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

[Rau]

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!/-]

Science ought to be able to identify (and in many endeavours, does so) that a current theory fails to explain certain things (if that is the situation). In my view, that observation need do no harm to the bulk of science. Our computers keep working, our nuclear reactors keep working, etc. etc. etc. on so on. No edifice need crumble because Science fails to understand or explain everything.

Science likely would go too far should it postulate the unknowable to fill its gaps.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Science ought to be able to identify (and in many endeavours, does so) that a current theory fails to explain certain things (if that is the situation). In my view, that observation need do no harm to the bulk of science. Our computers keep working, our nuclear reactors keep working, etc. etc. etc. on so on. No edifice need crumble because Science fails to understand or explain everything.

Science likely would go too far should it postulate the unknowable to fill its gaps.

I’m actually quite optimistic that science will advance to the point that the supernatural can be put under the proverbial microscope. But in the end, it’s just really about proof here. I mean, the theory of evolution isn’t perfect but it’s certainly not much of a contest when alternatives essentially state we just magically popped into existence (organs, hair and all).

 

[TEPO]

I’m actually quite optimistic that science will advance to the point that the supernatural can be put under the proverbial microscope. But in the end, it’s just really about proof here. I mean, the theory of evolution isn’t perfect but it’s certainly not much of a contest when alternatives essentially state we just magically popped into existence (organs, hair and all).

…science will advance to the point that the supernatural can be put under the proverbial microscope? What!?

This creationism you advocate for has no place in science.

 

[TEPO]

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!/-]

Yeah, I’ll give you a dragon scale alright. You should pay more attention.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

…science will advance to the point that the supernatural can be put under the proverbial microscope? What!?

I define the supernatural as simply ‘unknown territory.’ Maybe we’ll get there some day who knows.

This creationism you advocate for has no place in science.

Indeed. And as much as I understand some of your intentions in your posts, I really don’t see much sense in questioning current evolutionary theory in favor of… well, paradise gardens, giant boats, and not to mention the angry gods and flood accounts in other myths.

 

[TEPO]

I define the supernatural as simply ‘unknown territory.’ Maybe we’ll get there some day who knows.

Indeed. And as much as I understand some of your intentions in your posts, I really don’t see much sense in questioning current evolutionary theory in favor of… well, paradise gardens, giant boats, and not to mention the angry gods and flood accounts in other myths.

You haven’t understood a word I said. Stop branding me with your stigma -I am not a creationist.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

You haven’t understood a word I said. Stop branding me with your stigma -I am not a creationist.

I didn’t say you were either. I just think that if some people are going to question the scientific method, they might want to take a look at the alternatives. Seriously, what choice do we have?

 

[TEPO]

I didn’t say you were either. I just think that if some people are going to question the scientific method, they might want to take a look at the alternatives. Seriously, what choice do we have?

Nothing gets through to science unless it’s grounded in things like physics. It must pass the methodology test by being compatibly linked to other theories that have been proven. It’s got to be stackable.

Anthropology is my solution. I said it earlier in the thread. I also have a hypothesis. It is that the human mind and it’s ability to convey thought may also be able to convey evolution. Through our “progressive” and “conservative” social orders, we serve as an amplifier to what it means to either evolve (progressive), or stay the same (tradition). In a sense, we then as humans are capable of observing ourselves to understand evolution and life in its entirety. As the most refined forms of it that we know… Because we can speak and organize.

Therefore by understanding anthropology correctly, we can develop a theory that can be proven and can pass many tests allowing a new understanding of life and it’s ability to evolve through intelligence. Because as Darwin states, humans are not much different than other animals and life forms -therefore, what we have, all life has.

…and then also, the more we humans progress, the more we will learn about life and it’s origins -by seeing it not in nature, but in us.

 

[TEPO]

Also, if humans are seen to either progress or stay the same through some sort of new force, then the beginnings of life would have evolved through the same process -this could be the opening of the door to something more acceptable within physics that makes better ‘common’ sense for everyone. Possibly it might even be productive. Surely more productive than dark energy.

We just need to study this through a scientific and philosophical lens in the field of anthropology.

 

[TEPO]

Well, you stated:

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.

Philanthrapience!

 

[TEPO]

Clearly it needs work and a solid direction to advance. But in any case, our minds aren’t very far seperated from our biological makeup. That means our social tendencies aren’t either. Or are they. There’s a start.

 

[Hans_W]

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.

Science can only give us part of our knowledge base, never 100%.

Science doesn’t tell us (and never claims) to give us knowledge on values, morals, beauty, the arts, purpose and meaning of life, love, happiness etc, etc. If you try to explain those things with science, then you get to “scientism”.

I also think that the ultimate existence of space, time, matter and energy is unexplainable, although Lawrence Krauss and other cosmologists try to convince us about “a universe from nothing”.

And, of course, science will never have anything to say about what’s beyond our natural world. Atheist will tell you that there is nothing beyond the physical world, but they can never use science to prove that. Many try to, and can be very persuasive (that’s where your propaganda comes in). They rely on people’s ignorance about the limits of science.

When I say science, I refer to the “hard” sciences: physics, chemistry, biology, geology etc. The “soft” sciences are somewhat different. In psychology, for example, you describe human behavior and its causes and I see that as quite different to, say causes in physics.

