Posted on 03/21/2016 9:30:20 AM PDT by fishtank
Evolutionary Tyranny Still Casts Cloud Over Science
by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. *
A recent scientific paper, published in the high-profile journal PLOS ONE, made three separate references to the amazing design of the human hand…and rightly attributed them to the Creator.1 Evolutionists cried foul and raised such an uproar that the journal retracted the paper.
Evolutionary scientists often claim they are objective in their work as researchers and educators. They also claim that creationist research isn't valid because creationists don't publish in secular journals. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The reality is that evolutionists are seldom objective in their pursuit of truth, but instead often abuse their power as gatekeepers and suppress anything that points to a Master Creator as the source of design and complexity in living systems. The irony is obvious: Secular scientists censor creation research, then they mock creation scientists for not publishing in secular journals.
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
Features have reappeared in contexts where one never would have expected them to have been genetically carried along... for one thing.
What builds that thumb on that rat, and what builds it on that man? We need to be able to answer the question at this level before we can presume too much.
There are still religious scientists, they just don’t include divine intersession as a factor that contributes to results. Indeed, science as a unbiased method for the observation of nature and its capacity for predicting unknown outcomes based on hypothesis and experimentation is quite new.
I wouldn’t, but then again I’m not a cosmologist.
And by the way, if you need a god looking over your shoulder to keep you from doing bad things, perhaps it’s good that you have one.
It claims to be unbiased, but it isn’t.
Explain why the global warming craze.
We might actually need to bring in the sociologists, to study these supposedly unbiased scientists.
What are you going to consider to be a bad thing, and why?
By the way what is “intersession”?
Done years ago by Thomas Kuhn, ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions’ and its follow-ups.
Here in Indiana it refers to the period between school semesters. Some of the schools have remedial classes then.
Back when I was a kid they called it “summer school”
Bad spelling, mostly. Or in the Canadian tertiary educational system it’s a course taught in half the time of a regular one.
Maybe you mean intervention.
Theistic science has no problem here, it raises no straw man. It says God initiated something, now we will trace it in the natural sphere as far as that makes sense.
The problem comes when “anything and everything” is posited, a priority, to be “what makes sense.”
Like global warmism, macro-evolution theory hires a lot of people while producing very little side benefit.
Does Ted Cruz share that opinion?
a priority => a priori, of course
Dishonesty and doing harm to others. Those things work counter to the needs of the social fabric that is necessary for a safe, orderly, and productive society.
All of which are hand-waving words.
What is the goal of mankind? Only God truly has that answer.
Global warming is not a “craze”. Changes in the concentration of anthropogenic compounds in the atmosphere and their potential for climate change has been studied for 200 years, and there is no doubt we are experiencing planetary warming.
Creationism is pseudo-science.
Any theory that is not explainable by natural law, that is not testable by empirical methods and that is not open to revision when new facts emerge to challenge it, is not science.
Faith are different things. By bringing in a supernatural origin for natural processes, creationism violates Occam’s Razor, which holds the simplest explanation is the correct one.
Charles Darwin changed the way we see Nature and life on earth and no better theory to explain why life evolved as it has on our planet has emerged to replace it. And some religious people try force science to conform to a particular religious dogma.
That is not science - and again nothing about science conflicts with a belief in God and a created world but we must always follow the truth even when it conflicts with cherished human beliefs.
I mean you can say productive, without saying productive of what.
Should we produce a standstill, or a reversal of global population at the cost of fighting, say, Judeo-Christian mores? Our eugenicists have many ideas about this. The question is nothing new; a 1950’s teen-level science book I once had posited that what is called sexual sin in the bible ought to be hailed as something wonderful.
But will we have found, maybe too late, that we torpedoed an entity that science never could measure, something called love?
In a very minimal sense at worst. The models which are genuflected to keep on predicting far greater changes than what are seen, and nobody seems to want to call out the game.
“Theistic science” is an oxymoron. Science is not concerned with supernatural manifestations.
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.