yet what you miss is, even religion can be studied scientifically which opens the door for it to be included in the science classroom and not violate the constitution.However, we have a constitution which bars the use of public property or any government facility to promote any religion.
Inteligent Design
Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters
-
Guest
-
Minimalist
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16033
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
No, it can't.
People like you scream bloody murder when science shows that your fairy tales are just that.
Better to leave it hidden in the closet.
People like you scream bloody murder when science shows that your fairy tales are just that.
Better to leave it hidden in the closet.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
-- George Carlin
-- George Carlin
-
Guest
-
Guest
it is time for more bedtime reading and here are some more quotes from the book---The Battle of Beginnings by Dr. Del Ratzsch, PHD. Now these are just quotes and to get the full picture you should read the book.
"In 1984 the NAS pulished 'the view from the NAS' intended toclarify several key isues in the creation-evolution dispute...The characterization of science given, was seriously confused, evenbizarre, roughly Popperian picture" pg. 158
"Note, incidentally, that if Popperism were correct, advocates of evolutionary theory ought to be trying ferociously to falisfy evolutionary theory, since on that view proper science consists of attempts to subject bold theories to stringent, potentially falsifying tests." pg. 159
"In 1985, largely in response to creationism, the NSTA board of directors endorsed the follwoing three criteria taht any theory must meet to be included inthe'system of science'. a. the theory can explain what has been observed; b. the theory can predict what has not yet been observed; c. the theory can be tested by further experimentation and modified as new data are acquired. There are of course problems here. First, as we have seen, no theory ever explains all of the releventdata, andvirtually every theory, including creation science, can provide explanations for some portion of the data. Second, ...creation science does produce empirical predictions...third...But in any casecreationist thoeries change as well." pg. 159
"Overton, in his 1982 decision striking down the arkansas "balanced treatment" legislation, adopted as a first approximation the position of science is whatever is 'accepted by thescientific community'. If that is all there is to it,then the old objectivity aim of science isin rather serious jeoprdy. A self-certified group of humans--not nature-- becomes the final arbiter of science. Worse yet,from theperspective of those wqho oppose creationism, should some future socialogical tidal wave,political swing, massive fundeamentalist revival or selectivie natural disaster result inthe bulk of the scientific community holding creationist positions, thenon this definition creationism would be scienc." pg. 160
"Overton's criteria would rule significant and crucial parts ofpresent physics outof science. clearly something is not right here." pg. 161
According to the NSCE introduction in 1989 written by isaac asimov---"So data are utterly independent andobjective. They are gathered with no preconceptions,prior theories or the like...With thepossible exception of the point of tentativity, the view presented is very nearly straight 1620s Bacon, and virtually every one of the cliams isseriously confused, for reasons discussed in chapter 8." pg. 162
"Science is forced to function as if there is no such ting as the supernatural." pg.162
"In addition, science as practiced in modern times is necessarily naturalistic...Explanations founded on miracles cannot be allowed." pg. 163
"Of course one may impose any rules or restrictionson the investigationof nature that one wishes. After all, science is a human pursuit, andwe humans are the ones doing it. But why this particular restriction?" pg. 163
continued in next post....
