Only if that distant universe or past also was IN the natural world. You need to do more than assume it was.
Well of course. You assume that it is, and then calculate the consequences of that assumption and compare it to what we observe. As it turns out, assuming that it is leads to an explanatory framework that predicts how satellites behave, how Mercury behaves, how light behaves, how particles interact in the LHC etc etc. It seems that if that assumption is true, we can predict the future. If that assumption is false, then we've been getting outrageously and improbably lucky.
Feel free to explain the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, the time dilation effects on satellites, the behaviours we see in particle accelerators and so on where the assumption is false.
The scientific method can and does cover the distant past. There is no reason it cannot. Assumptions are a key part of the scientific method, regardless of the subject so that assumptions get made is not a reason to not teach one particular area.
The scientific method covers anything in the natural world for which evidence exists. The evidence can be for anything
Only if that distant universe or past also was IN the natural world. You need to do more than assume it was.
You need to do more than make silly assumptions. All the evidence discovered by science confirms that the Universe exists. Science confirms that the Universe is vast, and expanding, and that the most distant objects are separated from us by not by great distances, but by great periods of time.
You have made up some bizarre fantasy that there is some other "natural worlds" that separate parts of the Universe or periods of time but that we can still observe and that somehow behave differently from what we observe. Weird.
Do you have any evidence that supports your view and that could persuade us that you are on to something?
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
Still having trouble admitting origin science branches are religion eh?
Curiously I have no trouble distinguishing science from religion. It seems only science ignorant creationists have trouble with this, because all they know is religion and religious dogma indoctrination.
Science, is based on evidence, using hypothesis\theory to make predictions and then test them.
quote:The study of abiogenesis can be geophysical, chemical, or biological,[14] with more recent approaches attempting a synthesis of all three,[15] as life arose under conditions that are strikingly different from those on Earth today. Life functions through the specialized chemistry of carbon and water and is largely based upon four key families of chemicals: lipids (fatty cell walls), carbohydrates (sugars, cellulose), amino acids (protein metabolism), and nucleic acids (self-replicating DNA and RNA). Any successful theory of abiogenesis must explain the origins and interactions of these classes of molecules.[16] Many approaches to abiogenesis investigate how self-replicating molecules, or their components, came into existence. It is generally thought that current life on Earth is descended from an RNA world,[17] although RNA-based life may not have been the first life to have existed.[18][19]
This science is still in it's infancy compared to other sciences, and there are several hypothesis\theory undergoing testing, however it is clear from the sentence hi-lighted in orange, that it is attempting to explain the evidence that exists of how life began on earth.
Religion, on the other hand, is based on belief without evidence.
quote:There are an estimated 10,000 distinct religions worldwide,[9] but about 84% of the world's population is affiliated with one of the five largest religions, namely Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism or forms of folk religion.[10] The religiously unaffiliated demographic includes those who do not identify with any particular religion, atheists and agnostics. While the religiously unaffiliated have grown globally, many of the religiously unaffiliated still have various religious beliefs.[11]
Science acknowledges reason, empiricism, and evidence; and religions include revelation, faith and sacredness whilst also acknowledging philosophical and metaphysical explanations with regard to the study of the universe ...
Science is not founded on belief, religion is. Religion is not founded on evidence, science is.
The scientific method covers anything in the natural world for which evidence exists. The evidence can be for anything
Only if that distant universe or past also was IN the natural world. You need to do more than assume it was.
The electromagnetic radiation, cosmic rays, gravity, electric fields, magnetic fields, meteorites, comets, etc., that we observe arriving here from the distant universe are all natural. The scientific method is designed to study natural phenomena.
By the way, I didn't just say "The evidence can be for anything." I said, "The evidence can be for anything, including the distant past" (questioning whether we could study the past was the main point of your Message 985). I then continued on to explain why that was true:
Percy in Message 988 writes:
The light from stars shows them as they were years, centuries and millennia ago. Fossils show life as it was millions and billions of years ago. Archeological excavations show how humans lived centuries and millennia ago. Forensics shows what happened in a crime hours, days, and even years ago.
