Science is worthless

[JDaniel]

So, let’s end ALL science funding and feed the hungry people. Ironic, isn’t it, that much of our ability to feed people comes from science that would no longer be funded.

Your statement is taking it to the absurd. If we cannot go back 13.7 billion years, for all of the reasons of logic and physical reality, why waste the money? Are you trying to tell me/us this doesn’t make sense?

Who decides, jd, what is a silly waste of time? You? Me?

I pay taxes. They keep increasing those taxes on us. This is America. I vote. I have a say. I know there’s a whole bunch of ideas that just preceded this sentence. Hopefully, you can keep up.

Should we stop all research into the origin of the universe or the origin of life because you find it to be a useless bit of information or an impossible goal?

Will you please explain to me how exploration of the moment before the Big Bang is not impossible?

Maybe if you were in charge before we understood that microbes were the cause of disease, you would have cut off funding to researchers looking for a cause in a place that you found to be silly.Where did you get that from my posts?

You’re kidding! Microbes cause disease?

We cannot go into the atom in person. Perhaps we should have never done the research?

Bad analogy. Oh, and argumentative, to say the most.

jd

 

[Orogeny]

Your statement is taking it to the absurd. If we cannot go back 13.7 billion years, for all of the reasons of logic and physical reality, why waste the money? Are you trying to tell me/us this doesn’t make sense?

Why is it taking it to the absurd?

I pay taxes. They keep increasing those taxes on us. This is America. I vote. I have a say. I know there’s a whole bunch of ideas that just preceded this sentence. Hopefully, you can keep up.

I can keep up just fine, jd. You don’t want you tax dollars spent on science. Or at least that part of science that you disagree with or don’t see a $ return on. Fine. I do and I vote as well.

Will you please explain to me how exploration of the moment before the Big Bang is not impossible?

I don’t know that it is or isn’t. Nor do you. Why stop looking because of your incredulity?

You’re kidding! Microbes cause disease?

Really! And the earth orbits the sun! But you might be surprised at how many here will disagree with that.

Bad analogy. Oh, and argumentative, to say the most.

I disagree on both counts.

Peace

Tim

 

[Drawmack]

Huh? I think that is the point. No textbook identifies it a non-empirical.

You are claiming that scientists, science textbooks, and science teachers are teaching evolution as a philosophy in that they are claiming that it disavows God. All I’m asking you to do is show me one textbook, that is actually in use, which makes a statement like this. Matter of fact, show me one textbook that is actually in use (besides I.D. books) which in any way mentions God.

 

[buffalo]

You are claiming that scientists, science textbooks, and science teachers are teaching evolution as a philosophy in that they are claiming that it disavows God. All I’m asking you to do is show me one textbook, that is actually in use, which makes a statement like this. Matter of fact, show me one textbook that is actually in use (besides I.D. books) which in any way mentions God.

I do not know the textbooks currently used.

I am claiming that evolution is non-empirical and the conclusions reached by some do not belong in the science class. I am claiming that when science ventures outside of empiricism is has crossed over into philosophy.

 

[Drawmack]

I do not know the textbooks currently used.

I am claiming that evolution is non-empirical and the conclusions reached by some do not belong in the science class. I am claiming that when science ventures outside of empiricism is has crossed over into philosophy.

Provide a reference which proves that this is done in one single science classroom in our country. That’s all I want. Proof that this happens. I’ve provided references to what the magisterium says on this. (Yes, I did not respond to you post quoting them out of context, I prefer to allow people to read the originals and draw their own conclusions.) But you repeatedly have refused to provide evidence that this is happening. You are simply attempting to conclude that evolution shouldn’t be taught and you are doing so by holding up a strawman argument stating that things are being taught which are not. So, provide a reference to support your ludicrous claims.