"In 1984 the NAS pulished 'the view from the NAS' intended toclarify several key isues in the creation-evolution dispute...The characterization of science given, was seriously confused, evenbizarre, roughly Popperian picture" pg. 158
"Note, incidentally, that if Popperism were correct, advocates of evolutionary theory ought to be trying ferociously to falisfy evolutionary theory, since on that view proper science consists of attempts to subject bold theories to stringent, potentially falsifying tests." pg. 159
"In 1985, largely in response to creationism, the NSTA board of directors endorsed the follwoing three criteria taht any theory must meet to be included inthe'system of science'. a. the theory can explain what has been observed; b. the theory can predict what has not yet been observed; c. the theory can be tested by further experimentation and modified as new data are acquired. There are of course problems here. First, as we have seen, no theory ever explains all of the releventdata, andvirtually every theory, including creation science, can provide explanations for some portion of the data. Second, ...creation science does produce empirical predictions...third...But in any casecreationist thoeries change as well." pg. 159
"Overton, in his 1982 decision striking down the arkansas "balanced treatment" legislation, adopted as a first approximation the position of science is whatever is 'accepted by thescientific community'. If that is all there is to it,then the old objectivity aim of science isin rather serious jeoprdy. A self-certified group of humans--not nature-- becomes the final arbiter of science. Worse yet,from theperspective of those wqho oppose creationism, should some future socialogical tidal wave,political swing, massive fundeamentalist revival or selectivie natural disaster result inthe bulk of the scientific community holding creationist positions, thenon this definition creationism would be scienc." pg. 160
"Overton's criteria would rule significant and crucial parts ofpresent physics outof science. clearly something is not right here." pg. 161
According to the NSCE introduction in 1989 written by isaac asimov---"So data are utterly independent andobjective. They are gathered with no preconceptions,prior theories or the like...With thepossible exception of the point of tentativity, the view presented is very nearly straight 1620s Bacon, and virtually every one of the cliams isseriously confused, for reasons discussed in chapter 8." pg. 162
"Science is forced to function as if there is no such ting as the supernatural." pg.162
"In addition, science as practiced in modern times is necessarily naturalistic...Explanations founded on miracles cannot be allowed." pg. 163
"Of course one may impose any rules or restrictionson the investigationof nature that one wishes. After all, science is a human pursuit, andwe humans are the ones doing it. But why this particular restriction?" pg. 163
continued in next post....
-
Guest
continued from previous post....
"For instance, Strahler's third sentence is this: 'By universe i mean everything that can be observed and described by humans with reasonable assurance and general agreement that what is being observed exists as some recognizable form of matter or energy.' So what we humans cannot observe is just not part of the uiverse." pg.164
"Some well-known attempts have been made to establish that religion has had a powerful negative effect on science, but contemporary historians of science see that work as more propaganda than sober history." pg. 165
"And incidentally, some pretty respectable scientists deliberately built theological constraints intotheir scientific theorizing. Newton....Maxwell...Boyle...Pasteur rejected spontaneous generation in part on theological grounds. Herschel's theories concerning the natureof nebulae had direct links to his theology, And such theorizing was often productive and fruitful." pg. 166
"For while we can indeed impose whatsoever restrictions we wish, what we cannot do is then without furether argument claimthat the results of following those restrictions willbe truth, approximate truth, self-correction or anything of the sort." pg.167
"...cannot both put a priori restrictions on science and claim that theresults reflect reality. If nature itself violates those restrictions,the results are going to be wrong." pg. 167
"Some people have recognized that confining science to naturalism would nearly guarantee that some truths were forever beyond science shouyld it turnout that supernatural events or processes did at times intersect the empirical world...Niles Eldredge...Douglas Futuyma...Michael Ruse." pg. 168
"So if, say, we want to know about origins, and if the truth is supernatural, that truth cannot be part of our science,even if we had some alternative rational access to that truth."
" But what one cannot reasonably do is to stipulate naturalistic restrictions on science by definition and simultaneously just assume that any and all truths about the cosmos around us must necessarily fall within the limits of those restrictions, or that anything produced under those restrictions is truth." pg.169
"But we have seen that it is not true that empirical scientific method cannot deal with things beyond the realm of human observation as such, since sceince routinely deals with all manner of unobservable theoretical entities, events and processes." pg.169
"So we confront nature with integrated conceptual systems. To the extent that nonempirical factors...are inescapably built into our scientific structures...So the empirical and the nonempirical can interact, and both can be altered by means of their mutual incorporation into our human constructions." pg. 170
"Creation Science is Really Disguised Religion"
"Even if true, it establishes that creationism cannot be proper science only if being religious or a religion automatically disqualifies something fromalso being proper science." pg.171
"Creation Science is Ultimately Based on Scripture"
