Jump to content


Photo

Should Id Be Included In Science?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
143 replies to this topic

#41 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 17 May 2005 - 02:45 PM

Its not the application of the scientific method.  Its an educated guess based on physical evidence, and nothing more.  Given that, its safe to say that we've established that we've moved into the area of a judicial proceeding, and not a scientific one.
This is bad judgment on our part as a society, and in no way supports your position.
Whatever,......


Are you saying that if someone is accused of raping a women that all DNA evidence, fiber evidence, and fingerprint evidence should be thrown out?

What I don't like is one sided materialistic interpretations/presentations of evidence in what are essentially judicial, non-scientific, proceedings.


Science is the method of interpreting evidence through methodological naturalism. ID is the method of interpreting evidence through methodological supernaturalism. The two can't be mixed. If you don't like science, fine, I'm not telling you that you have to like it. That people are found guilty through scientific evidence is a fact. It doesn't matter whether or not scientific evidence is used in court. What matters is that it is scientific evidence that is used to reconstruct past events. If I were to use methodological supernaturalism I could claim that a demon planted the DNA. I don't see that line of evidence entered into court very often. The reason is that science has shown itself as being trustworthy whereas supernaturalism is inherently flawed in consistently describing reality.

Special creation has not met any such fate, or a young earth.  The only reason its viewed that way in the scientific community is becuase of materlialistic bias, and no other.


It has met such a fate within the realm of science. There is a bias in science, a bias towards naturalistic, not materialistic, mechanisms. If you don't like what science concludes then abandon science. However, don't try and insert non-natural (ie supernatural) causes into science and pretend that it is legitimate science.

The Bible is a written testimony, from beginning to end, of what The Lord Jesus has to say to the world about everything.  Allowing biblical accounts in the classroom is no diferent than allowing the Lord himself.


I am not here to tell you what to believe in. What I am arguing is that ID and creationism fail as science and should not be taught as science. However, they work well in philosophy and theology.

We've established that the realm of assessing the earth's history is essentially a judicial proceeding, and less of a scientific one. Eyewitness accounts from credible people are highly valuable in judicial proceedings.


I think you have confused my points. Forensic science is a historical science that is accepted by the public as good science. Forensic science is USED by the judiciary branch of this country. However, it is still a science in itself. Thus, it is publicly accepted that the scientific method can reconstruct past events through the evidence left in the present. This is the type of scientific inquiry that supports the theory of evolution. Eyewitness accounts are considered the lowest form of evidence in science, and for good reason. DNA, fingerprints, and fibers can not be biased, but testimony can be, either intentionally or due to psychological factors. That is why every scientific study tries to quantitate it's results instead of relying on subjective opinion, such as that found in eyewitness testimony.

IMO, this is a good example of how evolution has poluted science.  As long as its fits the evolutionary paradigm, even guess work qualifies as science, and that is a sad state of affairs.


Until anyone can use evidence found in the natural world that falsifies evolution then science will continue to use it. There are speculative evolutionary pathways that are bandied about, but they are clearly labelled as just that.

You use the word "speculation" quite a bit. By speculation do you mean "not knowing absolutely" or "without any positive evidence to support the claim"?

#42 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 May 2005 - 03:27 PM

This method uses evidence in the here and now to reconstruct the past, and it's scientific merit and accuracy is strong enough to be allowed in cases where a person's life may be in the balance.  If science alone is enough to convict someone of a capital offense then why isn't it enough to reconstruct ecosystems in the past?

Are you saying that if someone is accused of raping a women that all DNA evidence, fiber evidence, and fingerprint evidence should be thrown out?


I think this is a clear example of how not to have an decent discussion. You mention capital offense, and when I say that I don't beleive forensic evidence is enough to put people to death with(and generally speaking I don't), you change the topic and essentially try to put words in my mouth.

