Why is it that if I propose God did something scientists cannot figure out, you think it must be deception? As we have both agreed on, scientists have been wrong before. That doesn’t mean that God deceived them.
Not worried in the least about how smart you may think I am.
You keep assuming that I’m saying all alternate theories need to be taught in science class and I’ve repeatedly said that they do not have to be in science class - they can be in other classes - the problem being that the ACLU and public education generally will not allow alternate theories as they us a religious litmus test on ANY competing theory of human origin, even if it can be backed with evidence.
Also, we have to assume, using evolutionary theory, that something extremely intelligent (humans) evolved from something with the most minimum of intelligence - I’d say that would make evolution a miracle - something that would require belief in God - therefore God must be true - so why should we not allow knowledge about God in our schools?
Boy, you go away for a day, and you have a hundred posts to read.
A better example would be Newtonian physics. This was believed to be absolutely correct for 300 years, so much so that Kant turned it into a philosophical absolute. Now it is unclear if we will ever know the “true” equations of physics, or if we will just keep on discovering closer and closer approximations. (Some equations, such as Einstein’s G=8piT, are generally believed to require some adjustment yet to be determined.)
Faith and science don’t contradict each other, so there is no question of science “trumping” faith or morals. God exists, whether universal common descent is true or false.
Then perhaps the problem is that most scientists over-generalize their studies. They call science the search for truth, but don’t specify what kind of truth, nor do the kind of people involved in these evolutionary education debates acknowledge that there is more to truth than their studies can uncover. They fail to acknowledge that there are limits to what they can know by the mere “study of natural things.” They fail to acknowledge at time that there are things worthy of study other than natural things.
True, if science were ordered into its proper place in the curriculum that would be no problem. I think what has happened though is that the natural sciences have replaced theology as the core ethic of modern schooling. It is the font of knowlege for the average American student. No other source of information on human origins is offered nor is it allowed. It fills the “God-shaped hole” that was created when the study of theology was kicked out of the classroom.
What we as a nation choose to teach our children in public schools about any subject is somewhat haphazard. We choose to emphasize chemistry but not geology, English literature but not Canadian literature. There are sometimes good reasons for this and sometimes its just tradition. However, most of the people in this country would agree that there are basic things that should be common knowledge, the periodic table and Shakespeare among them, not so much the types of clay and basalt or the works of Maya Angelou.
Why else would that be done?
I read your link. Did you read mine? The author of this paper is a Christian.
I didn’t ask to determine how smart you are. I wondered because you seem to not understand how science works, yet you keep trying to argue scientific points.
Philip Johnson is a lawyer, not a scientist.
There is nothing inherently wrong with the search for answers. There are limits to what humans can know, but unless there is an effort made to understand things, we will never know what those limits are.
I agree and have stated just that in other threads.
Agreed. That doesn’t mean, however, that ID should be taught in science class.
We would be teaching astrology on a par with astronomy if we went by the general consensus of Americans. Unfortunately, the scientific knowledge of the average American is abysmal, and having the ignorant teaching the young is just going to perpetuate this, to the detriment of the U.S. as a country. In old communist Russia, teaching Lysenkoism set Soviet biology back at least a generation. Politics makes bad science; so does everything else except actual science.
Still not my field, but I would think not all biologists agree to certain curriculum and that there are political polls within that agaust body. Good idea though as long as there was some way of neutralizing the political views.
Perhaps this is a question of terminology. It seems like the subject of evolution is too broad. A component of evolution is the study of human biological origins. Without question, this part of the scientific study is not considered scientific fact by a great number of scientists. So, then - maybe human biological origins should be taught in some other type of class. The problem is if God is mentioned as a factor in human biological origins, the study gets labeled “religion” and it cannot be taught. But this theory is just as valid as any theory of origins that evolution has come up with. We cannot eliminate a very real possiblity simply because it has what some consider a religous component. As I’ve argued before, we could make a case that most teaching of value has a religious component.
I don’t think this refutes my point. If science can have “key turning points” that completely change the discipline(and completely change the way we think about reality) in the past, it can certainly do likewise in the future.
Bingo. Although I would add that it is the secularlists (which can be any discipline or profession) as the driving force behind promoting the naturalistic scientists.
I’ll read part of it but not all.
Ok. You’ve told me that the scientists are not Catholic and that they believe in certain specifics of scripture (which, by the way, are not disallowed in the Catholic Church - I’m open to a 6 day creation or a 1 billion day creation).
You do realize this is arrogance?
Sure he is. He has a voice on this topic. You have to accept his voice. If not, you can’t argue for allowing the ACLU to intervene in schools because you are not a lawyer.