A Question For Atheists And Scientific Truth,can Truthful Science Really Exist?
Definition of Science: science is the methodology that mankind uses to explore and describe the universe and everything in it. This methodolgy is based on two assumptions: 1) scientists can accurately observe nature (the observable axiom) and 2) everything that happens, will happen, or has happened can be explained without invoking the supernatural (the naturalistic axiom). In other words, science assumes that God does not exist and then sets about to prove this assumption. Take evolution for example. Shortly after Darwin, science assumed that evolution happened and then set about to prove how it happened. The naturalistic axiom does no allow science to ask if it can happen or why did it happen? Science cannot ask these questions because science assumes that God does not exist.Thus, science is limited. Definition of Intelligent Design: intelligent design is a methodology that some scientists use to explore and describe the universe and everything in it. This methodolgy is based on one assumption: 1) scientists can accurately observe nature (the observable axiom). Because intelligent design does not assume that God does not exists, it is not science. Intelligent design has more flexibility than science in that it can ask questions that science cannot. Take the origin of life for example. Intelligent design can look at science’s inability to explain this event as evidence supporting the existence of a designer. Scientists who use the intelligent design methodology have and continue to identify problems associated with the origin of life that evolution cannot explain and will likely never explain. So which is better science or intelligent design? This depends on who is deciding. Many scientists are perfectly happy assuming that God does not exists, so they prefer science to intelligent design. These scientists are not upset by the fact that college textbooks say that life began in the primordial soup as a self replicating RNA molecule when the primary scientific literature (articles in journals like Science, Nature, and the Journal of Molecular Evolution) contradict this scenario. These scientists are not interested in the truth. Others do care abot the truth.It concerns these scientists that college and high school biology text books are not allowed to present the many unsolved issues with the origin of life that are so plentiful in the primary scientific literature. Most of these scientists do not voice their concerns because if they do, evolutionists will label them creationists. They will then be denied tenure, their papers will not get published, they might be fired and their research grants will probably be denied. So it seems it is won by intimidation by the non god scientists who are able to hide the truth.
Sometimes “consensual validation” must be set aside”for the sake of truthPeople can be wrong in the mass, just as they can individually. If something is true, stating it a million times does not make it any truer. Similarly, if something is false, stating it a million times does not make it true.Shockley’s idea, for example, was based on nothing more than the narcissism of an over-in-flated ego. As Taylor has commented: “Status in the field of science is no guarantee of the truth”The idea of strict objectivity in intellectual circles is a myth. While most scholars like to think of themselves as broad-minded, unprejudiced paragons of virtue, the fact is that they, too, on occasion, suffer from bouts of bias, bigotry, and presuppositionalismIn contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of scientists, a goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupidPhillip Abelson, one-time editor of Science, wrote: “One of the most astonishing characteristics of scientists is that some of them are plain, old-fashioned bigots. Their zeal has a fanatical, egocentric quality characterized by disdain and intolerance for anyone or any value not associated with a special area of intellectual activity”. No doubt the same could be said of intellectuals in other fields as well (e.g., philosophy, business, the arts, etc.).The most intelligent often are the least spiritual because “the god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:3-4) has blinded their minds.
Truth is not what science seeks. Science seeks to explain observations, and to observe deeper. There can only be observations and theories. Every truth will be shattered again as our perception hones over time. All things, even our methods and views, can evolve over time.
Creation “Scientists” have the most interesting sense of fairness as to what they will report upon. Not a single creationist theory has ever been published or even subject to scientific peer review.
They know they’re going to have their heads handed back to them.
You do know that Creation Scientist Michael Behe’s theory of irreducible complexity has been invalidated.
When are you going to start thinking for yourself and composing your own questions?
Science is the only real truth. Go hug your book of fairy tales.
You’re also missing the point that science is also used to make predictions about nature. ID never has nor ever will be able to do that.
You failed with “Intelligent Design is a methodology”.
Powered by Yahoo Answers
|
|
|
Categorised as: Homeschooling