The same can be said for your whole argument against teaching ID in schools. You don't like it, but its just because you want to play the game with the rules rigged to continue the kangaroo court that the "scientific community" has become.

You've as much admitted that historical science is not subject to the scientific method. Consequently, its subject to peoples judgement, and their bias. The state enforcing a one sided framework/argument of the interpreation of historical science is nothing more than state religion, its all based on philosophical presuppositions, and it should be stopped.

Either give opposing views to naturalisitic/materialistic interpretations of scientific data, or only teach that which is truly subject to the scientific method. To do otherwise is unfair.

I think I've said all I have to say here, so you can lave the last word as far as I'm concerned.

Terry

#43 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 18 May 2005 - 09:38 AM

I think this is a clear example of how not to have an decent discussion.  You mention capital offense, and when I say that I don't beleive forensic evidence is enough to put people to death with(and generally speaking I don't), you change the topic and essentially try to put words in my mouth.


So you won't answer the question? Should all physical and forensic evidence be thrown out of every case brought before a jury, no matter if it is armed robbery or first degree murder? Or can I use the ID approach and proclaim that a supernatural designer planted the evidence?

The same can be said for your whole argument against teaching ID in schools.  You don't like it, but its just because you want to play the game with the rules rigged to continue the kangaroo court that the "scientific community" has become.


If a theory does not use methodological naturalism then the theory is not science. That is the criterium, always has been the criterium, and hopefully always will be the criterium. This is true for ALL of the sciences, not just biology. The "kangaroo court" is the one in Kansas, where non-scientists want to redefine what the age old definition of science because of their religious beliefs.

You've as much admitted that historical science is not subject to the scientific method.


Could you please point to where I said that?

I have always claimed that historical events can be reconstructed by applying the scientific method to the evidence left in the present by the historical event. This applies to every branch of science, from astrology to zoology.

  Consequently, its subject to peoples judgement, and their bias.


No, it is subject to methodological naturalism which removes bias by relying on empirical, repeatable evidence.

Either give opposing views to naturalisitic/materialistic interpretations of scientific data, or only teach that which is truly subject to the scientific method.  To do otherwise is unfair.


No one is stopping kids from going to church. The establishment of religious studies in public schools has been judged to be in violation of the constitution. Also, including supernatural mechanisms in science is not allowed within the discipline of science.

I think I've said all I have to say here, so you can lave the last word as far as I'm concerned.


Ok, O'Reilly.:)

#44 hooberus

hooberus

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Kansas

Posted 19 May 2005 - 04:56 AM

The "kangaroo court" is the one in Kansas, where non-scientists want to redefine what the age old definition of science because of their religious beliefs.


Actually the current definition of "science" in the Kansas science standards is flawed (nor do I think that it is truely the "age old definition of science")

I believe that the current definition of "Science" in the Kansas Standards is:

"Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us."

To illustrate the flaw in the above definition, lets say that a new observer used this "definition of science" to seek the "explanation" for something like the Great Pyramid in Egypt. They would thus limit themselves to only "naturalistic explanations" for this structure (ie: various geological and erosional processes). They may even come up with the best "natural explanation" for the sandstone structure. However they would probably miss its true explanation (ie: creation).

#45 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 19 May 2005 - 09:06 AM

Actually the current definition of "science" in the Kansas science standards is flawed (nor do I think that it is truely the "age old definition of science")

I believe that the current definition of "Science" in the Kansas Standards is:

"Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us."


Actually, they want it changed to the following:

"a systematic method of continuing investigation"

This reveals their true colors. They want naturalism thrown out of science so that ID can be taught.

To illustrate the flaw in the above definition, lets say that a new observer used this "definition of science" to seek the "explanation" for something like the Great Pyramid in Egypt. They would thus limit themselves to only "naturalistic explanations" for this structure (ie: various geological and erosional processes). They may even come up with the best "natural explanation" for the sandstone structure. However they would probably miss its true explanation (ie: creation).

