Posted by: the watchmen | March 14, 2009

Creationism will be taught in school science lessons.

Secondary education University education

Home Education Education News Creationism ‘should be taught in science lessons’

Creationism will be taught in school science lessons under controversial new plans to provoke debate on the origins of life.

By Graeme Paton, Education Editor
Last Updated: 11:48AM GMT 09 Mar 2009

Guidance is being sent to dozens of secondary schools highlighting how the Biblical story of creation can be used in classes for 11 to 14-year-olds.

It is being employed as part of a joint syllabus for science and religious education.

Creationism ‘should be taught in science lessons’
How Genesis crept back into the classroom
Scientist loses post in row over creationism in schools
Creationism can be a topic in class
Poll reveals public doubts over Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution
Creationism should be taught in science classes, says expertThe module – for schools in Hampshire – is designed to contrast Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution with creationism and its more recent off-shoot intelligent design.

Last night, critics branded it “an extremely retrograde step”.

But supporters insisted pupils should be encouraged to analyse different views in a balanced way.

It comes amid continuing debate over the teaching of creationism in state schools.

Last year, Prof Michael Reiss quit as director of education at the Royal Society after scientists attacked his suggestion that it should tackled in biology lessons.

Official Government guidance says creationism should be tackled in RE, but should not form part of science syllabuses.

However, it opens the door to discussion of the subject if it is raised by pupils during debates about evolution.

The latest row surrounds a report sent to 70 secondary schools by Hampshire Council’s multi-faith advisory panel for RE.

The document – aimed at pupils in so-called Key Stage 3 – says: “The tensions between religion and science should not be denied but nor should we paint a black and white picture in this respect, it is more complex than that.”

It urges teachers to discuss issues such why natural selection was rubbished by critics in the 19th century and whether it is possible to believe in both evolution and a divine creator at the same time.

Others topics to be debated in both science and RE lessons include the Roman Catholic Church’s view that mankind may have evolved but God created the soul and the argument that humans are “made in the image of God”.

The council denied it was advocating the teaching of creationism as a scientific theory.

Councillor Anna McNair Scott, chairman of the county’s Standing Advisory Council for Religious Education, said: “There is no suggestion in the report that creationism is a science, still less that it should be taught as one.

“The report is intended simply to advise schools about resources they can use to encourage reasoned enquiry and open discussion about creation and evolution, and suggests how the debate can be carried out across the curriculum areas of science and RE.”

Creationism is commonly known as the belief that the Earth and its species were created suddenly by God within the last 10,000 years.

The intelligent design movement claim there are aspects of the natural world that are so intricate that they must have been created by an “intelligent designer”.

Terry Sanderson, president of the NSS, said: “There is a big difference between answering students’ questions about creationism and actually introducing it into the lessons in the first place as part of the curriculum. If the teacher raises the topic, then it takes on an authority that it does not deserve.”

Andy McIntosh, co-director of Truth in Science, a group of academics and clergymen campaigning for intelligent design to be included in syllabuses, said: “There should be an open and fair discussion about the issues and we should not be presenting pupils with only one view in a closed manner. It is certainly possible to look at the evidence and come up with a different conclusion to the evolutionary position. Indeed, many would see that the evidence fits perfectly well with a design position.”

Advertisements

Responses

  1. I’m not exactly clear what students will be taught after reading this post.

  2. The Truth, I expect.

  3. Basically they will (finally) hear multiple ideas, rather than just one. The ideas are as below.

    1: The Standard theory of Evolution.

    2: The Young Earth Creationist View.

    3: Possibly the Old Earth Creationist View.

    4: Intelligent Design Theory.

    5: A Discussion on why Darwins theory was critisised in its early days, and why it is today.

    6: The possibility of adhering to Evolutionary Theory whilst still believing in God.

    And I say this is a grand idea. Finally gets all things to the table for a nice chat.

  4. I absolutely agree in a nice chat but not at the expense of valuable time lost in actually teaching science.

  5. They will be teaching Science, they simply won’t pretend only one view exists.

  6. Science doesn’t pretend that only one view exists.
    It does, however, maintain that only one scientific view exists.

    None of these other ideas are, in any sense, scientific. They’re religious ideas and therefore belong in church or in a religious class.

    They don’t belong in a science class, except maybe as a good example of how science can be hijacked by people with a religious agenda.