Will the majority of your posts really be just one sentence?
In the "Separate school and state and religion" thread you posted:
Mainly, that that method does not cover creation or the far past.
Presumably you feel religion better covers creation and the far past. In response, RAZD noted:
There are an estimated 10,000 distinct religions worldwide,[9] but about 84% of the world's population is affiliated with one of the five largest religions, namely Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism or forms of folk religion.[10] The religiously unaffiliated demographic includes those who do not identify with any particular religion, atheists and agnostics. While the religiously unaffiliated have grown globally, many of the religiously unaffiliated still have various religious beliefs.[11]
So, which of these 10,000 or more religions do you want taught? Yours, perhaps?
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.
Where I went to school we had a double period on religion from year 1 to Year 12. The teachers all were Calvinists. Nothing else. We were taught that everyone else was a Satanist.
I agree that children should have religious classes, with different religious folks lecturing.
All the the major religions should have a place. Priests, Reverends, Rabbi's, Imams, Mufti's, Satanists, Hindus, Chinese tradionional, indigenous, etc. all should have equal time.
The electromagnetic radiation, cosmic rays, gravity, electric fields, magnetic fields, meteorites, comets, etc., that we observe arriving here from the distant universe are all natural. The scientific method is designed to study natural phenomena.
By the way, I didn't just say "The evidence can be for anything." I said, "The evidence can be for anything, including the distant past" (questioning whether we could study the past was the main point of your Message 985). I then continued on to explain why that was true:
Yes, things arrive here. We THEN see them in time here. Our time and space. So, for example if light here moves at x speed in our time and spae, we know that. Now, how fast does it move in deep space, do you know? Remember you may not use anything in our time and solar system area where WE see the light as a basis for claiming time related issues ut in far space.
Presumably you feel religion better covers creation and the far past. In response, RAZD noted:
So, which of these 10,000 or more religions do you want taught? Yours, perhaps?
Anything but the religion of science! I would prefer the majority of an area see their beliefs reflected for their kids. In India, in area, maybe Hindi beliefs...etc etc.
Whatever belief a majority chooses is not the issue, the issue is teaching the beliefs as science.
Science disproves a lot of your religious beliefs, so it has to be discredited or destroyed.
Guess you want a return to the dark ages or something pre-Enlightenment where religion ruled the roost and science had to kowtow to the shamans.
Those days are gone for good (and I do mean good).
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.
Yet again creationists reveal themselves as being anti-science. Ask creationists whether they are anti-science and they will deny it with a lot of double-talk and diversions off to other topics (a variation of the infamous "Gish Gallop"), but their actions consistently reveal that they are anti-science.
Refer to the Arkansas and Louisiana laws both crafted from Paul Ellwanger's model bill (McLean v. Arkansas (1982) and Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), respectively -- it was the latter that went all the way up to the US Supreme Court and resulted in exposing "creation science" as the religious deception that it is, which resulted in creationists rushing to a different smoke screen, "intelligent design"). Their goal wasn't to get fundamentalist Christianity taught in the public schools, but rather to get evolution removed. If "evolution" (falsely defined to include references to an old earth) would be taught, then equal time had to be given to creationism; if those parts of science are cherry-picked out and not taught, then creationism need not be taught. That is purely and blatantly anti-science and no amount of creationist denials can obscure that obvious fact.
We also see it in "creation science's" "Two Model Approach" which is constantly played out by creationists (as Gish and H. Morris always did in each and every presentation of theirs that I have seen): establish that there are two-and-only-two mutually exclusive models, the "creation model" (actually their own very narrow sectarian YEC theology) and the "evolution model" (everything else, "including most of the world's religions, ancient and modern" (as per Dr. Henry Morris), and then devote all your efforts to attacking the "evolution model" in order to "prove" the "creation model" without ever presenting any arguments nor support for it and even refusing to defend it, not to mention avoiding actually presenting it. Please note that the "evolution model", which creationists would almost always describe as "atheistic", consists primarily of theistic ideas, including most Christian ideas of origins (since they do not agree in every detail with fundamentalist YEC beliefs). Creationists denouncing the vast majority of theists as being atheists. What a steaming crock!
