Two types of science

Sure, but I'd have to see how it's defined - if there's any trickiness involved in just what the principle of falsification is.

In fact, while believing in 7,000 to 10,000 years, they are willing to grasp at "evidences" of millions of years, such as in the tired old "sea salt" PRATT. When a creationist presented that PRATT and I pointed out that millions of years still contradicted his YEC position, his response was "Just so long as it's not BILLIONS of years as science says that it is!" IOW, their goal is not to develop and present a coherent model for the earth's age, but rather solely to oppose science and to try to discredit science in any way possible. They're not trying to show that they are right, but only that science is wrong.And my personal opinion about them claiming 10,000 years instead of the circa 6,000 that their misinterpretation of the Bible demands is because of the central deception of "creation science", their game of "Hide the Bible" in which they lie that their opposition to evolution is based "solely on scientific evidences and has nothing whatsoever to do with religion or the Bible." If they presented a number that was too close to their biblical chronology then that would be a dead give-away, so they rounded it up to 10,000. They could just as easily taken it to a million or even ten million, just so long as it said that science is wrong. Well, that's my own opinion on that question.

Here is a link about a recent conflict going on in Kansas, that seems to be somewhat typical of other states from recent times.(From the link), one side says;

quote:

---

The state’s job is simply to say to students, ‘How life arises continues to be a scientific mystery and there are competing ideas about it,’ said John Calvert, a local attorney involved in the case.

---

and the other side says;

quote:

---

They’re trying to say anything that’s not promoting their religion is promoting some other religion, he said, going on to deem the discussion silly.

---

These are typical statements from these types of cases, we all know which sides we're on, and this thread isn't really about a lot of detail about that discussion. But the fact is, these conflicts have been going on, are going on, and will continue to go on. The fact that the scientific community and 99% of its followers are ALWAYS militantly on one side should at least initiate some discussion about the possibility that two types of science exist, and there may be evidence that double standards exist in the scientific community.Here's how Conservapedia describes the National Center for Science Education;

quote:

---

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is an atheistic creature of the US Congress, established as a non-profit organization. It advocates forcing the teaching the theory of evolution in U.S. public schools, to the exclusion of scientific creationism and intelligent design, which it erroneously contends is a form of creationism. The NCSE acted as a consultant for the plaintiffs in the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover Trial [1]

​

The NCSE is responsible for "Project Steve", a propaganda campaign based on a logically-fallacious argument ad populum.

---

The NCSE has at least some unopposed CONTROL of what's being taught as science in public schools. I realize that liberal atheists always consider conservapedia to be wrong. But liberal atheists aren't always automatically right. Barbara Forrest, an atheist activist, serves on the NCSE's board of directors.

Unless science is funded by the public.When I first started posting here 4 years ago, you actually used to lock horns with other naturalists a little bit, concerning liberal politics, though you never seemed to last long against them. You seem to be completely over that now, have you been de-programed? Though it's largely forgotten today due to lack of education, the 10th amendment still exists. Do you know what it says about public opinion?

I know what Dawkins says about the "blind, pitiless indifference" of nature, the obvious beliefs of naturalists that human emotions are not scientific.

It's this straw man, this lie, that probably more than anything else, inspires millions of people all across the U.S. to take issue with what the science education establishment is doing. Christians in the U.S. who question science don't want their own religious rituals established in science, they want to get the atheism out. If they could, they'd vote to make sure atheist activists like Barbara Forrest weren't members of anything that makes decisions about what their children will be taught. The book of Genesis has been confirmed repeatedly by many more independent and competent observers than anything concerning Darwinism. Your answer makes no sense. What makes more sense of what facts are useful is a parallel of what the above paragraph states; A correct catalogue of the size and shape of every star in the Milky Way galaxy may be factually true, but it will not be as useful as knowing that if we don’t quit wasting time and energy doing this type of exploration, the U.S. may find itself in so much debt that its infrastructure completely collapses. Evidence shows that you do, which facts are true and which facts are useful to promote atheism.Edited by marc9000, : No reason given.Edited by marc9000, : No reason given.

Just curious marc9000 That seems to be a Christian group attacking school education programs, rather than some atheist agenda\conspiracy attacking Christians. Ah, so it would be okay to use the buddhist approach: all is illusion.Edited by RAZD, : ..Edited by RAZD, : ...

What it actually suggests is that since scientists, who know about science, think that creationism is unscientific shit, it probably is unscientific shit.Where did you pull your bizarre non sequitur from? And how is it described by the crazy man in the vomit-stained coat who stands outside Walmart and shouts gibberish at passers-by? Er, no. 'Cos of them not having any control over what's being taught as science in public schools, and 'cos of them not being unopposed.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Even then, it only decides what questions should be studied using public money. It doesn't decide what the scientific method is or what the answer should be to the questions. (People who want to believe unscientific crap can of course do that for free.)

The public, through their representatives, can choose what types of projects to fund with public funds, but they can't dictate the results. There is no role for public opinion there.This is a lesson creationists have yet to learn.

Splendid. Pop the champagne! You've won! And you won that one too! Hurrah!---I was looking forward to this thread being about the "two types of science" mentioned in the OP. I'm happy mocking you on other subjects, don't get me wrong, but it's not as interesting.

"Any process at all", including random mutation and natural selection? As far as I know, evolutionists will grudgingly admit that nature cannot have a purpose, and cannot plan for future function. Without purpose and a plan, anything complex had to have come together by pure randomness.

Those are indeed not processes by which things fall together. They're actually part of a quite different process known as evolution. And you are of course wrong --- there is nothing remotely "grudging" about the way that they insist on this obvious fact; and insisting vociferously on something is kind of the opposite of "admitting" it. Don't be silly.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

If that was an attempt to defend the nonsense you were talking about "selfish genes", it failed.

As I said, he probably said it several times, turns out he did. Here's what he said at another time, in its complete context;

quote:

---

There are those whose views about religion are not very different from my own, but who nevertheless feel that we should try to damp down the conflict, that we should compromise it. I respect their views and I understand their motives, and I don't condemn them, but I'm not having it. To me, the conflict between science and religion is more important than these issues of science education or even environmentalism. I think the world needs to wake up from its long nightmare of religious belief; and anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done, and may in fact be our greatest contribution to civilization.

---

As we can clearly see, he intends for it to be an on-going process. There's evidence that it is. Do you have evidence of any mainstream scientists who have taken any notable action to oppose his position on this? If anyone interested in Intelligent Design has to be tied to the Wedge Document and the Discovery Institute, does it not logically follow that anyone interested in evolution must also be tied to Darwin, Huxley, and Herbert Spencer? If not, why not? Because ID is not as old as Darwin’s following? Evolution has moved on from much of Darwin's ideas (about the simplest forms of life for example) why is ID not permitted to equally move on from the Wedge Document? No, it's a code for "a political establishment of atheism", something forbidden by U.S. foundings every bit as much, if not more, than "separation of church and state".