He was also right in suggesting that science must itself be set for correction. This obviously includes time-tables and evolutionary theory. 80% rejection rate? You might want to rethink just how well conceded science conclusion is. Oh, sure, we get blamed for not knowing science, but the funny thing it is exactly opposite: Scientists are more concerned about themselves and being ingrown and high-fives of 'right' than correctly passing on information to students. Part of the problem? You don't like parental input. That's too bad. I'd suggest 20% is a failure rate. You guys get so myopic. Of course I can and do read science articles, but I invariable am saying 'uh, no,' with what I view as erroneous and indoctrinated differences. I don't care what you 3 came up with for consensus (I realize the science community is more than 3, I'm employing percentage exaggeration to make a point). Either you don't care what 80% of the population thinks and so shouldn't cry about it, and probably should leave schools alone, or you can own the fault in as a scientific community. It certainly is a reflection upon you, nobody else.
I don’t view science as malleable. I am not saying that it always gives perfect answers, but when careful repeated scientific investigations gives consistent answers, then I have no choice but to accept them. If that means a previous deeply held religious belief must be abandoned, then so be it.
Er, W
enger disagreed with you. Read the link for the quote. Imho? Indoctrination and unmalleable science, er isn't. It isn't science if you are no longer open to proofs. Fact, where other school disciplines apply. It is an over-assertion and over-importance.
My problem: Science is not as high-and-might imperially as all that. I realize 'scientists' and atheists hiding behind it get caught up in that odd thinking, but I know for a fact experientially and logically (different class discipline), that science can ONLY test what is physical. You can't, for instance, scientifically prove to me love exists, though I've seen some ridiculous attempts (they have to, science sadly is all they know).
What?? Age of the earth has been a field of scientific interest and inquiry for a long time. I fail to see anything about that that disqualifies it as valid science.
I think you are missing the point. You were trying to assert, or claim science is asserting that Noah's flood could not have happened. Science has no business trying to assert such a thing against theology. It'd be nothing but a dubious agenda.
You lost me. Multiple lines of evidence show Pangea broke up and basically reformed into the continents as we now see them long before man, even primitive forms of man, had evolved.
Yet there are dinosaur tracks with human foot-prints. I realize science 'thinks' they have all the answers but I 'think' you guys get a little myopic at times well-past your own good.
I will leave it to you as to whether or not you think something like Pangea is actually what is spoken of in some of the Bible passages. But the “science speculation from observation” over the past century has yielded a pretty consistent picture of plate tectonic movement.
Again, a bit myopic, I think. I wasn't debating plate tectonic theory at all, in fact Pangea would support such. My point? Plates subvert one another and with such global movements, we can't be certain if the world wasn't at one time all under water, or at least subverted so that a flood account would not just be in a bible account, but accounts of other historical writings as well. Imho? It is foolish to think all of them making something up at that point. Science oddly, when it should be verifying facts (and I use science here as 'acadamia,' sadly), discards as 'if' religion has no place in verification. Again, that is myopic. Some scientists actually look into this and have a general science audience on National Geo or Discovery or BBC. I know they are just shows, but real PhD's.
It is no secret that America is a hotbed of creationism. I travel internationally at least once a year, and I have often seen a dramatic change as I depart from the fanatical religious devotion in some places in America to a complete reversal overseas. Many average citizens of the countries I visit think it is funny (in a sad way) that the average American is so suspicious of science.
Again, this is ALL on science. They have done the poor job. Do you know what all the stink over this has done? Caused reactionary authoritarianism, exacerbating it. Indoctrination will never be a friend to science. The whole goal of science is the method: Inquiry-first. This is shut down by Darwinism etc.
I don’t share your wanting to limit what science can investigate. If something has a real existence in the physical world, then that thing is fair game for science.
lain: Nope. You'll never (ever) quantify love. You can explain things about it, but will never scientifically be able to provide a plan for every parent on earth. That just ain't gonna happen. I think, again, scientists, get caught up in their own hype. You (science collectively) just aren't that good (capable).
I don’t disagree with the idea that science in America is not being effectively taught, but I blame many religions for actively being adversarial in that regard.
1) I think we are smarter than your average Joe. 2) We don't worship science, it does not, in point of fact, have all the answers and is a secondary addition to life. We have our cars and cellphones, and electricity, but I'm saying those are all support services. I don't live to see the doctor, I see the doctor that I can go about my living business. We don't live to go to the moon. It doesn't matter, as a father, if the earth is a billion or few thousand years, to raising my kids, nor to their intellectual prowess. I have smart kids. Finally, it isn't religion that forces the question, it is the way evidence is given. I think American kids can actually do better in science, because they are bringing broader resources and questions to their studies and query long before they draw a hasty conclusion, ending the Method and settling for perhaps a hasty or conceded solution. That's good, imho, and incredibly better than indoctrination. I'd rather have a lab room full of unsatisfied hypothesizers than any uncritically buying what is sold to the masses. That doesn't teach critical thinking. For the most part, I'm happy with a bit of adversarial involvement. I think it 'can' lead to good and better science where 'inquiry' is the meat anyway. Indoctrination is worse/less preferred to fostering critical thinking and further inquiry going the extra-mile.
