Why does your link go to a topic with the name "Secular Education" and not a topic called "Secular Science"? Is it just that no topic under the heading of "Secular Science" exists on Wikipedia?
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.
Your definition of secular appears nowhere.
I said it was "wordly," which is exactly what secular means.
Science is secular by definition.
Exactly my point. I didn't say it derisively, I'm stating something factual.
Your definition deliberately twists it to try and make it sound like science avoids studying or belief in the supernatural out of some attempt to destroy religion.
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. The only thing science can do in defense for any spiritual beliefs is to note the appearance of design. 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.
Eugenics is a branch of science?
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.
Do you say that only because it sounds vaguely scientific? Eugenics at best is a particular flavor of social philosophy...a belief if you will. It's got more in common with religion than it does with science.
Lets try this again since you're a big advocate for the Dictionary.
cytogenetics: the branch of biology linking the study of genetic inheritance with the study of cell structure, esp. for human chromosome analysis for the detection of inheritable diseases.
eugenics: the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).
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.
Any scientific position is tentative or it is not scientific. This has been explained before. Science makes absolutely no claim to holding the keys to eternal truth. Sure some folks may speak of science in terms of truth and fact but the philosophy of science holds all such positions as tenuous suppositions that are to be modified or overturned as our understanding increases. You've had all this explained to you before, do you not understand it or do you have a need to see science as something it is not?
I never needed it to be explained to me before. 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. And just so you know, I'm not saying that science should dogmatically hold on to a previous view if it is demonstrably shown false. I'm merely pointing out that if something is considered true today, wait around and it might be completely false in a couple of days.
"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis
™ Version 4.2