"Creation science" itself was carefully crafted and created as a deliberate deception. When Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) led to the striking down of the 1920's "monkey laws" as unconstitutional, creationists could no longer use religious reasons for barring the teaching of evolution. So they created the monstrous lie, "creation science", that their reasons for opposing evolution were "purely scientific, nothing religious about it." From there they engaged in even more deception, such as false young-earth claims and specious arguments about "balanced treatment" and "equal time" all aimed at deceiving the courts and the general public.
That "science is religion" oxymoron is one such lie that has been around at least since the 1970's (probably 30 years before you were born). Their "balanced treatment" and "equal time" arguments required science and creationism to be on an equal footing. Since all efforts to elevate creationism to the level of science are futile and doomed to failure, they chose to drag science down into the mud and slime with religion. We always find it so amusing that, even though you love religion so very much that you will abandon reason and morality for it, you hate science so much that you will use against it the worst insult you can think of: calling it religion.
But all these lies and deceptions that you (plural) resort to zealously raise a serious question -- at least for a Christian it should be as serious as sucking up to the AntiChrist for secular power, as we currently see evangelicals doing in droves. Even though you are obviously not familiar with Christian Doctrine, you should have at least heard that name mentioned at one time or another. According to Christian Doctrine, God is not served by lies nor deception. There is however a Christian deity who is so served. He goes by many names, one of which is "Prince of Lies" and another of which is "The Deceiver".
I would prefer the majority of an area see their beliefs reflected for their kids. In India, in area, maybe Hindi beliefs...etc etc.
I do not know what country you are in, but this issue pertains directly to the USA and the founding principles of religious liberty and of church-state separation. The Founding Fathers explicitly argued against allowing the rights of the minorities to be trampled by the rule of the majority (James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, my emphasis added):
quote:1. Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.
It is absolutely essential for religious liberty that the government is not allowed to impose a specific religion upon the whole of the populace regardless of however great a majority that religion may enjoy. It is for that reason that the government must not get involved with religion. Religion must be a personal and a familial matter free of government interference.
I just noticed something interesting: are Christians the majority in the USA? According to Wikipedia, the percentages of Christian religions are:
Protestant -- 48.9%
Catholic -- 23.0%
Mormon -- 1.8%
Counting all three Christian groups, that would be 73.7%. However, I have it on extremely vehement evangelical authority that neither Catholics nor Mormons are Christians. So, taking their word for it (after all, they're the ones who want a theocracy), Christians only compose 48.9% of the US population. That is not a majority! Furthermore, I'm sure that they would also point to several mainstream Protestant denominations as not being Christian, which will bring the percentage of Christians down even lower into an even smaller minority.
You also seem to be confused about what education is and what its goals are. From the California Science Education Framework (1989):
quote:Nothing in science or in any other field of knowledge shall be taught dogmatically. A dogma is a system of beliefs that is not subject to scientific test and refutation. Compelling belief is inconsistent with the goal of education; the goal is to encourage understanding.
. . .
We repeat here the fundamental conviction of this framework: Education does not compel belief; it seeks to encourage understanding. Nothing in science, or in any other field, should be taught dogmatically. But teaching about something does not constitute advancing it as truth. In science, there is no truth. There is only knowledge that tests itself and builds on itself constantly. This is the message that students should take away with them.
The goal of education is not to convince nor to convert you, but rather that you understand the topic.