View Post


Last I checked, humans are natural beings who are limited to natural laws. The Great Pyramid is as non-natural as a bird's nest.

#46 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 19 May 2005 - 01:30 PM

"Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us."

To illustrate the flaw in the above definition, lets say that a new observer used this "definition of science" to seek the "explanation" for something like the Great Pyramid in Egypt. They would thus limit themselves to only "naturalistic explanations" for this structure (ie: various geological and erosional processes). They may even come up with the best "natural explanation" for the sandstone structure. However they would probably miss its true explanation (ie: creation).

View Post


I seriously doubt that a scientific investigation would miss the creation aspect of man made objects like the Egyptian Pyramids, too many straight lines, tool marks, construction materials out of place,etc.

#47 hooberus

hooberus

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Kansas

Posted 19 May 2005 - 02:37 PM

Actually, they want it changed to the following:

"a systematic method of continuing investigation"

This reveals their true colors. They want naturalism thrown out of science so that ID can be taught.


I don't think that the proposed revised standards necessarily through "naturalism" (as in "naturalistic explanations") "out of science", but instead they don't pre-dictate that "naturalistic explanations" are the only acceptable conclusions to scientific studies.


Last I checked, humans are natural beings who are limited to natural laws. The Great Pyramid is as non-natural as a bird's nest.


While the Great Pyramid was probably created by beings that exist in the natural world and is itself made of "naturalistic" materials, the fact also remains that such a formation is decidely not a naturalistic formation in that intelligence and effort were probably required to build such a structure (mere natural laws and processes do not in our experience assemble sandstone into such structures).

#48 hooberus

hooberus

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Kansas

Posted 19 May 2005 - 02:53 PM

I seriously doubt that a scientific investigation would miss the creation aspect of man made objects like the Egyptian Pyramids, too many straight lines, tool marks, construction materials out of place,etc.


If they followed the definition of science in the above "standards" they might reply:

"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."

#49 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 19 May 2005 - 03:00 PM

If they followed the definition of science in the above "standards" they might reply:

"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."

View Post


Not at all. The difference between science and ID is that ID requires a SUPERNATURAL designer, and an unevidenced one at that.

I say this because of the following argument put forth by ID supporters:

1. Life can not come about through abiogenesis.

2. Therefore, Life had to come about through design.

This is a huge problem because this means that the first Designer has to be supernatural in origin. The same applies for the information argument as well. As soon as ID supporters state that abiogenesis could create life, then there is no reason to suspect that this did not happen on Earth. Therefore, ID requires a supernatural mechanism.

The Pyramids, on the other hand, do not require a supernatural Designer. There is a natural designer (man) that is evidenced to have lived in that area during that time. Secondly, natural laws allow such a structure to be built with the technology present at that time. Nowhere in the descirption of the origin of the Pyramids do I have to subscribe to a supernatural mechanism. This is in stark contrast to ID, which requires the input of a supernatural Designer.

#50 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 19 May 2005 - 03:04 PM

I don't think that the proposed revised standards necessarily through "naturalism" (as in "naturalistic explanations") "out of science", but instead they don't pre-dictate that "naturalistic explanations" are the only acceptable conclusions to scientific studies.


If it is called "science" then it IS pre-dictated. That is what science is. Natural Mechanisms and Natural Laws ARE the only acceptable conclusions within science. If you don't like it then don't participate in science. However, this doesn't mean that you get to rewrite what science is in order to insert God into the equation.

While the Great Pyramid was probably created by beings that exist in the natural world and is itself made of "naturalistic" materials, the fact also remains that such a formation is decidely not a naturalistic formation in that intelligence and effort were probably required to build such a structure (mere natural laws and processes do not in our experience assemble sandstone into such structures).

View Post


With that in mind, does that mean a bird's nest is not naturalistic?

