B
buffalo
Guest
Agreed. But He does exist in science correct? His works exist in nature. Perhaps by design He does not want to be proved there.
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
You have spent more time learning than drinking?You would need to convince me that you are right and my science education was wrong. Of course, then I will be depressed with the knowledge that I could have spent even more time drinking rather than learning in college!
Peace
Tim
O
Orogeny
Guest
Absolutely. He exists in all things. In fact, we study His handiwork with science.
Peace
Tim
O
Orogeny
Guest
OK, for the sake of my reputation, I didn’t say that I spent more time learning than drinking!!! I said that I could have spent even more time drinking than I did!!!You have spent more time learning than drinking?
Peace
Tim
B
buffalo
Guest
Your reputation is intact!
B
buffalo
Guest
His handiwork can be seen
We can reason His existence
Science is his handiwork
Science + reason = God? Therefore we can see God in science. Perhaps we do not yet have the correct key. Or if God has designed it so, we will never be able to emperically prove Him. Even so, science is still be a positive contributing proof to His existence.
In your opinion is science today open to this?
L
Lance
Guest
from wikipedia.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_E._Jones_III
John E. Jones III (born 1955 in Pottsville, Pennsylvania) is a federal judge for the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. In 2005, Jones presided over Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the first direct challenge brought in United States federal courts against a public school district that tried to mandate the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution. On December 20, 2005, Jones ruled that the mandate was unconstitutional.
Jones entered into duty as a federal judge on 2 August 2002 after being appointed by George W. Bush. About the same time he left his private practice.
So much for Bush appointing conservative judges
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_E._Jones_III
John E. Jones III (born 1955 in Pottsville, Pennsylvania) is a federal judge for the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. In 2005, Jones presided over Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the first direct challenge brought in United States federal courts against a public school district that tried to mandate the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution. On December 20, 2005, Jones ruled that the mandate was unconstitutional.
Jones entered into duty as a federal judge on 2 August 2002 after being appointed by George W. Bush. About the same time he left his private practice.
So much for Bush appointing conservative judges
B
Brad
Guest
Go judge go. Nothing like some good old-fashioned American censorship. Burn the ID books! Maybe he’ll ban pizza in the cafeteria next.
On what basis is the judge calling Darwininan evolution science and ID not science?
B
Brad
Guest
You mean Almighty judge. After all,All you need to do now, buffalo, is convince the judge that you are right!
Peace
Tim
"“We have concluded that it is not [science], and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents,”
This judge apparently is the author of life - he can even decide what is science and what is not science.
B
Brad
Guest
Is the CNN article misleading?
I thought all the board wanted to do was put a disclaimer stating that Darwininan evolution is not fact. Even the judge admitted as such.
I thought all the board wanted to do was put a disclaimer stating that Darwininan evolution is not fact. Even the judge admitted as such.
B
Brad
Guest
"Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said, “Children in public schools deserve top quality science education and freedom from religious indoctrination and today they were granted both.” "
Hmmm. Top quality science education involves teaching “imperfect” (also known as non-factual) theories?
Hmmm. Top quality science education involves teaching “imperfect” (also known as non-factual) theories?
B
Brad
Guest
Rejoice that if my children went to public school that they would face indoctrination into a theory will all kinds of holes, leaving the door open for atheistic scientists and teachers to theologize them about the existence of a creator?
Rejoice? What an interesting choice of words. Do you think the Angels in heaven are rejoicing at the banning of subject matter that points to an intelligent creator?
M
MikeWM
Guest
Anyone with some knowledge of Philosophy of Science is capable of doing that. I can say quite accurately that evolution is science and intelligent design/creationism isn’t.Being scientific doesn’t make something the absolute truth, and not being scientific doesn’t make it wrong. It just affects whether it ought to be taught or not in science class.
Mike
B
Brad
Guest
Then why isn’t that limitation placed on science in the schools? Why is their a presupposition that everything that is explainable must have a natural cause? Why is science supreme over philosophy? Is this not the result of a materialistic mindset? Is it not true that humans have a materialstic component and a spiritual component? Why must the spiritual (non-empirically provable) be ignored in institutions of learning? Why should only part of the truth be taught and the other censored?
T
Tristan_daCunha
Guest
Brad, I think you are confusing facts and theories. Facts are empirical pieces of knowledge about the past. Theories are generalizations based upon facts. Evolution is a theory - it is an idea. Ideas can not be a facts.
If I put my hand into a fire and my hand burns - my burnt hand is a fact. However, I do not put my hand into a fire because of the theory that my hand will get burned. This theory is based upon a generalization of past events (when fire has burned a body part, mine or someone elses). Those past events are facts.
We live our lives based upon theories about causes and effects.
My theory is that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. This belief is not a fact, because it has not happened. However, it is based upon facts… in every recorded instance, the sun has risen in the east. So I can be confident in my theory. But theories can never be facts.
O
Orogeny
Guest
I don’t agree with your math. Sorry.
I think Jesus said it very well in John 20:29 when addressing Thomas:
"Jesus said to him, “Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.” "
I think that God wants us to believe in Him because of our faith rather than empirical evidence.
I don’t think science will ever be open to using the supernatural as an explaination. If it does, it will cease to be science.
That being said, I think that many, if not most scientists would have no problem with someone seeing the handiwork of God in nature.
Peace
Tim
B
buffalo
Guest
MikeWM said:
Being scientific doesn’t make something the absolute truth, and not being scientific doesn’t make it wrong. It just affects whether it ought to be taught or not in science class.
Mike
We should rename science class naturalism class. THis might be a better definition.
B
buffalo
Guest
Then you would say:
reason = God
science cannot find God
So science is not part of the equation and can never be?
O
Orogeny
Guest
Fairly predictable response. Censorship? Did you read the decision? He explains his decision pretty well in his decision.
Peace
Tim
O
Orogeny
Guest
This judge used precedent in his ruling. His job is to make a ruling on the case he was presented in accordance with rulings made by other federal courts. Would you like him to become an activist judge and make his ruling based on his personal beliefs?
Besides, you are just mad because he affirmed what we have been telling you on these forums for some time now.
Peace
Tim
- Status