This is quite a bit different from saying that the human eyes or brain evolved from silly puddy (or some other matter - insert here).
This sheds some good insight into the problem of scientists limiting themselves to one sacred theory rather than looking into other things or how their theory may be flawed - why do you have to continue to try to justify something? Why can’t disproving something be science? Had to happen with Aristotle, correct?
Everyone seems to be missing the point of this lawsuit. The Constitutional question we all need to ask ourselves is what did the framers really mean by “establishment”? And I don’t think the answer should be “whatever judges say it means”. The question is too important to leave it up to such a small group. To the framers, an established religion was supported by the government, and other religions were suppressed (e.g., either by outright persecution or by requiring those who hold public office to be members of the established religion, etc.) This was the kind of thing that was going in Europe at least since the reformation, and also in the colonies. So to them, the word “establishment” had teeth. And those teeth had been the cause of much bloodshed. How does presenting a theory of “intelligent design” among other theories have teeth? How does a cross on the LA County Seal have teeth?
You are correct. This isn’t about the government establishing a religion. It is about secularlists getting rid of God and His morals.
Never thought of it that way. The state religion being paganism. How come the ACLU isn’t suing somebody over this?
Lots of resources on this if you are interested in learning about them.
What do you base this statement on?
Wow. Another manifestation of God - God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit and God the Deceiver!
Not in science class.
Wrong.
Wrong
Not being testable would prevent an idea from becoming a scientific hypothesis or a scientific theory.
So you would be ok with non-scientific theories? How about Hindu or Buddhist or Native American or Ancient Egyptian or Wiccan?
Sure - try me.
The “common sense” method. Also known as observation of things in nature over a span of 10 years and extrapolating that over 500,000,000 years.
God’s a deceiver because everything did not come out of nothing with no divine intervention? Everything came out of nothing with no something as a cause? He’s not a deceiver. He’s an intelligent designer. He’s not too worried about impressing scientiests however.
That is what science is - a study of natural things. The supernatural cannot be dealt with by science.
That’s right. We only can teach science as fact that which can be proven false later. Just like Aristotle taught that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects and was proven false thousands of years later - that should have been taught as non-disputable fact for thousands of years.
The problem we are arguing is not that the ACLU doesn’t want ID in science class - it is that the ACLU doesn’t want ID in ANY class. Most scientists agree because evolution, if disproven by any discipline, would discredit a holy grail of science.
Catholics have every right to disagree with all of evolutionary theory if they so choose. Any reason will do.
So you are saying that science cannot be used to discount evolution. If you discount the evidence if it leads you to a conclusion other than your initial conclusion, you are no longer doing science. This is exactly what those “scientists” at Answers in Genesis do. Here is the Faith Statement that every “scientist” must sign to work for that organization. answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp
Then science shouldn’t be taught. If it takes a naturalistic premise (there is no God), then it is going to ignore large portions of reality that infinitely more relvant that the definition of gravity or the chemical components of sodium.
Yep.
Moral teachings of the bible are not trumped by science. Science and morals are two different realms.
No. I think science should be used to discount evolution as much as it is used to promote evolution. If the evidence leads to disproving it, it should be followed. However, whenever a scientist proposes that evolution may not be true, they are condemned by the scientific community as not credible. There is an unwritten “faith statement” that scientists and many other academiacs must sign to gain credibility.
Hello Tim,
How about starting with an easy one dealing with the age of the earth?
Hmm. How do you calibrate that method?
You are the one who proposed that God made things old to fool us athiestic scientists, not me. I agree, He’s not a deceiver. That having been said and agreed on, please explain the incredibly large volume of evidence pointing to an old universe and earth and towards biologic evolution.