This objection, however, carries no real weight. Suppose that it is true. That wuld mean at ost that the source of creationist theories was religous. It would not at all imply that the theories themselves were religious and not scientific." pg. 172
"Of course, one could argue, that that is the only reason creationists hold their theories, that there is virtually no empirical evidence for them, and masses of evidences against them. But even if that is true, tha has to do only with whether or not the theory is well supported empirically--not with whether or not the theory fails to fit the category scientific." pg. 172
"Creation Science is MOtivated Solely bya Religious Agenda"
"That would not in any way establish that the theories themselves were not legitimately scientific. Newton's stated motive in constructing some of his theories was to promote belief in God. The stated motive of some Enlightenment thnkers in adopting Newtonian theories was to destroy religion." pg. 173
"Creation Theories Are Not Held Tentatively"
"Indeed, the NCSE claims that having such a firm grip on one's views disqualifies them not only from being genuinely scientific but even from being genuine theories. It is reletively easy to see why this objection is misguided. First, mopst who voice this objection misconceive the normal operationof science,having missed the principle of tenacity,discussed earlier. But more immediately, it is surely not the fault of the theory thatit inspires such dogged loyalty. One can hold any thoery in an inappropriate way,but that says something about the holder--not about the theory. Some hold evolution far from tentatively, and perhaps far more frimly than they ought." pg. 173
"Creationists Never Change Their Views"
The two biggest problems here are that the underlying philosophy of science is not quite as straightforward as apparently thought,and the claim about creationism is simply mistaken. As we saw earlier inthe discussion of the principle of tenacity,scientists often hang on to theories for surprising lengths of time." pg. 174
" How can one declare the basic idea of evolution to be beyond rational challenge on the one hand, yet avoid having evolution being thereby scientifically disqualified for not being sufficiently tentative and subject to change on the other?" pg.175
"A Final Note"
The popular philosophy-of-science objections raised against creationism do not work." pg. 179
"For instance, Strahler's third sentence is this: 'By universe i mean everything that can be observed and described by humans with reasonable assurance and general agreement that what is being observed exists as some recognizable form of matter or energy.' So what we humans cannot observe is just not part of the uiverse." pg.164
"Some well-known attempts have been made to establish that religion has had a powerful negative effect on science, but contemporary historians of science see that work as more propaganda than sober history." pg. 165
"And incidentally, some pretty respectable scientists deliberately built theological constraints intotheir scientific theorizing. Newton....Maxwell...Boyle...Pasteur rejected spontaneous generation in part on theological grounds. Herschel's theories concerning the natureof nebulae had direct links to his theology, And such theorizing was often productive and fruitful." pg. 166
"For while we can indeed impose whatsoever restrictions we wish, what we cannot do is then without furether argument claimthat the results of following those restrictions willbe truth, approximate truth, self-correction or anything of the sort." pg.167
"...cannot both put a priori restrictions on science and claim that theresults reflect reality. If nature itself violates those restrictions,the results are going to be wrong." pg. 167
"Some people have recognized that confining science to naturalism would nearly guarantee that some truths were forever beyond science shouyld it turnout that supernatural events or processes did at times intersect the empirical world...Niles Eldredge...Douglas Futuyma...Michael Ruse." pg. 168
"So if, say, we want to know about origins, and if the truth is supernatural, that truth cannot be part of our science,even if we had some alternative rational access to that truth."
" But what one cannot reasonably do is to stipulate naturalistic restrictions on science by definition and simultaneously just assume that any and all truths about the cosmos around us must necessarily fall within the limits of those restrictions, or that anything produced under those restrictions is truth." pg.169
"But we have seen that it is not true that empirical scientific method cannot deal with things beyond the realm of human observation as such, since sceince routinely deals with all manner of unobservable theoretical entities, events and processes." pg.169
"So we confront nature with integrated conceptual systems. To the extent that nonempirical factors...are inescapably built into our scientific structures...So the empirical and the nonempirical can interact, and both can be altered by means of their mutual incorporation into our human constructions." pg. 170
"Creation Science is Really Disguised Religion"
"Even if true, it establishes that creationism cannot be proper science only if being religious or a religion automatically disqualifies something fromalso being proper science." pg.171
"Creation Science is Ultimately Based on Scripture"
This objection, however, carries no real weight. Suppose that it is true. That wuld mean at ost that the source of creationist theories was religous. It would not at all imply that the theories themselves were religious and not scientific." pg. 172
"Of course, one could argue, that that is the only reason creationists hold their theories, that there is virtually no empirical evidence for them, and masses of evidences against them. But even if that is true, tha has to do only with whether or not the theory is well supported empirically--not with whether or not the theory fails to fit the category scientific." pg. 172
