God gave us limited intellect. This limited intellect can lead us to believe we have an understanding that may or may not be accurate. Our limitations do not mean God is deceiving us, it means we are not as smart as God. Can we ever understand more than our Creator? No.
Actually, parents and students have the right to object to anything and everything for whatever reason. A challenge based on philosophy should be rejected in this case.
Science should trump EVERYTHING in science class.
But not testable or repeatable, so not science and therefore should not be taught in science class.
That is incorrect.
So do you believe that God created an aged universe to deceive us?
Just a question, and I don’t mean this to be condescending or anything like that, but do you have a scientific background? You keep making the claim that a scientific challenge to evolution would be doomed, yet that is not necessarily true. If the science is good, the challenge will succeed, although it may take many years.
Nope.
I didn’t think so.
I said God would not deceive us for He cannot deceive or be deceived.I didn’t think so.
Peace
Tim
It’s not only a legitimate subject for philosophy. It’s an area of overlap.
Good. I do too.
I think I already framed the challenge in my earlier post. For example the simplest creature, a single cell amoeba (bear with me here, it’s only been 30 years since HS biology), has many complex functions (e.g., food capture, mobility, digestion, reproduction, etc.) all of which are necessary to its survival. Each of these functions by itself is highly complex. But you need all of these functions working together (an even higher level of complexity) to form a living organism. And even with the current state of scientific knowledge, we still can’t make an amoeba from scratch. So if scientists are going to say in a classroom that inanimate matter can make one, they better have the model and the evidence to back it up. Otherwise, don’t even go there.
I understand and agree.
That’s ok, I don’t think it has evolved that quickly!
I agree with what you are saying, but just because we can’t do it doesn’t mean that it can’t happen. What happens if some scientist does come up with a repeatable model for making an aomeba from inorganic materials?
On the contrary. The fact is is that we don’t teach things like science like we should. We get so bogged down in making sure that the lowest common denominator can pass a state standardized test that most students never getting more than a brief introduction to science. That, not the exclusion of a non-scientific theory (ID), is the problem.
Are you implying that scientists are neither intelligent nor rational? Scientists don’t pursue the truth? You don’t have an agenda to push? Hmm.
Our people as a whole, not just scientists.
I think you and I will just have to disagree here.
But we will definately agree here!!!
Just to clarify, I don’t think we’re talking about a scientist making an amoeba from inorganic matter. And I don’t think you meant to say inorganic. We’re talking about inanimate matter becoming an amoeba with no intelligent (name removed by moderator)ut. If a scientist comes up with a model of that process, and demonstrates it, then by all means bring it up in class. And invite me. Otherwise, they should quit blowing smoke.
Aye, disagreements are good.
And with the public system my way just wouldn’t work. That’s why I’m going to home-school. I respect your position,
Oops!
You’re right, I meant inanimate.Me, too! Me, too!
And to you and yours!