Your post is interesting, but permit me to note that the topic of this thread is not on God but on Intelligent Design in particular.
This has zero to do with science and engineering. Right now, American scientists are leading the world in nanotechnology. This is just fear-mongering.
You say don’t conflate religion with anti-science, but as US schools don’t ‘teach’ religion, the anti-science must come from the teachings of the fundamentalist churches. I’m just saying they’re too literal and seem to be searching for clear-cut simplicity. Your and my views on religion will differ hugely but I have no problems with your beliefs if you embrace scientific enquiry! Like I said, Catholicism never clashed with my science education.Do not conflate religion with anti-science, or science with anti-religion.
There is nothing in either that precludes the other, as my family of scientists, doctors, civil engineers and teachers could tell you.
Personally I am, like the Catholic church, enthusiastic to see humanity discover more about our world using the tools at our disposal - physical sciences being some of the exciting ones. One of the things that fascinates me at the moment is how our science gives us tantalising hints about the what the nature of God would have to encompass, how our universe was created etc.
There is nothing to intelligent design that need preclude any scientific explanation.
God created it all. This does not preclude wanting to know every fact we can ethically uncover about it!
The cultures in the US and in Europe/UK are different. Here in the US, we spring from people who wanted to continue to be reigious in their own way. In Europe, there was a constant push to get away from religion. Then the World Wars totally devastated Europe and parts of England, which caused an existential despair, while in the US, few of us were exposed to the realities of those wars.
I believe there are different versions (or dresses) of ID. The question, to me, is what is the intent of those who are pushing it? Conservatives are always talking about leftist, atheist, secular, and gay agendas; what about a conservative, religious agenda in this case?
Well that’s not good is it?? A purely emotional self defence against something they don’t understand, instead of a rational response to knowledge?
You make it sound like we are like sheep in following a ‘fashionable’ idea - and are not skeptical too!!! I’m not sure what you mean about not being philosophical? Science is not philosophical - altho’ I guess people get philosophical about what science finds out!
What do you think about Krauss and Nye’s point that teaching of psuedo science will hold back American children in the future as they have to compete with the rest of the world, who will have a better understanding of the natural world.?
I watched it. I think the video maker was so intent on pulling Bill’s video apart he missed the point.
I suppose I am talking about the various forms of ID and creationism in the sense of the alternatives to evolution. But in particular, why are these theories so prevalent in the US, that scientists (e.g. Nye) express a concern that it will hold america’s children back, and krauss believes it is tantamount to child abuse to teach pseudo science.
Do Americans feel that by having people that believe in ID and Creationism that that helps prevent a perceived threat to civilization? Surely, ‘knowledge’ should not be used that way. That is a form of indoctrination. But is that true, I would love to hear other views.Simple, it’s a reaction to all the Dawkins sorts of jerks in the world who have attempted to hijack science and use it as a weapon against religion. It can only be used that way by dishonest men. People who hold religious convictions sometimes over-react and reject science, not just the hijackers of science. I honestly had a biology professor in a Big Ten university formally teach in a 101 level class that modern biology factually disproved the existence of God. Men like that give science a bad name.
Here’s the problem. Science has been an excellent servant of mankind for a millenia and has tremendously helped us answer the “what, where, when, how” questions that life poses. Divine revelation (Scripture and Sacred Tradition) has always provided the best answers for “who and why” questions.
In the distant past, some churchmen made the mistake of trying to force revelation to answer “how and what” types of questions. But God hasn’t revealed much of those sorts of things, so horrible mistakes can and have been made by men who thought they had revealed answers to those questions when they didn’t.
Today, similar and WORSE mistakes are being made by men who have rejected God and are trying to make science competent to answer “who and why” questions. This is where the horrors of Eugenics and Marxism came from (and why secularists rarely question abortion, embryonic experimentation and other modern horrors).
So while Nye is in part right to worry about the threat posed by fundamentalism, he’s ignoring the even greater threat posed by the scientismists (possibly because he is one). Both are dangerous sorts of fellows. Just look where it’s going. It’s VERY short step between proclaiming certain sorts of religious parenting to be “abusive” to enforcing a state directive to remove children from homes with such “unfit parents.” If you really believe a behavior is abusive, calling DCFS in is the logical next step. So who’s the bigger threat to civilization, Krauss or the Creationists?
I would assume that the scientists that are involved in verifying miracles see evidence of some extra-scientific activity (they are not all Christians or even believers in God). The problem with miracles is that they are not repeatable. And the scientific method looks for repeatable, experimental activity so they can control the (name removed by moderator)ut parameters and provide a framework to explain the outcome.
It’s a response to something they understand all too well - a culture war. It has nothing to do with scientific thought and it in no way prevents students from learning actual science. Americans are simply tired of pseudo-scientific bullying of which Darwinism as presented in school is very much a part. Since you are from the UK you perhaps are not familiar with our public schools. They were designed with one purpose - to turn out “good citizens”. Once a student catches on that his elders are full of beans, he can’t help but look for flatulence everywhere - including in evolution as popularly explained or personified by Darwin, for example.