You claim that you don’t know what textbooks are being used. I have, at least, some ideas which books are being used. And, the most widely used high school biology textbook in the country was written by a Catholic. Do you really think that a Catholic would say that evolution proves the non-existence of God?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Provide a reference which proves that this is done in one single science classroom in our country. That’s all I want. Proof that this happens.

its not a matter of stating it in the text, its been an assumption for more than a century now that science can somehow replace religion, if we are only rational enough. problem is, im a rationalist, and i can see that science has no role in the matter, the OP even proves it as a logical argument.

evolution has continually been positioned as an alternative to faith, among our sola scriptura bretheren, its a real threat to the 6 day creation, to us, its one way G-d may have arranged things.

dawkins and other atheists uses evolution as a reason for atheism, it need not be stated in the texts out right, it is understood.

i dont care whether they teach evolution or not, i do care however, that is pimped as an alternative to religion, as the OP proves there is no possible natural explanation for the universe, so evolution as an alternative to theism, is a non-starter.

the idea that there is a natural explanation for the universe, is the problem, evolution is much overrated by both sides of the debate, understanding evolution, is no more imortant than understanding binary, indeed a good argument could be made it is less important.

so if the mechanism is understood, or at least there are imperfect theories that describe it well, its not indicative of any importance outside of the biological sciences.

evolution simply describes a physiccal process, thats it.

 

[daeve]

warpspeedpetey;5298806:

It explains nothing, but offers a philisophical argument that appeals to those who have a need to have answers now and not be willing to test them, and change them if they are later proven wrong.

Science does not claim with certainty there is no God. You claim faith for an answer to things and will not change that no matter what and will not change that even if there ever will be evidence to the contrary.

Science will agree there is with evidence and proof.

That’s what faith is all about. I don’t know the mechanics of how the world was created, but I do know that however it came about, God pushed the button.

 

[buffalo]

Provide a reference which proves that this is done in one single science classroom in our country. That’s all I want. Proof that this happens. I’ve provided references to what the magisterium says on this. (Yes, I did not respond to you post quoting them out of context, I prefer to allow people to read the originals and draw their own conclusions.) But you repeatedly have refused to provide evidence that this is happening. You are simply attempting to conclude that evolution shouldn’t be taught and you are doing so by holding up a strawman argument stating that things are being taught which are not. So, provide a reference to support your ludicrous claims.

You claim that you don’t know what textbooks are being used. I have, at least, some ideas which books are being used. And, the most widely used high school biology textbook in the country was written by a Catholic. Do you really think that a Catholic would say that evolution proves the non-existence of God?

It happens wherever and whenever macroevolution is taught.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

StrawberryJam;5298824:

That’s what faith is all about. I don’t know the mechanics of how the world was created, but I do know that however it came about, God pushed the button.

a non-physical creation is the only possible cause, entirely fitting with theistic ideas.

 

[Drawmack]

its not a matter of stating it in the text, its been an assumption for more than a century now that science can somehow replace religion, if we are only rational enough. problem is, im a rationalist, and i can see that science has no role in the matter, the OP even proves it as a logical argument.

 

[Drawmack]

It happens wherever and whenever macroevolution is taught.

So, your assertion is that macroevolution is, intrinsically, a philosophy and not a scientific theory?

Prove it. All I am asking for is one reference to a scientific text which teaches evolution as something other than a theory. One. Just one. C’mon give me one. If the problem is so wide spread and so egregious I’m sure you can do it. Give me an example. C’mon, I’m waiting. Just one.

 

[JDaniel]

So, your assertion is that macroevolution is, intrinsically, a philosophy and not a scientific theory?

Prove it. All I am asking for is one reference to a scientific text which teaches evolution as something other than a theory. One. Just one. C’mon give me one. If the problem is so wide spread and so egregious I’m sure you can do it. Give me an example. C’mon, I’m waiting. Just one.

Drawmack:

In a way, I have to agree with Buffalo. Although he didn’t say, “…macroevolution is, intrinsically, a philosophy and not a scientific theory…” Having taught biology on the high school level, in Miami, FL, and in Hollywood, FL, I know there were other teachers who professed the non-existence of God by virtue of biological evolution in both schools. My students would come to me with questions about it as they never heard me say that it proved no God.

