ARCHIVES:

Posts in this section were archived prior to February 2010. For more recent posts, go to the HOME PAGE.

Archived Articles

2/17/2006                                                                                       View Comments

War on Science

11 comments:

boomSLANG said...

CREATION SCIENCE 101:


"God did it. Class dismissed!"

How many credits? lol!

Tim Simmons said...

Sad to think of all the kids getting brainwashed in their homes this very minute.


Tim

Jim Lee said...

I don't have to time to wait on download of Graphics. As far as I'm concerned after years of extensive research, there's no Gods, no angels, no demons, no devils, no Jesus, no hell, and no heaven. I guess the brainwash will continue whatever the brand of faith religions people want to believe in. It's sad, but it's a fact of life. Even if the majority of believers had positive proof put before them, they would still follow the brainwash because that's how complete the brainwash is.

boomSLANG said...

Just the concept---"War on Science", ALONE, sounds absurd.....nevermind, what these idiots stand for.

Maybe we should look for these X-ian "good fights" in the near future: "The War on Mathematics"; "The War on Biology"; "The War on Astronomy"; "The War on Logic"; "The War on Knowledge"; "The War on Peace". Brilliant!

Dave8 said...

Well, interesting. It appears that, the creationists/IDers need to label evolution as a religion, so they can get it removed from the classroom. Good thing, evolution is a working scientific theory, and creationism/ID is nothing but a dead end hypothesis.

Fwee said...

Boomslang wrote - <<< Just the concept---"War on Science", ALONE, sounds absurd.....nevermind, what these idiots stand for.

Maybe we should look for these X-ian "good fights" in the near future: "The War on Mathematics"; "The War on Biology"; "The War on Astronomy"; "The War on Logic"; "The War on Knowledge"; "The War on Peace". Brilliant!>>>

Hell - why not? The religion has been in "The War on Reality" ever since its inception.

Dave8 said...

Lets not forget, that creationism was being taught in public classrooms for years before it was challenged by scientists and teachers in the courts. The initial court case went against the teacher, in favor of creationism. Where were the "facts" then, and why were religious leaders able to influence science to the point that teachers couldn't even teach their subject of expertise.

Anonymous: "Lets simply look at the facts and interpret them, they are not self-interpreting."

Right, create a hypothesis and test the facts, and derive verifiable and falsifiable conclusions. At this point, there is no difference between ID and science. However, to take the derived information, and "further" hypothesize the "Pre-existence" of the cosmos and the "intelligence" of some "being", or creator, leaves the realm of "interpret the facts".

The question becomes, if ID is just using the facts, supported by science, just like evolution, then how is ID any different than evolution. If there isn't any difference in the data, then why the need to create the term ID?

Evolution doesn't draw conclusions beyond that which can be tested, ID does, that is the answer.

SpaceMonk said...

It's good to see David Rabbitborough getting in on it. I thought he may have been purposely keeping away from it for a while there.
Someone with that kind of international respect can be very helpful.

.:webmaster:. said...

Let's see, what would a true Creationistic Science class teach.

I know! God did it! Class dismissed!

There is nothing to study, nothing to examine, nothing to explore in Creationistic pseudo-science. No hypothesis, no working theories, no discover, nothing - it's all "God did it!"

It presupposes that which it intends to prove - a God.

True science says, "How does x work, what natural forces make x happen, how can x be recreated in a laboratory, etc., etc., etc.

Creationism says, "God did it!" Case solved.

Creationism is not science - it assumes a God and goes about to prove God. Science assumes nothing, and goes about to discover the what, where, who, when, and so on.

The two topics are NOT on the same playing field.

Science asks for proof, Creationism asks for belief in a God. Science condemns no one to a burning pit of horrific eternal torture. Creationism is rooted in Christian theology. Science sees the world and all in it as naturally occurring phenomena. Creationism sees the world and all in it as the magical expression of a God.

Creationism is not science, it is religion. Science, as flawed as it no doubt is, does not look to magic from a spiritual dimension to explain reality. Creationism is dependent on a spiritual dimension.

Class dismissed.

Dave8 said...

Lets not forget, that creationism was being taught in public classrooms for years before it was challenged by scientists and teachers in the courts. The initial court case went against the teacher, in favor of creationism. Where were the "facts" then, and why were religious leaders able to influence science to the point that teachers couldn't even teach their subject of expertise.

The correct method for reaching credible answers, is to create a hypothesis and test the facts, and derive verifiable and falsifiable conclusions. At this point, there is no difference between ID and science. However, to take the derived information, and "further" hypothesize the "Pre-existence" of the cosmos and the "intelligence" of some "being", or creator, leaves the realm of "interpret the facts".

The question becomes, if ID is just using the facts, supported by science, just like evolution, then how is ID any different than evolution. If there isn't any difference in the data, then why the need to create the term ID?

Evolution doesn't draw conclusions beyond that which can be tested, ID does, that is the answer.

Just Rick said...

"Maybe we should look for these X-ian "good fights" in the near future: "The War on Mathematics"; "The War on Biology"; "The War on Astronomy"; "The War on Logic"; "The War on Knowledge"; "The War on Peace". Brilliant!"

Actually, it has begun :
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/page/6/