Who's Held To Higher Standards At EvC?

They can't really keep it straight. Out of one side of their mouths, they're telling you that TOE is religion. Out of the other they're telling you that both of these, or even better yet, just creationism, should be taught in science classes.

quote:

---

Revision and the advance of knowledge in science are what indicate that science is more right. It's the failure of religious dogma to ever change in the light of new information that confirms that it's eternally wrong.

---

Whoah!! Hold on here. Let's do a little hypothetical here:1. There is a God2. "Science" says there is no God. It slowly revises and corrects itself, discovering more and more3. Finally, "science" realizes there is a GodNow, who was right, the one who remained unchanged or the one who was changing? You can't call someone wrong just because they don't change their opinion. Someone isn't more right just because they revise themselves. And there is nothing recent in science that has made God any more wrong than you already say He is.

The simple fact is that people are held to the same standards, as others have said, and creos feel put out because they can't meet it.I suppose we could impose different standards and stop the whining. Okay, all those advocating a rational scientific approach to learning about he world have to use logical, clear argument and the standards of the scientific method, and they must be prepared to back up there claims with direct or well documented evidence.Creos can say whatever they are thinking at the moment and everyone has to take their unsupported arguments as seriously as those of the rationalists.It wouldn't be fair but it would be even.

What on earth are you talking about? Has there been a breakthrough? Is it on the news?

There's a little problem with this Science says "we have no evidence of god" not that there is/are no god(s).

It was a hypothetical to demostrate my point. Re-read the post.

my only point was: "You can't call someone wrong just because they don't change their opinion."

quote:

---

The simple fact is that people are held to the same standards, as others have said, and creos feel put out because they can't meet it.

---

I think they and I are just legitimately asking you to realize that science is not the only valid and acceptible scope which we can come to any realizations about the truth from.

The original point postulated slightly more complex circumstances. It isn't just whether you change your mind. It's whether your mind is influenced by new evidence and/or fresh insights. Since religious views are presumably eternal and unchanging, if they're wrong then they were always wrong and always will be.--Percy

You can call them wrong if their opinion is irrelevant.What is your opinion about the law of gravity? Are you for it, against it, think you can repeal it?Matters of science are not settled by opinions they are settled by facts.

Your hypothetical is invalid for two reasons. First, science will never come to the conclusion that there is a god. That question is outside the purview of science. Another good reason science will never come to that conclusion is that there is no god.Second, even given the impossible, and such proof came to light (Can something be very impossible?) then who was right? Let's see, the group of mindless followers who believed what they were told or the people who set out and learned about the way the world works? You decide. The answer may well indicate which of those two groups you are a member of.In any case, your missing the actual point. Science is an ever-changing expression of the best we know, subject to question and adjustment, ever questioning itself and trying to be more and do better. Religion is static, all it's questions answered and all knowledge needed contained in the phrase "God did it and I believe it." Again, if the latter of these two paradigms appeals to you rather then the former, it will reveal which side of the fence you are on.In closing,Yes A system is "more right" if it has the capacity for self correction.

My fault. I was all excited there for a moment. Sorry.

Seeking the spirtual truths of life, which is the realm of religion, is not the same thing as understanding the physical, natural world, which is the realm of science.A non-scientific status would be contrary to Creationism's goal of representation in public school science classrooms.--Percy

Let's try another one.1) Deuteronomy informs us that the stars are simply holes in a vast, solid firmament, through which the sun shines.2) Science investigates this claim and finds it to be false; the stars are actually suns themselves in distant space.3) The Bible is never redacted to address this shortcoming.As your your "hypothetical", it's completely backwards compared to the actual history of science; science was originally done by Christians*, and where they could not be tested, Biblical assertions were adopted in the absence of any disconfirming evidence.So, rather than the scneario you have described, where science begins in opposition to the Bible and proceeds towards reconciliation; science actually began in agreement with the Bible, and has moved divergently. In other words the trend is the exact opposite of what you suggest - science gets more correct about the universe as it diverges from the Biblical account; the Biblical account is never redacted to address these inaccuracies, and remains, therefore, eternally errant. If they revise themselves in the righter direction, they are. The Bible being demonstratably wrong (if taken literally), remains so, because redacting the Bible is never allowed.*AbE: Science is still, of course, done by Christians, among others. It would be better to say that "science was originally done by Biblical Inerrantists."This message has been edited by crashfrog, 12-16-2004 04:28 PM

Actually, there is a good deal of scientific study that deals with religious claims too. There are Christian scientists and historians and anthropologists, etc... who uncover things which support our claims too, so this is not some blind lemming-like, close-minded brigade of imbeciles.