    And there could be some discussion about why, taking a scientific point of view, it’s just not possible that so many biblical accounts of events are in any way accurate.

    However, I don’t think that’s the real intention of this.

  7. We pray that you may find the following words by Dr. Duane Gish helpful, Matt, and you may discover that our Omnipiscient Creator has all the answers
    .True science is the search for truth. The single most important principle of science education is the one that instructs students to identify assumptions, use critical thinking, make logical deductions, and consider alternative explanations. When any theory becomes dogma, and its proponents seek every device to protect the theory from challenges and seek to ban alternatives, this is poor science, poor education, and a violation of the academic freedom of students and teachers. These considerations are especially important when applied to the teaching of origins, which not only powerfully influences the teaching of biology and other physical sciences, but also philosophy, psychology, history, and religion. Today evolutionists dominate our educational establishment and scientific organizations. Evolution is accepted and promoted by the majority within the mass media—newspapers, radio, television, and magazines. The evolutionary establishment has reacted in a fit of mass hysteria to even the feeblest challenges to its control of public education and the promotion of evolution as an established fact.

    The reaction of the evolutionary establishment to the adoption in August of 1999 by the Kansas State Board of Education of new guidelines for teaching science education is a glaring example. The Board, by a 6–4 vote, sought to demote evolution from the preeminent place as the organizing principle of all of biology and its position as unquestioned fact requiring correct answers on certain tests. Predictably, the evolutionary establishment urged evolutionists throughout the U.S. to make known their objections to members of the Kansas State Board of Education and to contact newspapers throughout Kansas. Most of these papers published articles and editorials denouncing the action of the Board, declaring that the State of Kansas was in danger of becoming the laughing stock of the U.S. Many of these articles inferred that evolution was in danger of being eliminated or drastically curtailed in textbooks. As a result, in the next election several of the Board members who voted for the new guidelines were replaced.

    In February 2001, the new State Board of Education voted 7–4 to replace the science guidelines put in place by the previous Board with guidelines that reestablished evolution to its preeminent position. The evolutionary establishment had won. What precisely was the action taken by the earlier Board? Scott Hill, a member of the Board, and one of those who supported the modified guidelines, issued a public statement. In this statement he said:

    In a word, the firestorm was about arrogance . . . the fact is a group of closeminded science educators were determined to put in place curricular standards that held up Evolution as the most important concept in all of science. Not only did they suggest a unifying status to evolution, but further suggested the concept transcended science. . . . These narrow-minded drafters ignored input from scores of professional scientists. . . . The State Board did not remove evolution; they did not even deemphasize it. The State Board did not include creationism; they did not even mention it. What the State Board did do was take input from all constituents and develop a set of standards based on good, qualifiable science.

    Actually, the most obvious criticism of the action taken by the earlier Kansas State Board should have been that it didn’t go far enough. Should the teaching about the theory of evolution, along with all of its assumptions and evidence believed to support it, be banned? Absolutely not. To do so would violate the academic and religious freedoms of those who believe in evolution. On the other hand, should teachers and students be encouraged to carefully examine and critically evaluate the assumptions that permeate evolutionary theory? Should teachers and students be allowed, even encouraged, to search out and consider scientific evidence that contradicts the assumptions and claims for the validity of the theory of evolution? Absolutely. To do otherwise is poor science and poor education. Should teachers and students be permitted and encouraged to examine and evaluate the scientific evidence that many thousands of scientists throughout the United States of Christian, Muslim, Jewish, eastern religions, and other persuasions believe provides powerful positive evidence for a theistic, supernatural origin of the universe and its living organisms? Absolutely. To do otherwise places a severe constraint on the search for truth and violates the academic and religious freedoms of those who hold such views.

