"The fundies (fundamentalists) want it all taught in a science class, but this will be a nice slap in their big fat face by teaching it as a religious studies class under the category mythology."
Please keep in mind that these atheists that he is writing to are a part of a group called the Society of Open-Minded Atheists. I wish to challenge the open-mindedness of atheism and the local New Times Editor.
Why is it that in astronomy, we can use scientific methods to scan the skies for coded information by using giant radio telescopes? What are we looking for? Any series of codes that may be picked up would only show that some cosmic accident made something "look" like information. Therefore having an intelligent signal from outer space can't happen. Yet, we are still looking. The reason is evolutionary scientists recognize that there is a difference in random sequences and information. Yet when looking at themselves, they apparently see no intelligent design (of which I agree, there is no intelligent ...).
When the same standards of philosophical assumptions are applied to biology, evolutionists are very quick to make all kinds of various arguments against looking for information and intelligent design. Is this being open-minded? Is it open-minded to start from the outset that there can ONLY be a naturalistc explanation for why things are the way they are?
I have to ask, "What if the other explanations (other than purely naturalistic ones) give a better understanding of the scientific evidence?" Should we discard alternative explanations simply because we assume the "scientific method" is the only way to see the world? To assume the "scientific method", as being by definition the greatest explanatory power, is to close off any other methods at the outset. How is this being "open-minded"?
Let me offer an example of their thinking. Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology stated:
"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution."
The real reason for the "Open-Minded" society to be so closed minded at the start is obvious. Ideas have consequences. They know full well that Americans may turn back to God, and thereby becoming the greatest and freest people on earth, the envy of the Nations.
Blessed is the Nation whose God is the Lord.
Soli Deo Gloria
2 comments:
Absolutely right.
uberkuh, thanks for your thoughtful comments. I did enjoy your Blog. It is more thoughtful, but most atheists that I have encountered have been thoughtful, just not towards Christianity.
You said, "They have a right to be in that the supernatural can never, by definition, be naturally studied or understood in any case, but they would obtain better results were they to redirect that anger at the ideas and not the people who hold them."
It is true that we cannot study the supernatural directly. By definition, the supernatural must reveal itself. I do not accept the definition that we can know nothing of it through science. If this were the case we would not be looking for intelligent coded messages from outer space.
Also, the theory of evolution by definition is outside of the scientific method since it happened in the past and is not occuring today.
Third, I believe we can learn something about a creator of an object by the object it makes. We do it all the time in art. Most famous paintings have artists that are dead. Yet any artist will be able to tell you something about the dead artist by his/her art.
Therefore, your definition of science I believe is flawed.
"There is a problem here, and neither ID nor any form of biblical explanation for the universe should be taught in a scientific class..."
Teaching the Bible in a public school setting is problematic in a society that doesn't necessarily accept it. Evolution I believe is equally problematic since its ideas come from religion as well. They just don't mention those religious parts very often.
Post a Comment