"Angilion" <angilion at ypical.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3d35eb5a.497371 at news.freeserve.net...
> On Wed, 17 Jul 2002 14:05:07 GMT, JDay123 at BellSouth.com (Jd) wrote:
>> >In alt.education Re: brain sizes: Einstein's and women's,
> >Bob LeChevalier wrote...
> >
> >>The ToE is absolutely silent on the question of a deity, as is all of
> >>science. Whether a person believes that God guides evolution or not,
they
> >>accept the theory of evolution. Many (evolutionary) scientists believe
in
> >>God.
> >
> >"All of science" cannot be silent on the question of a diety if many
> >scientists belive in God.
>> There is a distinction between science and scientists, a very large
> distinction.
>> Science is silent on the question of a deity, because the whole
> question of a deity is an untestable hypothesis. In any case, a
> deity cannot be explained and is not subject to normal restrictions.
> Science is about discovering how things happen. It may be used to
> predict future events, based on knowledge of how things happen (though
> it appears that the universe is not actually deterministic). It may be
> used to discover what probably happened in the past. What it can't
> do is explain *why* things happen, other than in terms of a
> sequence of events (Z happens because Y and X happened).
> Why things happen isn't a scientific matter.
>> A scientist is a person who uses the principles of science to
> determine *how* things happen. That same person may use
> religion to satisfy themselves as to *why* things happen.
>> --
The problem with that position, Angilion, which Jd just touched on, is that
Christianity IS a science in itself. The Holy Bible didn't sell by the
billions because it's a fairy tale--it's the purest science on Earth, yet
here you are relegating it to some form of witchcraft.
91% of Americans didn't reject Darwin and embrace creation just because
they're stupid, or because they rejected "science"--they did it because
they're better scientists than many of our recent affirmative-action
graduates who can't even understand their own government studies and
reports. But, also, half of American scientists also reject "evolution", as
either a "theory", or as a plausible explanation for any observation they've
ever made.
Most of us never really knew what an absolute fraud "Darwinism" is.
Ironically, Darwin himself would reject the modern version of "Darwinism",
and he's about as dumb as a box of rocks, so it should come as no surprise
that most scientists reject it too.
Teaching creation has been virtually banned in public schools for half a
century, "evolution" has been fraudulently presented as a "theory" [which it
is by no scientific defintion I'm familiar with], *scientific* evidence has
been phonied up in a very misleading media propaganda campaign, yet
"Darwinism" is a colossal failure, isn't it? I mean, you can get 9% of the
population to believe in anything. People were asked "is there intelligent
life on Earth", and 31% answered no, so people's opinion of Darwinism is
waaaaay out there.
John Knight