"Creation Science is MOtivated Solely bya Religious Agenda"
"That would not in any way establish that the theories themselves were not legitimately scientific. Newton's stated motive in constructing some of his theories was to promote belief in God. The stated motive of some Enlightenment thnkers in adopting Newtonian theories was to destroy religion." pg. 173
"Creation Theories Are Not Held Tentatively"
"Indeed, the NCSE claims that having such a firm grip on one's views disqualifies them not only from being genuinely scientific but even from being genuine theories. It is reletively easy to see why this objection is misguided. First, mopst who voice this objection misconceive the normal operationof science,having missed the principle of tenacity,discussed earlier. But more immediately, it is surely not the fault of the theory thatit inspires such dogged loyalty. One can hold any thoery in an inappropriate way,but that says something about the holder--not about the theory. Some hold evolution far from tentatively, and perhaps far more frimly than they ought." pg. 173
"Creationists Never Change Their Views"
The two biggest problems here are that the underlying philosophy of science is not quite as straightforward as apparently thought,and the claim about creationism is simply mistaken. As we saw earlier inthe discussion of the principle of tenacity,scientists often hang on to theories for surprising lengths of time." pg. 174
" How can one declare the basic idea of evolution to be beyond rational challenge on the one hand, yet avoid having evolution being thereby scientifically disqualified for not being sufficiently tentative and subject to change on the other?" pg.175
"A Final Note"
The popular philosophy-of-science objections raised against creationism do not work." pg. 179
-
Minimalist
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16033
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
"Creationists Never Change Their Views"
I've heard that they rarely change their underwear, too!
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
-- George Carlin
-- George Carlin
-
Guest
-
Minimalist
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16033
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
You are still laboring under the misapprehension that your bible based drivel is worthy of rational reply.
Magic does not want to be disproved by science...it wants to remain magic.
Magic does not want to be disproved by science...it wants to remain magic.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
-- George Carlin
-- George Carlin
-
Guest
-
Minimalist
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16033
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
You don't believe that....you still think that some vainglorious petty god is up there watching you every minute of the day.
That is MAGIC.
That is MAGIC.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
-- George Carlin
-- George Carlin
-
Guest
-
Minimalist
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16033
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
That's what I said.
You aren't one of those "rapture" clowns, are you?
You aren't one of those "rapture" clowns, are you?
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
-- George Carlin
-- George Carlin
-
Guest
i believe that the rapture will happen, but i am not one of the clowns who do stupid things like that. i find that t-shirt and similar articles disrespectful and too childish. there is far too much work to be done to clown around and undermine one's purpose.You aren't one of those "rapture" clowns, are you?
people who wear t-shirts like that are not serious about their faith nor are they very strong christians. they are just people who do not have the love for their fellow man as Christ said we should.
too often, the church is looking for an escape hatch, when in reality, they need to roll up their sleeves and get to work.
-
Guest
as for dr. ratzsch, it does not matter if he is a christian or not. if you use one's religion as a qualifier then all you will hear is what you want to hear. being told what you want to hear doesn't promote thinking or growth, it just keeps you stagnated.
for your information, i hve repeatedly said that i read non-religious books as most evangelical ones do not investigate as well nor find the evidence that many non-religious researchers do and find. evangelical books sacrifice information, investigation, research and solid thinking for the purpose of using the topic to give another salvation message.
instead of helping believers grow, they stagnate them with the continuous use of the great commission. it is very disappointing. at least ratzsch was able to explore the topic, quite objectively, without resorting to that technique. you should read the book, you will be quite surprised at what he says.
for your information, i hve repeatedly said that i read non-religious books as most evangelical ones do not investigate as well nor find the evidence that many non-religious researchers do and find. evangelical books sacrifice information, investigation, research and solid thinking for the purpose of using the topic to give another salvation message.
instead of helping believers grow, they stagnate them with the continuous use of the great commission. it is very disappointing. at least ratzsch was able to explore the topic, quite objectively, without resorting to that technique. you should read the book, you will be quite surprised at what he says.
-
Minimalist
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16033
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
As I learned just the other day, the whole rapture thng was conjured up by some English preacher in the 1830's.
It, thus, barely pre-dates French Fries.
It, thus, barely pre-dates French Fries.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
-- George Carlin
-- George Carlin