#51 hooberus

hooberus

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Kansas

Posted 19 May 2005 - 03:25 PM

If it is called "science" then it IS pre-dictated. That is what science is. Natural Mechanisms and Natural Laws ARE the only acceptable conclusions within science. If you don't like it then don't participate in science.


The definition of "science" that you are using (ie: one that only allows naturalistic conclusions) is not to be found in the latin word that "science" comes from ("scientia" - a latin word meaning "knowledge"), nor is it to be required in many dictionary definitions of the word "science"

http://www.nanoword....def/science.htm

Definition: The pursuit of knowledge and understanding, from the Latin term scientia, which means 'knowledge'.

#52 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 19 May 2005 - 03:33 PM

The definition of "science" that you are using (ie: one that only allows naturalistic conclusions) is not to be found in the latin word that "science" comes from ("scientia" - a latin word meaning "knowledge"), nor is it to be required in many dictionary definitions of the word "science"

http://www.nanoword....def/science.htm

Definition: The pursuit of knowledge and understanding, from the Latin term scientia, which means 'knowledge'.

View Post


"Science" is an English word. I go with the English definition. While it does COME from a greek word, it doesn't mean that "science" MUST mean the same thing.

From Merriam-Webster Online:

"3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE"

And what is the scientific method? Methodological naturalism, or "natural phenomena are best described through natural mechanisms".

This is the definition used by scientists, by science journals, and by the foundational principles of the naturalistic sciences.

#53 hooberus

hooberus

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Kansas

Posted 19 May 2005 - 05:46 PM

Using your definition of "science" intelligent design in origins would have to be excluded from science class even if it turned out to be overwhelmingly supported by the data. And abiogenesis (even if shown to be dubious) would still only be considered as possible "science".

#54 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 19 May 2005 - 06:21 PM

Using your definition of "science" intelligent design in origins would have to be excluded from science class even if it turned out to be overwhelmingly supported by the data. And abiogenesis (even if shown to be dubious) would still only be considered as possible "science".

View Post


Intelligent design by supernatural Designers would be excluded. Intelligent design by natural Designers is acceptable. By proclaiming that abiogenesis and information requires an intelliget source, the ID movement has put themselves into the supernatural Designer business.

Let me ask you this. Do you think science should allow supernatural explanations?

#55 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 19 May 2005 - 06:57 PM

If they followed the definition of science in the above "standards" they might reply:

"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."

View Post


I think you are confusing the terms, artificial not naturalistic, or synthetic (these are still all processes that do not break naturalistic ‘laws’) with supernatural.

#56 hooberus

hooberus

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Kansas

Posted 19 May 2005 - 08:25 PM

Let me ask you this. Do you think science should allow supernatural explanations?


Yes, in at least some circumstances. Some could possibly (though not necessarily) be:

If the item to be explained (ie: the origin of life, origin of photoreceptors, etc.) occurred in the unobserved past (and is not observed to be occurring today). Especially if natualistic explanations are found to be problematic.

If the item to be explained falls under origins science (ie: origin of photosynthesis) rather than merely operations science (ie: observed ongoing photosynthesis).

If a supernatural explanation provides a unifying theory (ie: common creator to explain biochemical universals). Especially if it is the only plausible alternative to the common descent explanation.

If a supernatural explanation is the only real plausible alternative for dubious naturalsitic hypothesis (such as abiogenesis).

If a supernatural explanation also provides a degree of testibility (such as expected systematic gaps between basic observed kinds) or predicts the continuous failure of attempted natualistic explanations (such as abiogenesis).

Keep in mind that the founders of many of our modern fields of sciences (including the "natural sciences"), though they explained the ongoing operations of life by natural processes-(such as photosynthesis), certainly did not exclude supernatural creation as a valid explanation for the origin of these things.


I have a few questions:

Do you think that creation by a supernatual being should be excluded from science even if it were known to be true?

Do you think that science should be the search for true explanations or merely the search for "naturalistic explanations" (even if ultimately untrue)?

