Replies

Thank you for your reply, but, er, I would never agree that "all's fair in love in war".

My objection concerning the abuse of science is with regard to specific individuals and organizations, not the science community itself. Science attempts to stay neutral by using materialism epistemologically but not metaphysically.

The problem comes in when a rogue such as Peter Singer seizes upon that form of materialism to justify an atrocity such as infanticide. Likewise, when the animal rights activists seize on it to justify equal rights for laboratory mice.

Science specifically tries to keep itself away from religion, but IMHO it has a big problem because it does get abused both from within and from the outside. But the answer is not to enforce an orthodox metaphysics of any kind on the science community, rather, IMHO, the science community needs to be aware of such abuse and do all it can to stop it.

Alamo-Girl,
My point is regardless of how neutral you claim to be on matters of the metaphysical, by saying something occurred in a way differently than what Scripture (or some other way) says they occurred, your are implicitly making a non-neutral philosophical statement regarding religion itself. If science just reported facts "We found X fossil, in X rock layer. and according to Y Scientist's formulations and radiometric dating, etc., we believe it to be X number of years old" That would be okay. But science does not do that. They state theory as fact and hypothesis as proven and then castigate anyone who calls them on it. As an I.D.er, you know of a non-biblical treatment of the evidence that supports design. This won't be taught, however, because the Darwinists can not allow it. That is not science, it is indoctrination and propaganda. Science may try to be neutral, and in approach with some evidence, it no doubt is. But Darwinism is a worldview, and by definition it is not neutral.