maybe there's life out there in space.
If a kid came home and told me they spent a whole semester of science discussing possible alien lifeforms, invasions, contacts, etc. I'd think they were wasting class time but if I learned they spent one day on that topic it wouldn't bother me in the least.
I'll readily grant you that science can't determine whether or not God exists, so that issue has no reference point for a scientific investigation, but I don't see any problem whatsoever if, for example, a single day was spent in science class discussing whether or not a deity or other intelligence authored the order we see in the universe, or created life here.
It's this hysterical obsession with driving any thought of God from science that seems so extreme to many of us.