#57 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 20 May 2005 - 08:57 AM

Yes, in at least some circumstances. Some could possibly (though not necessarily) be:

If the item to be explained (ie: the origin of life, origin of photoreceptors, etc.) occurred in the unobserved past (and is not observed to be occurring today). Especially if natualistic explanations are found to be problematic.


So I could hypothesize that little fairies were responsible for gravity prior to 1000 AD?

If the item to be explained falls under origins science (ie: origin of photosynthesis) rather than merely operations science (ie: observed ongoing photosynthesis).


So demons shaped rocks in the ground to look like fossils of transitional forms. This would be an allowable theory under methodological naturalism.

If a supernatural explanation provides a unifying theory (ie: common creator to explain biochemical universals). Especially if it is the only plausible alternative to the common descent explanation.


Evil spirits caused all diseases prior to 500 AD. The demons then left the world but put bacteria and viruses in their role.

If a supernatural explanation is the only real plausible alternative for dubious naturalsitic hypothesis (such as abiogenesis).


How do we know when a supernatural explanation is the only plausible alternative? The Greeks thought that Zeus was the only probable explanation for lightning. Does this mean that metereology is an anti-Zeus science meant to strip the ancient Greeks of their belief? Should we allow a supernatural origin for lightning during the era of the ancient Greek Societies?

If a supernatural explanation also provides a degree of testibility (such as expected systematic gaps between basic observed kinds) or predicts the continuous failure of attempted natualistic explanations (such as abiogenesis).


Are you saying that if Abiogenesis occurs in the lab that God doesn't exist?

Keep in mind that the founders of many of our modern fields of sciences (including the "natural sciences"), though they explained the ongoing  operations of life by natural processes-(such as photosynthesis), certainly did not exclude supernatural creation as a valid explanation for the origin of these things.


But not one of their theories requires the input of a supernatural force. Not one theory used in science today requires the input of a supernatural force. ID proponents and religious conservatives want to change that. It hasn't worked in the past, and I don't understand how it will work in this day and age.

I have a few questions:

Do you think that creation by a supernatual being should be excluded from science even if it were known to be true?


If it were known to be true we wouldn't need science. If supernatural input was happening on a regular basis then science would be falsified.

Do you think that science should be the search for true explanations or merely the search for "naturalistic explanations" (even if ultimately untrue)?

View Post


I think science should ALWAYS be the search for naturalistic explanations. Science is the only method that allows for testable theories. Supernatural explanations are not testable, they are simply articles of faith that depend on personal revelation. I think religion should ALWAYS be the search for theological and philosophical truths. I don't understand how the two can mix. If supernatural explanations were allowed into science then it would end all investigation. I work in infectious disease research. It would make my job a lot easier if I could blame disease on evil spirits, and it would answer all of the unanswered questions.

The entire history of science has shown one thing, that science has answered previously unanswerable questions. Over and over again, a deity is used to explain a natural phenomena and then that gap is filled in by a natural mechanism. Zeus and lightning is but one example. I think this trend frightens some within every religious faith. They feel that science is taking away their faith, that their natural icons of faith are being subverted by this evil machination called science. Others find that God laid out a universe that is there for us to investigate and discover, and the best tool for that search in the natural world is science.

#58 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 May 2005 - 04:33 AM

So I could hypothesize that little fairies were responsible for gravity prior to 1000 AD?


Little fairies and gravity are not pertinent to the discussion.

The question is whether scientific evidence better supports the concept that random naturalistic process created life, or whether or not an intelligent being created life.

We cannot demonstrate either one via the scientific method. We can look at the characteristics of life, and make a judicial case based on the forensic evidence, and draw our own conclusions. Evidence abounds that life was created by an intelligent being, e.g. the Information stored in DNA must have had a mental origin.