Anyway, here are a couple of websites on the subject. The first one is a biggie:

[macroevolution is, intrinsically, a philosophy and not a scientific theory](macroevolution is, intrinsically, a philosophy and not a scientific theory)

amazon.com/Philosophy-Evolution-Uffe-J-Jensen/dp/0312606702

talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil.html

bartleby.com/224/0119.html

books.google.com/books?id=ENQTAAAAYAAJ&dq=the+philosophy+of+evolution&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=OZVhtKmnVo&sig=S7Gtve6r8PBvrluyciUGzb8Wcwo&hl=en&ei=s68uSq2AMYSqtgeYoqCGDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7#PPP7,M1

blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9780631221081_chunk_g978063122108113

There are a whole lot more, but, there’s no sense posting them all. Google hits were about 4,600,000 of them. I doubt I’d live that long.

On the one hand, if it was being taught that there may well be something, or someone, who set it all in motion, but, that He doesn’t create each and every individual thing but rather, leaves it to nature, that would be one thing. Unfortunately, there are those who won’t leave it there.

I agree with you that it should be taught as science and, if one does not believe in God, say nothing. When I taught biology, was in my “non-theist” days, however, science left no assurance that there was no God for me.

jd

 

[Drawmack]

Drawmack:

In a way, I have to agree with Buffalo. Although he didn’t say, “…macroevolution is, intrinsically, a philosophy and not a scientific theory…” Having taught biology on the high school level, in Miami, FL, and in Hollywood, FL, I know there were other teachers who professed the non-existence of God by virtue of biological evolution in both schools. My students would come to me with questions about it as they never heard me say that it proved no God.

Anyway, here are a couple of websites on the subject. The first one is a biggie:

[macroevolution is, intrinsically, a philosophy and not a scientific theory](macroevolution is, intrinsically, a philosophy and not a scientific theory)

amazon.com/Philosophy-Evolution-Uffe-J-Jensen/dp/0312606702

talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil.html

bartleby.com/224/0119.html

books.google.com/books?id=ENQTAAAAYAAJ&dq=the+philosophy+of+evolution&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=OZVhtKmnVo&sig=S7Gtve6r8PBvrluyciUGzb8Wcwo&hl=en&ei=s68uSq2AMYSqtgeYoqCGDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7#PPP7,M1

blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9780631221081_chunk_g978063122108113

There are a whole lot more, but, there’s no sense posting them all. Google hits were about 4,600,000 of them. I doubt I’d live that long.

On the one hand, if it was being taught that there may well be something, or someone, who set it all in motion, but, that He doesn’t create each and every individual thing but rather, leaves it to nature, that would be one thing. Unfortunately, there are those who won’t leave it there.

I agree with you that it should be taught as science and, if one does not believe in God, say nothing. When I taught biology, was in my “non-theist” days, however, science left no assurance that there was no God for me.

jd

I looked through a couple of those links and they weren’t science texts. I have specifically asked for science texts.

Now your last paragraph I find interesting. I agree that it should be taught. I agree that statements about God, either way, do not belong in Science class. However, I also know that if a teacher is doing this they can be censured. Inserting theology, any theology, into a science class is tantamount to inserting home economics into history. It just doesn’t belong there.

If anyone knows of a science teacher inserting theology, any theology, into the science classroom I’ll be the first to step up to the plate against them.

But, macroevolution in and of itself is not a philosophy. As a matter of fact, serious scientists do not even recognize a difference between macro and micro evolution, they just term it all evolution. I happen to believe macroevolution. I think the evidence is really irrefutable. (Look at the skeletal chain of the whale.) However, I’m also Catholic and believe that macroevolution is simply the means God used to create – kind of like knowing if an artist used oils or pastels. The deeper I look into his creation, all aspects of his creation, the deeper love I attain for him through marveling at the beauty of it all. This being the case, I find claims that the theory of macroevolution, in and of itself, is anti-Christian simply silly.

