UK bans teaching of creationism in any school which receives public funding

  • Thread starter Thread starter ringil
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TEPO said:
No , it would just mean scientists life work would be scrapped, and thrown either in the garbage or in the history books. Then a new discipline would replace modern science and we’d start all over again.
Click to expand...
And what would you call this new discipline?
 
TEPO said:
Then you know that methodological naturalism is the weeding out process that eliminates all intelligence and creation possibilities from science. And that this is how science has cut off its own air supply by forcing itself, whether right or wrong, to follow the path it has cleared for itself in regards to evolution and it’s exclusiveness.

And that science will fight nail and tooth to maintain its theories, even if it means “filling in the gaps”, because otherwise, it will collapse.

…so science does have a weakness.
Click to expand...
Sorry TEPO, but this is total nonsense. I have explained methodological naturalism before and contrasted it with ontological naturalism. You can look it up.
 
edwest2 said:
I am a media professional. I have been in this business for a while. Why do companies spend billions of dollars on advertising every year? According to several professional publications which I get on a regular basis, the answer is simple: to affect consumer behavior. Evolution is being sold here, and elsewhere, like a product. The same “commercials” for it are repeated here frequently for only one purpose: to get non-consumers of that product to buy it.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
This is absolute nonsense. Facts are not just commodities…they are facts, plain and simple. They are out there for you to discover if you would just look for them. Who would need to do this ‘deception?’ (presumably you blame government? Or who?) I detect a slight paranoia.
 
Hans_W said:
Sorry TEPO, but this is total nonsense. I have explained methodological naturalism before and contrasted it with ontological naturalism. You can look it up.
Click to expand...
It’s absolute nonsense to even try to claim that methodological naturalism does not exclude magic, god/s, the supernatural, miracles, ghosts, or any other kind of unexplainable phenomena or intelligence from science. Are you serious? :eek: that’s like rule No . 1.

…Why not explain then where the “supernatural” is a permitted study using the scientific method…? :rolleyes:
 
I wonder if there’s a more “Oh, Yes it Is!/Oh, No it Isn’t!” topic on CAF than Evolution?
 
Kaninchen said:
I wonder if there’s a more “Oh, Yes it Is!/Oh, No it Isn’t!” topic on CAF than Evolution?
Click to expand...
Surely you see the squirming going on here. This is like the grand finale! :D. There is no escaping this corner that the scientific method supporters must face.

…if space is the final frontier, then space will either make or break science as we know it.
 
TEPO said:
Surely you see the squirming going on here. This is like the grand finale! :D. There is no escaping this corner that the scientific method supporters must face.

…if space is the final frontier, then space will either make or break science as we know it.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think these sorts of threads are more theatre than anything else - if the board were based in the UK, I’d have said ‘Pantomime’.
 
Kaninchen said:
Actually, I think these sorts of threads are more theatre than anything else - if the board were based in the UK, I’d have said ‘Pantomime’.
Click to expand...
Are you saying you don’t like all my smiley faces that I over-use?
 
TEPO said:
Then you know that methodological naturalism is the weeding out process that eliminates all intelligence and creation possibilities from science. And that this is how science has cut off its own air supply by forcing itself, whether right or wrong, to follow the path it has cleared for itself in regards to evolution and it’s exclusiveness.

And that science will fight nail and tooth to maintain its theories, even if it means “filling in the gaps”, because otherwise, it will collapse.

…so science does have a weakness.
Click to expand...
In this case, science can follow its own methods, but if it is used as the whole, 100% explanation then Catholics, at least, must point out it is not the whole answer. It cannot be. Since it claims it must operate without considering the supernatural, I’m fine with that. When people insist it’s a “fact” then it becomes the whole, sufficient explanation, but that shows it is flawed and incomplete. God was a direct causal agent. Purely naturalistic explanations are insufficient.

Peace,
Ed
 
TEPO said:
Because that’s where what takes us? :confused:
Click to expand...
Well, you stated:
“No, it would just mean scientists life work would be scrapped, and thrown either in the garbage or in the history books. Then a new discipline would replace modern science and we’d start all over again.”
Click to expand...
So, Rau and I were wondering what to call this new discipline you suggested.

If it is not based on methodological naturalism, we could use demons and other spirits to explain outbreak of new diseases, good and bad crops, tsunamis etc. etc.
 
Kaninchen said:
I wonder if there’s a more “Oh, Yes it Is!/Oh, No it Isn’t!” topic on CAF than Evolution?
Click to expand...
Yes, it’s amazing. I could imagine this being a hot topic on a Seventh Day Adventist forum, but there shouldn’t be a debate for Catholics.
 
TEPO said:
…Why not explain then where the “supernatural” is a permitted study using the scientific method…? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Look, if you really insist on the alternatives, I’ll make a simple request of you. Do you know where I can find the mythical Mt. Olympus? I’ve got a lightning bolt to steal.

Honestly, if you’re going to question science, you might want to take a second glance at the alternatives. Christianity isn’t the only religion that uses mythic cosmology. After all, mythology is simply the belief system of dead/pagan religions. If you’re going to insist on creation myths, the Church isn’t the only brand there is.

I want proof. Give me a dragon scale. Give me an artifact. -]Give me something I can rob a bank with and the police got nothing to stop me!/-]
 
edwest2 said:
In this case, science can follow its own methods, but if it is used as the whole, 100% explanation then Catholics, at least, must point out it is not the whole answer. It cannot be. Since it claims it must operate without considering the supernatural, I’m fine with that. When people insist it’s a “fact” then it becomes the whole, sufficient explanation, but that shows it is flawed and incomplete. God was a direct causal agent. Purely naturalistic explanations are insufficient.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Not only are naturalistic explanations insufficient for the origins of things,but they also illogical. They make natural causes (or even nothingness) the ultimate cause for phenomena,attributing to them powers that they cannot possibly have. Methodological naturalism leads to explanations that are,in effect,ontologically naturalistic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top