The Lord Jesus Christ is not a fairy. He is the supreme intelligence in the universe, and its not rediculous to consider if scientific evidence points toward the possiblity of him having created everything as the Bible teaches.

The only difference between you and a christian is that you worship nature, and your own intellect, where as a christian worships Christ.

Teaching evolution in public schools is no different than teaching christianity in sunday school. One is just a natrualistic religion, and the other is theistic.

How do we know when a supernatural explanation is the only plausible alternative?


When what we know demonstrates that naturalistic explanations are untenable. This where the current level of scientific understanding can bring just about any mind that is willing to think about it honestly. E.g. the out spoken atheist Antony Flew comming to the conclusion that life is too complext to have formed on its own through naturalistic processes.

The Greeks thought that Zeus was the only probable explanation for lightning.  Does this mean that metereology is an anti-Zeus science meant to strip the ancient Greeks of their belief?  Should we allow a supernatural origin for lightning during the era of the ancient Greek Societies?


The greek Anaximander also thought that life began in the water. Why should we except modern versions of greek mythology when we know that it could not have happened? At least the greeks had ignorance as an excuse.....

Anaximander

If it were known to be true we wouldn't need science.  If supernatural input was happening on a regular basis then science would be falsified.


Science is a fine thing as long as people understand its limits, and capabilities. Evolution is a dogma that extends both to reach a religious end.

I think religion should ALWAYS be the search for theological and philosophical truths.  I don't understand how the two can mix.  If supernatural explanations were allowed into science then it would end all investigation.  I work in infectious disease research.  It would make my job a lot easier if I could blame disease on evil spirits, and it would answer all of the unanswered questions. 


This is utterly absurd. Louis Pasteur also did a little work on infections and the like, and he was a creationist, and was opposed to Darwin's theory.

Pasteur saw no conflict between science and Christianity. In fact, he believed that ‘science brings men nearer to God’.6 In his work as a scientist, he perceived evidence of wisdom and design, not randomness and chaos. Pasteur stated that: ‘The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator’.7


Pasteur Info


Over and over again, a deity is used to explain a natural phenomena and then that gap is filled in by a natural mechanism.
Zeus and lightning is but one example.


Dispoving false religions, does not disprove the truth. I've yet to see the difference between Zeus and lightning, and Darwin's magic dust and evolution.

And as J. P. Moreland stated:

‘But some will object, “If we allowed appealing to God anytime we don’t understand something, then science itself would be impossible, for science proceeds on the assumption of natural causality.” This argument is a red herring. It is true that science is not compatible with just any form of theism, particularly a theism that holds to a capricious god who intervenes so often that the contrast between primary and secondary causality is unintelligible. But Christian theism holds that secondary causality is God’s usual mode and primary causality is infrequent, comparatively speaking. That is why Christianity, far from hindering the development of science, actually provided the womb for its birth and development.’


Moreland Link



The only answer given is that the "scientific community" believes in evolution. Believing is a statement of faith, and statements of faith should be left out of science class.

I think this trend frightens some within every religious faith.  They feel that science is taking away their faith, that their natural icons of faith are being subverted by this evil machination called science.


I believe that mankind is being misled by naturalistic religion under the guise of science.

Terry

#59 hooberus

hooberus

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Kansas

Posted 21 May 2005 - 04:52 AM

So I could hypothesize that little fairies were responsible for gravity prior to 1000 AD?


gravity is observed to be occurring today (as such it falls within the realm of operations science, not origins science). Here is my point again:

If the item to be explained (ie: the origin of life, origin of photoreceptors, etc.) occurred in the unobserved past (and is not observed to be occurring today). Especially if natualistic explanations are found to be problematic.

#60 hooberus

hooberus

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Kansas

Posted 21 May 2005 - 04:59 AM

Evil spirits caused all diseases prior to 500 AD. The demons then left the world but put bacteria and viruses in their role.


Once again bacteria and viruses being the the cause of disease are observed to occurr today.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users