Scientific Boehner: The new creationism and the congressmen who support it.

The American Prospect ^ | June 5, 2002 | Iain Murray

[Timmy]

By the way. If a man claimed to be God, and said he would die and rise from the dead to prove it, then he did exactly that, is that falsifiability? For if he hadn't risen, then his claim would have been proven false. However, the fact that he did it seems to scientifically prove the theory, right?

[Tomalak]

I actually agree with you here. It is certainly circular reasoning to say that God is cannot be a part of science and then to say that any theory that tries to solve this is somehow unscientific. Thankfully, more sensible people have not suggested this in the first place.

Where belief in God comes into conflict with Science is where that religious belief makes scientific claims. The claim that the Earth came about through design by a deity is a scientific claim, that can, and should, be tested and then proven if you want it to be a part of science. The claim that Jesus was born of a virgin, or that he turned water into wine, can, and should, be tested if you want it to be a part of science. What you cannot do is claim that if a scientific theory gets in the way of a religious view of yours, that somehow you can label your own view "Science" and demand equal time. If you can prove scientifically that Jesus was born of a virgin, few would be more delighted than me to hear the news, and I would demand as much as you that it be taught in science lessons. Until then, we have to stick to established facts.

[Tomalak]

If you can prove to me that Jesus rose from the dead I will be all ears.

[JediGirl]

Thanks for the ping :-D (I HATE WHEN I GET TO THREADS LATE THOUGH!)

[Virginia-American]

...absent any evidence in nature or the fossil record whatsoever...

Humans and apes, but no other mammals, have a specific genetic defect that prevents the synthesis of ascorbic acid. No evidence whatsoever !?

I guess, trying to think like an IDer, that this shows that the putative designer had poor quality control ?!

[JediGirl]

[JediGirl]

What a FANTASTIC BRAIN you have!!!! Thanks for your clear-headed thinking! If only the IDIOTS would read your reply!! This needs to be published!

LIKE! OH MY GAWD!! LIKE, LIKE, LIKE!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'M SOOOOO CONVERTING TO LIKE, CREATIONISM, cos LIKE(!) MEDVED is sooooo LIKE convincing!! I MEAN, GOD HATES IDIOTS!! i mean LIKE, i want GOD to LIKE, like me!!!

[JediGirl]

I actually agree with you here. It is certainly circular reasoning to say that God is cannot be a part of science and then to say that any theory that tries to solve this is somehow unscientific. Thankfully, more sensible people have not suggested this in the first place.

The problem is, creationists invalidate scientific theories based on their perception of evolutionists being Christian-deity (a.k.a "God") haters. Science requires no deity, but it can be part of your belief that your deity of choice made science for man. This however, has no place in the classroom or anywhere else other than in your belief system.

[Dimensio]

By the way. If a man claimed to be God, and said he would die and rise from the dead to prove it, then he did exactly that, is that falsifiability? For if he hadn't risen, then his claim would have been proven false. However, the fact that he did it seems to scientifically prove the theory, right?

Scientific theories cannot be "proven". Your hypothetical situation begs the question that 1) a man claiming to be God is a scientific proposition to begin with, 2) dying and returning to life is a property exclusive and universal to Gods and 3) that this man really did "die and rise up" rather than create a situation where it only appeared to be the case that he died and returned from the dead.

You also run into the problem of repeatability. For it to be valid it must be subject to repeated testing -- the man would need to be able to die and return to life whenever someone wanted to test the claim to see if the resulting observations were consistent with the predicted results and the previously documented observations.

[Tomalak]

God's existence is a factual question, not a subjective one. He either exists or he doesn't. If we can one day prove scientifically that God exists, then certainly God should be a part of a science class, just as much as electrons, evolution and the electromagnetic spectrum are. Until then, the question remains open, and the scientific case for God remains incomplete, so teaching about God's existence in science is wrong.

And I don't agree that God has no place in the classroom, either. I think that voluntary school prayer is a perfectly sensible and desirable thing, and I hope President Bush restores it.

[Tomalak]

I think I probably answered this question in my last post, but I'll say it again. Science deals with scientifically established fact. If and when the resurrection of Christ becomes scientifically established fact, THEN it belongs in the classroom.

[Dimensio]

1) If God is "outside the universe" in some part, then it is impractical to consider God in scientific observations because science wouldn't be able to address the influence of an entity that isn't subject to the same universal properties as everything else. That doesn't mean that science is denying God, it simply means that God is outside the scope of science's observations.