    But didn’t the U.S. Supreme Court, in their 1987 ruling on the Louisiana equal time law, which required that the scientific evidence for both creation and evolution be taught, declare that teaching scientific evidence that supports creation in public schools violates separation of church and state and is unconstitutional? Absolutely not. The Supreme Court ruled that the Louisiana law which required that evidence for both be taught was unconstitutional because it was wrongly motivated by members of the Louisiana legislature. The scientific evidence for creation can be taught in science classrooms if this is done voluntarily by teachers without coercion, and without reference to religious literature of any kind. That this is so has been admitted by prominent evolutionists. Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University stated, “Creationists claim their law broadened the freedom of teachers by permitting the introduction of controversial material. But no statute exists in any state to bar instruction in ‘creation science.’ It could be taught before, and it can be taught now.”1 Eugenie Scott, who heads the anti-creationist organization, National Center for Science Education, stated that “Reports of the death of ‘scientific creationism,’ however, are premature. The Supreme Court decision says only that the Louisiana law violates the constitutional separation of church and state; it does not say that no one can teach scientific creationism—and unfortunately many individual teachers do.”2 In spite of this fact, it is incessantly repeated in newspapers that teaching the scientific evidence for creation in public schools violates the constitution and has been prohibited by the Supreme Court. As a result most educators have accepted this false notion, and it is widely promoted by evolutionists.

    But doesn’t introducing evidence that supports creation require a Creator and is thus religious in nature? Aren’t scientific theories restricted to the use of natural laws and natural processes? It is true that in our efforts to observe, to understand, and to explain the operation of the universe and the operation of living organisms we do and must employ only natural laws and processes. The evolutionist, however, goes beyond this, stepping outside of empirical science when he insists that we must use these very same natural laws and processes to explain the origin of the universe and the origin of living organisms. Thus the evolutionist is substituting metaphysics in the place of true science, the search for truth. No theory about origins, creation, or evolution, fulfills the criteria of a scientific theory. A scientific theory must be based on repeatable observations, be subject to scientific test, and be potentially falsifiable. There were no human observers to the origin of the universe, life, or a single living kind. These events took place in the unobservable past and are not capable of observation today. All changes that occur among living things are merely fluctuations within limits. No one observes apelike creatures evolving toward humans or fish evolving into amphibians. Creation and evolution are theories about history, and such theories are not scientific theories. They do have scientific characteristics, they can be discussed in scientific terms, and there is a mass of circumstantial evidence that can be evaluated. Evolution is no more scientific than creation and it is just as religious. What is more religious, a Creator, or no Creator? Dr. Michael Ruse, an evolutionist (and who was then a philosopher of science professor at Guelph University), was one of the main witnesses for evolution in the 1981 Arkansas federal trial concerning the constitutionality of the equal time law for creation and evolution passed by the Arkansas legislatur (declared unconstitutional by Judge William Overton). At that time he argued strenuously that evolutionary theory was strictly science, while creation theory was exclusively religious. This served as the main basis for Judge Overton’s decision. About 20 years later, in an article published in a Canadian newspaper,3 Ruse, although still a Darwinian evolutionist, revealed his complete turnabout on the question of evolutionary theory and religion. Ruse flatly stated that he now believes that “Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality . . . Evolution is a religion” (emphasis added). Unfortunately, the unofficial state-sanctioned religion in U.S. public schools today is this non-theistic humanism which clearly violates the separation of church and state.

    But isn’t the scientific evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, solidly in favor of evolution? Didn’t Darwin provide the mechanism that explained how evolution could and did take place? The amazing thing is that today, 140 years after publication of Darwin’s book, not only is Darwin’s theory under attack by creationists but is under attack by more and more evolutionists! In fact, Søren Løvtrup, well-known Swedish scientist and an evolutionist, has declared that “I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science.”4 The fossil record, for example, does not produce the evidence Darwin predicted. If evolution is true we should find innumerable fossilized ancestors and connecting forms. However, every one of these complex invertebrates appear fully formed, with no trace of ancestors or intermediate forms connecting one to another. Furthermore, every major kind of fish known appears in the fossil record fully formed, with no ancestors and no connecting forms. If evolution is true there should have been uncounted billions of transitional forms documenting the intermediate stages between some invertebrate and fishes. There are none. These facts are incompatible with evolution. On the other hand, these facts are precisely what creationists predict. The remainder of the fossil record reveals that each basic type of plant and animal appears fully formed in the fossil record.

    Sir Fred Hoyle, world-famous British astronomer, declared after researching the probability of an evolutionary origin of life, the probability of a naturalistic evolutionary origin of life anywhere in the universe in 20 billion years is equal to the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard would assemble a Boeing 747. Sir Fred, formerly an atheist, declared life therefore had to be created, therefore there must be a God. The all-pervasive existence of design and purpose seen throughout the universe and in every detail of the structure and function of living organisms speak eloquently of the existence of the Designer.