Also, if anyone thinks (as the title of this thread proposes) that science is useless then why are you on the internet? Why are you living in a modern home? Why do you drive a modern car? Why do you wear clothes produced on a modern assembly line?

Stating that science is useless is just about the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever read on the internet, which wouldn’t be here without modern science.

 

[JDaniel]

I looked through a couple of those links and they weren’t science texts. I have specifically asked for science texts.

Actually, the second one down is a book published by Palgrave MacMillan. They are a textbook/academic publisher. It might be a text book, possibly college level.

Now your last paragraph I find interesting. I agree that it should be taught. I agree that statements about God, either way, do not belong in Science class. However, I also know that if a teacher is doing this they can be censured. Inserting theology, any theology, into a science class is tantamount to inserting home economics into history. It just doesn’t belong there.

If anyone knows of a science teacher inserting theology, any theology, into the science classroom I’ll be the first to step up to the plate against them.

But, macroevolution in and of itself is not a philosophy.

As well it shouldn’t be. But, I think there are those that want it to be by the looks of the many, many links on the “Philosophy of Evolution.”

As a matter of fact, serious scientists do not even recognize a difference between macro and micro evolution, they just term it all evolution.

Maybe you have hit on the problem: the people pushing it might just not be “serious scientists”.

I happen to believe macroevolution. I think the evidence is really irrefutable. (Look at the skeletal chain of the whale.) However, I’m also Catholic and believe that macroevolution is simply the means God used to create – kind of like knowing if an artist used oils or pastels. The deeper I look into his creation, all aspects of his creation, the deeper love I attain for him through marveling at the beauty of it all.

Precisely. There are no conditionals on God to create in this way or that. So, God has the executive freedom of his will to choose any manner he wishes, although, he won’t choose the poorest way, providing the poorest results. So, in that way, at least, there is thought and design.

This being the case, I find claims that the theory of macroevolution, in and of itself, is anti-Christian simply silly.

You must agree, though, that there are some who won’t look at it from your perspective.

Also, if anyone thinks (as the title of this thread proposes) that science is useless then why are you on the internet? Why are you living in a modern home? Why do you drive a modern car? Why do you wear clothes produced on a modern assembly line?

Stating that science is useless is just about the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever read on the internet, which wouldn’t be here without modern science.

In all fairness to the OP, it was used as a tantalizer. In fact, that is one of the suggestions made to get people to look at your thread. The OA is a lot larger and more specific. I now know three of us, with varying degrees of scientific backgrounds, that don’t particularly like it that science has been hijacked by the atheistic mindset.

I think Satan has an agenda and the Catholic Church is its biggest target.

jd

 

[Drawmack]

Actually, the second one down is a book published by Palgrave MacMillan. They are a textbook/academic publisher. It might be a text book, possibly college level.

ummm, no. The second one is a web-site. The first one is a collegiate level philosophy book, not a science book. I specifically asked for a science book. If philosophy is attempting to refute God with Science then this is philosophy’s fault and not sciences. Blaming science for what philosophy does with it is like blaming Ford if I run you over.

As well it shouldn’t be. But, I think there are those that want it to be by the looks of the many, many links on the “Philosophy of Evolution.”

I already said that I’m not denying that atheists attempt to use it this way. If that is the case then we should be talking about ways to refute this claim in and of itself, which is easy to do. When someone says that evolution disproves a God, just say, “That’s very interesting considering the scientific method does not allow for supposition of causality; could you please explain this new usage of the scientific method to me and show me where it’s been supported in a widely respected, peer reviewed, scientific journal?” You don’t even have to challenge the correctness of evolution to challenge the correctness of this claim.

Maybe you have hit on the problem: the people pushing it might just not be “serious scientists”.

With that I will agree. Thus, you should use this angle to take them down. Don’t attempt to refute evolution, there is no need to.