2) When was voluntary prayer removed from schools and how could Bush restore it?

[Dimensio]

Science deals with the natural universe by studying phenomena, formulating hypothesis and conducting tests on the hypothesis to determine their predictive accuracy. No hypothesis in science ever gets past the title of "theory" and no scientific theory can ever be said to have been "proven". Science is not about proving, it is about testing and attempting to disprove; scientific theories are strengthened when attempts to disprove them fail but they are not proven as a consequence.

[JediGirl]

Some fun Kent Hovind Links:

• The Dissertation that Kent Hovind Doesn't Want You To Read

• TalkOrigins: Why Won't You Debate Kent Hovind?(shown below)

• Dr. Dino's Challenege is a Fraud? Analysis of Kent Hovind An Open Letter about Kent Hovind’s Seminar (a bit purple but...good)

  Why don't you debate Kent Hovind and/or claim his $250,000 reward for evidence of evolution?

  Because the offer is as bogus as a $3 bill, and designed to be unmeetable. It's unclear whether Hovind wants "evidence" or "proof" of evolution. He mentions both, but they're entirely different things. Moreover, Hovind's requirement for proof (showing that there is no other possible definition for the evidence) is ridiculous. I can't think of anything that I could prove to that level of certainty. Hovind is also very coy about how the evidence would be judged. He has claimed that the judging committee is not composed of creationists, but he refuses to say who they are.

  A friend of mine was interested in Hovind's offer, and found out from him exactly what would be involved in meeting the "challenge":

  I talked to Hovind about his $250,000 offer late this afternoon. He made it quite clear that he would only give up the money if someone could reproduce the Big Bang in a laboratory, produce matter from nothing, or life from non-life.

  Presumably Hovind also thinks that astronomy isn't a science unless we can create a star in a lab. I'd be happy to debate with Hovind on human evolution via web pages. There hardly seems much point however, since much of what he says is already refuted in my web site. I have seen Hovind talking about human evolution, and he definitely falls into the more incompetent end of the creationist spectrum. He even believes in the Paluxy footprints, which most of the "respectable" creationists abandoned over a decade ago.

  But, interestingly, Hovind refuses to debate on the web, apparently claiming it's a waste of his time. (I would have thought that the potential audience is so large it would be a far more effective use of his time than traipsing all over the USA is.)

  The reason for his refusal is probably that Hovind's drive-by-shooting style of debate, consisting of a barrage of unsubstantiated scientific nonsense, glib patter, and corny jokes, wouldn't translate well to the written word. A stand-up debate doesn't permit the time needed to investigate issues in any depth, or to show how worthless Hovind's arguments are.

[Tomalak]

1) Scientific knowledge is thankfully cumulative, not static. Until the Electromagnetic spectrum was known, all but the colour spectrum was "outside scientific knowledge". Science updates itself to deal with new discoveries.

2) I don't know when prayer was stopped in state schools, but I know it was done through a misreading of the First Amendment, and that Reagan's attempt to reverse this decision failed.

[JediGirl]

And I don't agree that God has no place in the classroom, either. I think that voluntary school prayer is a perfectly sensible and desirable thing, and I hope President Bush restores it.

Voluntary school prayer is allowed....How would Bush restore it if voluntary prayer is already allowed?

[Tomalak]

I was using "proof" in the laymen's sense of the word, not the scientific sense. Evolution and electrons are proven, even if scientific language does not say so.

[JediGirl]

2) I don't know when prayer was stopped in state schools, but I know it was done through a misreading of the First Amendment, and that Reagan's attempt to reverse this decision failed.

Are you talking about a teacher or student getting in the front of a classroom and leading a prayer?

[Tomalak]

You teach a lesson in a state school and use the words "let us pray". The Gestapo ... whoops, I mean the ACLU ... will get you sacked faster than Clinton can lie his way out of trouble.

[Dimensio]

I didn't say that science dealt only with what is "known", only what is in the natural universe. When dealing with variables whose presence is detected but exact properties are unkown the assumption is still that those variables are a result of natural properties within the universe. The only way God can fit within the scope of science is if God is completely bound within the realm of the natural universe. Some (not all) theists believe in a God who exists at least in some part outside of the universe, which would make observation of God -- at least insofar as this God's influence on the universe as directed from outside of it -- incompatabile with the definition of science.