Terrible news for the Creation Science museum (and Republicans)

Dutch Uncle said:
No shit, Sherlock. Anyone who limits God to a book written by mankind is limiting God. Sure, you're free to believe it was inspired by God, but let's not forget a man actually wrote each section and mankind is a flawed instrument at best.

Consider these ideas: Is there any doubt God created man with a brain? If so, then isn't the expectation that man would use that gift?

God created the Universe and all the natural laws that govern it. Isn't studying God's creation divine work?

If God is all powerful, all knowing and all merciful, then God could have imprinted any special knowledge such as the Bible onto our brains or written it in the stars. This didn't happen. Two reasons why could be 1) God doesn't exist or 2), as I believe, part of the puzzle is to figure out on our own.

The purpose of school is to teach children. What can they learn if they are given all the answers or some kids are treated more special than other kids? I doubt God would be that unmerciful.
Click to expand...

If God created the Universe, where was God when he created it?
 
BidenPresident said:
The appeal of falsificationism is obvious. It provides a bright line, and it rewards the boldness that we often like to see exemplified in science. How well does it work?

The short answer is: not very. Philosophers of science recognized this almost immediately, for two main reasons. First, it is difficult to determine whether you have actually falsified a theory. This is largely a restatement of one of Popper’s own objections to verificationism.

http://bostonreview.net/science-nat...ael-d-gordin-quest-tell-science-pseudoscience
Click to expand...

The Boston Review does not speak for Karl Popper. Bulverism fallacy.
 
Cypress said:
I was the first one out of the gate acknowledging that anyone anticipating the scientific method was going to provide all the answers to all questions about the nature of reality was going to be sorely disappointed.

I am unaware of one educated and thoughtful person who does not think there are limits to human reason, nor that there is a ceiling to the cognitive capacity of our souped-up chimpanzee brains.

But that is not really what we are dealing with here.

We are dealing with a vast, unwashed multitude of Deplorables who outright reject credible scientific evidence and dismiss out of hand well supported and secure scientific theories and tenets

In this thread alone I believe you had bible thumpers denying carbon isotope dating, deny significance of the fossil record, and deny that anatomically modern homo sapiens evolved from archaic human subspecies and variants.

That all is firmly in the camp of Denialism, not healthy scientific skepticism.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as 'scientific' evidence. Science is not evidence. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Insult fallacies.
 
Cypress said:
I agree that fundamentalist dogma and creationism need to be kept out of science classes.

Fortunately the creationists and their offspring the intelligent designers have a long history of losing in court.

And losing badly.

I tend to be agnostic on whether the metaphysical questions about the deepest levels of reality have anything to do with providential design.

I do think it is human nature to ask those questions, even outside of a dope smoking philosophy 101 class. Preeminent physicists have been speculating on those kind of questions which are currently beyond any kind of technology or experimentation to test. Some people are blessed to be paid money to think about the deepest levels of reality.
Click to expand...

Science isn't a courtroom. Philosophy is not smoking dope. You can't even define what 'reality' means. Science has no theories about any god or gods.
 
AProudLefty said:
There's no time in the equation? :thinking:

BTpjDUp.png
Click to expand...

There is no acceleration term in Newton's Law of Gravitation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top