That concept appears to be beyond your comprehension, so here's a real-life example that may help. In 1982, I attended Leadership School, the first level of the United States Air Force's NCO Academy. The classes included instruction in Marxism and Communism. Was it their goal to turn us into Marxists and Communists? Apparently you and most creationists would think so. Far from it! The goal was for us to know and understand something about the enemy, a centuries-old adage of war:
quote:Sun Tzu, Scroll III (Offensive Strategy):
Therefore I say: "Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril.
When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal.
If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are certain in every battle to be in peril."
(Sun Tzu The Art of War, translation by Samuel B. Griffith, Oxford University Press, 1963)
The source of confusion for creationists appears to be that for them "education" only means one thing: indoctrination. You do not want your children to gain knowledge, but rather to have "the right beliefs". And we see this come out in creationists' "public school edition" educational materials which DO try to compel belief. After having misinformed the student, that curriculum repeatedly urges the student to choose between the Creator and "godless evolution". Not only is that inconsistent with the goals of education, but it also works against those goals. All that "balanced treatment" is trying to do is to proselytize. Furthermore, the principal tools in that proselytizing is the use of false claims and deception. And one of the effects of "balanced treatment" has been to turn some of those students into atheists; eg, Livermore 1981: Creation Science in the Classroom - A Case Study in which the creationist lessons forcing the elementary-grade students to make a choice between God and atheism resulted in some students choosing atheism.
The fastest growing religious demographic in the USA are the "nones", as in "none of the above". Many of them are former "true Christians" who are fleeing in droves from the fundamentalist and evangelical Christian churches they had grown up in. Upwards of 80% of people raised in the faith are fleeing it. I think it's because of the lies of creationism and that that's a natural reaction to discovering that everybody has been lying to you all your life -- I've met people who've gone through that; it is not at all pleasant. Others attribute it to the humanities and learning that there are many different ways to look at something -- even just trying to put yourself in someone else's perspective can be lethal to dogmatism.
Now, what I could never understand is why a group so devoted to opposing evolution that they would obviously want to prepare their children to take up the fight as well, would also work so hard to make their children completely ineffectual as Christian soldiers. Sun Tzu said it! If you want to be effective in the war against evolution, then you need to learn everything you can about evolution. Instead, they want to keep their children from learning anything about evolution. It makes no sense whatsoever!
BTW, here is my response to a creationist's question, "If God exists, should the kids be taught about Him?" An observer thought my response brilliant. OTOH, the creationist could not handle the truth and ended up running away by cancelling his email account.
Edited by dwise1, : Correction of typo to: It is for that reason that the government must not to get involved with religion.
What flies in our sky is in this nature. Irrelevant. Nothing flies out of fishbowl earth area anyhow. Again, not even relevant.
Why do you believe in a false theology that essentially teaches you that if the universe is as we observe it to be, then that disproves God? Can't you see the ludicrous knots that causes you to tie yourself into with these ridiculous ad hoc ideas that you cook up for the sole purpose of explaining away the blatantly obvious evidence that the earth is old and that life has evolved?
An example are the creationist geologists hired by one of their classmates to work in the oil exploration field. Every day, day after day, they worked hands-on with rock-solid geological evidence that the ICR had taught them does not exist and could not exist or else Scripture would have no meaning. They all suffered crises of faith, not because of the geological evidence, but because of the lies their religion had told them about that evidence and what its existence would signify.
Remember, theologies are all Man-made, so following a theology is following the Word of Man. As a result, theologies are riddled with error, especially when they try to get into the details. When you find an error in your theology, then you need to try correct that error, never deny that that error exists. You should not place your theology before God.
So what's God's Word? Look outside. It is in the whole of the Creation Itself. Denying God's Word (the Universe) in favor of the Word of Man (theology) cannot be anything but worst form of blasphemy.
Yup. And assuming the distant space and distant time are also in this nature results in a consistent and coherent picture of nature as a whole. From particles to galaxies.
Irrelevant
Actually it is relevant. You aren't one for advancing an argument are you? Just stating your opinion and hoping that'll suffice. Good luck with that approach.
™ Version 4.2
(1)