Because that's what Wiki diverted me to. If there is no match, Wiki will let you know. However, if something closely matches another in your search request, it will automatically bring you to the closest match.
So you post a link called "Secular Science" to a Wiki topic on something entirely different. This is supposed to do what? Confuse us poor evolutionists even further? It was at the very least intellectually dishonest. As proof I give you this example:
Cult of Cannibal Demon Worshippers
I said it was "wordly," which is exactly what secular means.
You should really go back and look at your posts before you make incorrect references to them...your original definition was:
In fact, the word "secular" literally means study or belief of anything of only natural order.
To which I posted a lengthy definition from a standard source which did not contain anything remotely close to your original. My definition did contain the word worldly, so you seemingly read the definition...you could have just agreed with it instead of pretending you said it first.
Science is secular by definition.
Exactly my point. I didn't say it derisively, I'm stating something factual.
It is factual if you go by the standard definition of the word secular and not your definition of the word which incorporates concepts of faith. Secular topics are not concerned with religious and spiritual matters.
No, science is only equipped to study the physical world, which is fine. Science is ill-equipped to make any sort of determination on what is "spiritual" and what is not.
Okay so far...
The only thing science can do in defense for any spiritual beliefs is to note the appearance of design.
I'm sorry your answer is incorrect, but I'm sure we have some nice parting prizes for you. Really...I thought that belief in ID was supposed to be science...you know..secular (go back and read the definition). Even if science were able to note the appearance of design (which it does not) that would not constitute evidence in support of spiritual beliefs.
The point is that the OP asked if there was anything known as "atheist science." I responded that, yes, in a sense "secular science" is an inherently atheistic premise. In fact, it is its sole premise.
Again wrong. Science says nothing at all about spirituality or religion. It doesn't deny god exists (an atheist stance) it is simply not concerned with it. So far you haven't proven that anything called "Secular Science" exists in any fashion to differentiate it from anything else which may be called science. You're making all this up. Could you provide a link to a single journal or association of Secular Scientists who identify themselves as Secular Scientists or identify their own work as Secular Science? Secular Science is a term made up by religious crackpots who are afraid that someone else is going to show them something that their holy book can't account for.
What cytogenetics is called today, used to be referred to as eugenics, which is a very real study. What I mean to say is that the sociological view associated with eugenics precipitates from the study of cytogenetics.
Buh? Cytogenetics used to be referred to as eugenics? Your source for this is what? Cytogenetics is a very real science despite the fact that it has very real moral implications and the potential for abuse. The social philosophy of eugenics was well established long before cytogenetics was born. Cite some sources next time or don't bother hitting the reply button.
...Therefore, cytogenetics could be construed as the application of positive eugenics-- in fact, the whole point is to eliminate undesirable traits that lead to disease.
Because eugenics could be expressed in terms that sound like lofty and laudable goals does that mean that everything which seeks similar goals is evil? The point of cytogenetics is to understand how genetics operate at a cellular level and to provide cures and screening for genetic disease. Perhaps you might want to give a reference to the cytogenetics journal that espouses breeding programs, forced sterilizations, state ordered abortions and mandatory genetic screening as means to "improve" the human race.
The point is, what was "fact" yesterday may not be a "fact" today, which makes some people leery of regarding anything as a fact.It all boils down to belief when you you think about it.
Not really...look at it this way, you have to accept the fact that everything you know may be wrong. Everything with no exceptions. So you have the choice of going with what appears to work realizing you can change any time your understanding changes, or you can reject the universe around you until you achieve perfect understanding.
Science doesn't give us fact, it gives us things that work. If the things don't work we reject them. We know that praying doesn't help sick people get better, but we do know that providing modern medical care does help them get better. It's not perfect...many have died from medical misunderstanding...but many many more have had their lives improved and extended. By science...it ain't perfect...but it's getting better.
Do you have anything to offer instead of science that can show comparable results?
And you have been told that this is why the word fact is frowned upon when discussing scientific findings. That some scientists and many non-scientists use the word does not make a scientific finding any more fact or truth...but that doesn't tell the whole story.
When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data.- Henry Morris, Head of Institute for Creation Research
™ Version 4.2
