Group says faith eroding science

Group says faith eroding science

"While the speakers at the National Press Club unveiling were highly critical of Bush administration policies regarding stem-cell research, global warming, abstinence-only sex education and the teaching of “intelligent design,” they said that their group was non-partisan and that many Democrats were hostile to keeping religion out of public policy."

==I am not sure how teaching children not to have dangerous pre-marital sex harms science. I am also not sure how intelligent design, which simply asserts an intelligent force behind the universe and does not depend upon any "holy" book, hurts science. This group maybe non-partisan but they are certainly very much bias in favor of amoral (immoral) evolution.

In my view creationism, evolution, and intelligent design are philosophies and not hard science. Each is based on a certain set of bias and world views that affect how scientists understand the physical evidence. Personally I accept young-earth creationism but I don't call it hard science. It is a belief about science.

 

==I am not sure teaching "children how to have safe sex" is such a good idea. They should be warned about the dangers of pre-marital sex and they should be warned that no system of "protection" is fool proof or 100%. Abstinence is the safest bet all the way around. I would support, however, teaching how various protections are used (etc). So I suppose I am not really an abstinence only person. I just don't see how it harms scientific advancement.

==The problem here is that many ID supports believe in evolution and millions of years. They would argue that their studies prove that there must be an intelligent force behind the universe. Like I said evolution, ID, and creationism are all philosophies about science. None of those "working theories" are real hard science. Each depends upon a certain level of bias.

==I don't know that such is true. If macro-evolution did not occur then it cannot be helpful in anyway. The first thing they must do is convince people that the evolutionary philosophy is correct. I like what my university biology teacher, state university, said about evolution. It was one of those large classrooms (stadium seating) and he put his foot on the first step and looked up at us and said, "Its just a theory". I think he was right about it being just a theory (a theory he believed, btw) but I would go one step further. I would say it is just a philosophy about how to understand science.

==Considering the "fact" that there are ID scientists all over the place I can't go along with your statement. They work in universities, labs, NASA, and medical centers. Keep in mind that not all ID folks reject evolution.

 

==I don't know. What I do know, however, is that scientists who have openly professed a belief in ID have a hard time getting anything published in the academic world.

==How is, so called, macro-evolution being used today?

==Because you must first accept the atheistic world-view that is behind non-ID evolutionary theory. Evolution is a philosophy, and not a hard science, because it involves how scientists view the hard evidence.

==Genetics does not require non-id evolutionary theory. In fact I would say that genetics argue against non-id evolutionary theory. Genetics is probably the field where the ID folks have their best arguments.

==You would have to ask them. I am just saying that they are all throughout the scientific community.

 

==I am not totally sure what that has to do with the OP "but" there are more than a few fundamentalist/evangelical Christians in places of "power". Some of us do have graduate degrees from accredited Universities, work for major Universities or companies, even the government.