Precisely. There are no conditionals on God to create in this way or that. So, God has the executive freedom of his will to choose any manner he wishes, although, he won’t choose the poorest way, providing the poorest results. So, in that way, at least, there is thought and design.

I’m not a proponent of teaching intelligent design in the science classroom. I believe that it muddies the waters of both science and theology serving only to confuse people about both. It is this confusion which leads to conversations like the present one. Let science tell people the what and how and let theology tell people the who and why. If people do not display enough critical thinking abilities to connect the dots on their own, then a joint discussion of both can explain how they work together in a single class session.

You must agree, though, that there are some who won’t look at it from your perspective.

Duh!? What is the point of this statement? If everyone agreed with me the world would be a very boring place.

 

[buffalo]

I looked through a couple of those links and they weren’t science texts. I have specifically asked for science texts.

Now your last paragraph I find interesting. I agree that it should be taught. I agree that statements about God, either way, do not belong in Science class. However, I also know that if a teacher is doing this they can be censured. Inserting theology, any theology, into a science class is tantamount to inserting home economics into history. It just doesn’t belong there.

If anyone knows of a science teacher inserting theology, any theology, into the science classroom I’ll be the first to step up to the plate against them.

But, macroevolution in and of itself is not a philosophy. As a matter of fact, serious scientists do not even recognize a difference between macro and micro evolution, they just term it all evolution. I happen to believe macroevolution. I think the evidence is really irrefutable. (Look at the skeletal chain of the whale.) However, I’m also Catholic and believe that macroevolution is simply the means God used to create – kind of like knowing if an artist used oils or pastels. The deeper I look into his creation, all aspects of his creation, the deeper love I attain for him through marveling at the beauty of it all. This being the case, I find claims that the theory of macroevolution, in and of itself, is anti-Christian simply silly.

Also, if anyone thinks (as the title of this thread proposes) that science is useless then why are you on the internet? Why are you living in a modern home? Why do you drive a modern car? Why do you wear clothes produced on a modern assembly line?

Stating that science is useless is just about the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever read on the internet, which wouldn’t be here without modern science.

Take a stroll through the NSCE website and see what they are up to. You will be enlightened. Look for Eugenie Scott quotes.

 

[buffalo]

I

Also, if anyone thinks (as the title of this thread proposes) that science is useless then why are you on the internet? Why are you living in a modern home? Why do you drive a modern car? Why do you wear clothes produced on a modern assembly line?

Stating that science is useless is just about the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever read on the internet, which wouldn’t be here without modern science.

Bogus alert!

 

[TruthisBeauty7]

Its so obvious that nothing comes from nothing , Everything…everything you see has a creator or a maker. why would it be different with the universe? To be an atheist or agnostic is to deny reason completly.

It’s a pure fairy tale to believe the entire universe just came from nothing. The only honest response is to be at least a deist. to me there is no honest atheists or agnostics.

Again nothing comes from nothing. it makes no sense. to believe that…but im sorry is very very stupid. Everything has a maker , everything you see, everything…nothing came from nothing, on this alone you no there is a super intelligence that started everything . thats simply the end of the argument

 

[Drawmack]

Its so obvious that nothing comes from nothing , Everything…everything you see has a creator or a maker. why would it be different with the universe? To be an atheist or agnostic is to deny reason completly.

It’s a pure fairy tale to believe the entire universe just came from nothing. The only honest response is to be at least a deist. to me there is no honest atheists or agnostics.

Again nothing comes from nothing. it makes no sense. to believe that…but im sorry is very very stupid. Everything has a maker , everything you see, everything…nothing came from nothing, on this alone you no there is a super intelligence that started everything . thats simply the end of the argument

But these statements have nothing to do with evolution. You can accept evolution and still believe in God.

 

[buffalo]

But these statements have nothing to do with evolution. You can accept evolution and still believe in God.

and as long as you accept the following dogmas:

Adam and Eve are all humanities first parents, Eve came from Adam, they had bodily immortality, freedom from irregular desire and pain, and infused knowledge )aka preternatural gifts)