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

In theory, science can never give us “facts”, because the knowledge it gives us is based on induction. Induction can never lead to “absolute truth”. That’s what a philosopher will tell you. But in normal life we have facts. For example, things are made out of atoms. We can call this a fact. There is such an overwhelming amount of evidence for that, that it becomes “intellectually dishonest” to question that (here comes again the phrase you dislike).

Yes, I also believe that God is the ultimate causal agent. Science has nothing to say about that. And that’s not a failure or shortcoming of science.

I am still scratching my head thinking about your connection between evolution, advertising, selling and propaganda?! I remember hearing about Richard Dawkins running an advertisement campaign on London buses. Is that what you mean?

 

[Hans_W]

I’m actually quite optimistic that science will advance to the point that the supernatural can be put under the proverbial microscope.

For once, I agree with TEPO here. If you can put the supernatural under a microscope it will cease to be supernatural. But you might want to say that things we once considered as supernatural have now been shown to have a natural cause.

 

[Kaninchen]

In theory, science can never give us “facts”, because the knowledge it gives us is based on induction

Or not, as us Popperians would be prone to argue.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

But you might want to say that things we once considered as supernatural have now been shown to have a natural cause.

That’s more or less what I meant but it does make me wonder. Where is the real line then?

 

[Monkey1976]

For once, I agree with TEPO here. If you can put the supernatural under a microscope it will cease to be supernatural. But you might want to say that things we once considered as supernatural have now been shown to have a natural cause.

Arthur C. Clarke:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic

 

[RACJ]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans W View Post
For once, I agree with TEPO here. If you can put the supernatural under a microscope it will cease to be supernatural. But you might want to say that things we once considered as supernatural have now been shown to have a natural cause.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur C. Clarke
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic

This is the problem I have with naturalists. First, even assuming that macro-evolution from protozoa to man is true, (which I reject), the processes that make systems work actually IS magic. But we don’t call it such because we can see them every day in operation. We do not understand how and why it all comes together, just so.
Evolutionists ASSUME that nature simply had to be, without really marveling at why. Watch a spider buld a web. or a hummingbird hover, and realize that our intelligence comapred to that of God is microscopic.

 

[TEPO]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans W View Post
For once, I agree with TEPO here. If you can put the supernatural under a microscope it will cease to be supernatural. But you might want to say that things we once considered as supernatural have now been shown to have a natural cause.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur C. Clarke
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic

This is the problem I have with naturalists. First, even assuming that macro-evolution from protozoa to man is true, (which I reject), the processes that make systems work actually IS magic. But we don’t call it such because we can see them every day in operation. We do not understand how and why it all comes together, just so.
Evolutionists ASSUME that nature simply had to be, without really marveling at why. Watch a spider buld a web. or a hummingbird hover, and realize that our intelligence comapred to that of God is microscopic.

Could there be a way to view this “magic” as a force within the light of physics though? That’s my question… Through comparing anthropology and evolution -we could IMO. Instead of starting from the back, it would be starting from the front and then ‘tracing’ it back. That might work.

…but this wouldn’t undo evolution -it would merely add to it by clearing up the ‘randomness’ factor that seems to have been misconstrued through assumption and lack of a means to prove it using scientific methods. This is new.

…if we opened up an entirely new door within science we could change the way the world views life, and take the lead in a very productive way by adding new knowledge to other fields of science.

 

[RACJ]

Could there be a way to view this “magic” as a force within the light of physics though? That’s my question… Through comparing anthropology and evolution -we could IMO. Instead of starting from the back, it would be starting from the front and then ‘tracing’ it back. That might work.

…but this wouldn’t undo evolution -it would merely add to it by clearing up the ‘randomness’ factor that seems to have been misconstrued through assumption and lack of a means to prove it using scientific methods. This is new.

…if we opened up an entirely new door within science we could change the way the world views life, and take the lead in a very productive way by adding new knowledge to other fields of science.

There is no “magic” within the light of physics. God created physics. That’s why everything works. Nothing exists on its own, outside the design of God. Did you ever wonder why the freezing, melting and boiling points of water fall exactly where humans can utilize them, and life can exist? Or why the sun is perfectly positioned in relation to us, or why the earth’s tilt and rotation are suited for life? Or why the moon is the exact distance away from us to allow for total solar eclipses, which in turn has allowed scientists to test theories of physics.
Wherever you look, if you are observant, you see intelligent design. Rob

 

[edwest2]

There is no “magic” within the light of physics. God created physics. That’s why everything works. Nothing exists on its own, outside the design of God. Did you ever wonder why the freezing, melting and boiling points of water fall exactly where humans can utilize them, and life can exist? Or why the sun is perfectly positioned in relation to us, or why the earth’s tilt and rotation are suited for life? Or why the moon is the exact distance away from us to allow for total solar eclipses, which in turn has allowed scientists to test theories of physics.
Wherever you look, if you are observant, you see intelligent design. Rob

I agree. Intelligent design is the answer. Life does not just look like it’s designed, it was designed. Fortunately, Christians have the critical knowledge we need, and all people need, to understand reality as it is.

Peace,
Ed