Posted on 11/25/2008 6:10:27 AM PST by Ethan Clive Osgoode
That's because that would be a TRUE observational statement.
Until you can concoct an experiment showing us otherwise, it will remain true.
The claim that natural explanations cannot be found for a phenomenon is a mind killer. Teaching this to children is criminal. It shuts down curiosity and shuts down the desire to learn how things work. No on who does science would recommend telling children that a problem is unsolvable.
The mind killer is the preposterous notion that "natural explanations" are inherently and by definition godless. Children are taught about God in every facet of their lives, imagine all the children confused and turned off to science by boobs demanding God be left at the front door of school or "there's no place for Him in my classroom".
I just addressed Dover, do you have reading and comprehension problems TOO?
I see a pattern developing. A dumbing down fruition of the NEA godless liberal agenda.
I for one have never ever had a problem with a creator.
The more your side has to explain to the people you HAVE no explanation, and that everything “just is”...the more trips to court you’ll have to make.
Your side hasn’t successfully dumbed down and programmed everyone it seems.
So you're admitting that Creationism/ID is not "only science"? And that you're arguing for something that isn't science to be taught in science classes because the majority wish it?
Why wouldn't they if scientists believe it's science?
186 posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2008 4:14:47 PM by tpanther
There's the original assertion. There's nothing there about validation. The fact that some unspecified group of scientists believe it submitted as sufficient to accept that the majority of people should also believe it.
We're talking about evolution, not origins.
But more to the point allowing children to be taught as their parents see fit about origins.
Are your religious beliefs about the origins of life more important than someone else's religious beliefs about the origins of the Earth?
The original question was would they want it taught, as science
Ummm there didn't NEED to be anything there about validation, as it is implied.
Now if there weren't any scientists out there that agreed with our position, you might have a point (about validation).
Your question implied that people somehow would not want ID taught in school if somehow it was taught in science class as science.
I merely pointed out to everyone that Why shouldn't they, when scientists themselves agreed it should be taught as science.
The fact that some unspecified group of scientists believe it submitted as sufficient to accept that the majority of people should also believe it.
NO "fact", indeed I've been very specific about which scientists I'm talking about, and you know it and everyone else knows it.
www.dissentfromdarwin.org
That only depends on which evo-cultist I'm talking to, as some address origins while others refuse to.
Are your religious beliefs about the origins of life more important than someone else's religious beliefs about the origins of the Earth?
Do you always demand to label someone's scientific opinions that differ from your own as "religious beliefs", and must you always talk in circles?
No more that the *Wet Paint Do Not Touch* sign stifles a child's natural curiosity about the world around them.
For many people, telling them that something can't be done is just the motivation they need to go out and prove that it can.
It never ceases to amaze me, the weak arguments used to try to convince someone that teaching creation will stifle the desire to learn and result in the elimination of all natural curiosity.
It's as bad as the argument the if we say that *Goddidit* everyone just throws their hands up and gives up.
What a fallacy. It's too bad the evo side doesn't think that they can't win an argument without misrepresenting the creationist side or the consequences of teaching creation.
Wrong. It was the belief in the Divine that brought Newton to the conclusion that the universe was indeed orderly and that patterns could be found through observation.
The claim that natural explanations cannot be found for a phenomenon is a mind killer. Teaching this to children is criminal.
So, you'd add that to criminalizing the teaching of creation in schools?
And after criminalizing all this behavior, evos wonder why people object to their efforts and don't buy the *It's all about just teaching science in science class.*?
People are not nearly as blind to evoatheist tactics, nor as stupid, as you think.
You just nailed the evo position on FR perfectly.
After all the drivel we get about how science is NOT done by consensus, we get bombarded with how virtually all scientists agree with the TOE and how *peer review* verifies it.
Any who dissent, commit career and professional suicide. If they don't just outright lose their jobs for expressing a differing opinion or daring to question their superiors, they won't get any work peer reviewed.
That old boys club has the whole system sewn up nice and tight.
Seems to me that criminalizing the teaching of the simple observation that there is not a natural explanation for certain phenomena is tantamount to the establishment of atheism as the state religion.
It is painfully obvious that for a thing to be "natural" it must exist "in" space/time and there is no natural origin for space/time itself. Ditto for inertia, information, etc.
If any jurisdiction attempts such a thing, I'll stock up on popcorn for when it hits the Supreme Court.
Interesting thing is, is that miracles have no natural explanation and yet they happen. No doubt about that. Talk to any medical professionals. They know.
And yet the evoatheist side writes them off as unworthy of study because they deal with the supernatural (or extra-natural) and "science" only deals with the natural, things that can be observed, tested, repeated. So they, in effect, cut off a whole body of experience from investigation simply because they decide that it has no natural explanation.
js1138 post 217 The claim that natural explanations cannot be found for a phenomenon is a mind killer. Teaching this to children is criminal. It shuts down curiosity and shuts down the desire to learn how things work. No on who does science would recommend telling children that a problem is unsolvable.
Hmmmm, do I detect a serious disconnect here in someone's reasoning ?
Youse has pegged das fish to das wall!
I just described the argument that was presented, and you just fell back to accusations of projection.
The theory is not the people, and vice versa. If you've got specific individuals you've got a problem with, address that with them. If there's issues with the theory you disagree with, address the theory.
Do you always demand to label someone's scientific opinions that differ from your own as "religious beliefs", and must you always talk in circles?
Are you arguing that creationsim/ID is not based on theology?
Can we assume that the majority of people also believe that any hypothesis supported by an equal number of scientists should also be taught as science? How many scientists does it take to validate a hypothesis as having public approval?
we may ask what else happens without His intervention, and the unsettling possibility is, maybe everything.
Sin happens without His intervention. Many consequences of sin happen without His intervention. The rain falls equally on the just and unjust.
Exactly how much He Personally intervenes in vents is a profound question and a great mystery. I think about it alot.
If you don't believe it, why are you defending it?
Better yet, if you don't believe it yourself, why do you expect that someone else should?
You don't approve of the study of history? Should that be stricken from the curriculum?
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.