    Thousands of scientists holding advanced degrees in science from major universities throughout the world reject evolutionary theory and have become convinced on the basis of scientific evidence that the best statement we can make about our origin today is still, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” To deny the opportunity for the students in the tax-supported public schools in our pluralistic democratic society to be taught all of the scientific evidence that supports the two basic theories of origins, creation and evolution, is a denial of academic freedom and constitutes indoctrination in a humanistic, naturalistic worldview or religion.

  8. Greetings Mr. Watchman, I think you are shooting yourself in the foot to write such a long convoluted post. Why do you not believe in evolution?

  9. Matt, you say that this only shows how Science can be hyjacked by a Religious Agenda, but then you make the following statement.

    “And there could be some discussion about why, taking a scientific point of view, it’s just not possible that so many biblical accounts of events are in any way accurate.

    However, I don’t think that’s the real intention of this.”

    Well, how is this not itself a Religious Agenda? It seems to me that you want peopel to dibeleive the Bible, and before you hand me any of the usual lines about tellign the truth or seekign it, the truth really is thjat you simply have an Anti-Bible, likely Anti-Christian view. You htink the Bile is not Scientific because you need to beelive this.

    It seems odd to me that those so sconvinced of the Strenght of Evolutionary theory shoudl fear these steps.

    THis now includes you, WHatchemacolit.

    If Evolutionary Theory is clearlyt he best answer, then it shoudl stand up o the Critisms anyoen leveis.

    All this new view does is to teach differing views, and geahc why they are beleived, and presents the Science that underlies each.

    Its only ressted by you it seems because you have your own religion to promote.

  10. Zarove, there is no scientific evidence supporting the biblical view of creation. There is no evidence for it at all. It is based only on belief and faith.

    You’ve created a false dichotomy, where the only two choices are belief in the bible or belief in evolution.

    If you genuinely wanted to talk about differing views, then as well as biblical creation you must also talk about the Hindu creation story, and the ancient Gods of Greece and Rome, and the Dreamtime of the native Australian people, and all the other thousands and thousands of origin stories in the world.

    Biblical creation is just one story out of thousands.

    Evolution however, stands apart from all of these because it carries clear physical evidence of its truth.

  11. Zarove, there is no scientific evidence supporting the biblical view of creation. There is no evidence for it at all. It is based only on belief and faith.

    I hate how words are abused these days. its base donly in beleif and faith? This makes no sense as a sentence.

    Creationism is a beleif. Beleif can’t be based on beleif.

    Incidentlalu, Evolution is a beleif. in fact, thinkign he sky is blue or stars are visible at night is a beleif. Beleif is whatever you happen to think is true.

    Faith is another word that has multiple definitions, in context of such matters, it only means confidence, and surly both sides woudl have this.

    As to the no evidence claim, isn’t that for each of us to determine? Obviously a Creationist disagrees with you. Liekwise, when you say “The Biblical View of Creation” you also seem tot hink all Christians are Creatinists or creationism is the Biblical view. This alone is not true, as Augustine and Origen both rejected it much earlier than Darwin.

    I suspect your just oen of those who wishes to preach about the wonders of Science and Reason and who wats us not to beleive the Bibel at all. You did say that we shoudl teahc in class perhaps that the Biblical view is incompatable with Sicnece. Why teach this other than to attack the Biblical view?

    It seems your just out for your own end, and htis is what is beign combated here. This sort of arrogance.

    In a libertarian society such as what we supposeldy have now, woudln’t all views be rpesented to allow us to make up our own minds?

    There aren’t even just two views. As I noted, one can think of the creaiton as an epic poem, or an allegory, and still be wihtin early Christian tradition, and that alone is ignroe dby you.

    So you don’t even know much beyind attakcign creaitonism and htinkign we shoudl indocternate CHildrne into disturstign the bible.

    Come now, teahcing a Creationist or Intellegent Dsign modle alognside evolution and accompanyhign i with discussions on thistic evolution and other interpretatiosn of sacred texts woudln’t be the end of reason, it woudl only broaden minds, and objeciton si essentulaly an attemot to force but oen view.

    You’ve created a false dichotomy, where the only two choices are belief in the bible or belief in evolution.

    No, you did that when you said that the only thing the schools shoudl teach is how these views ar eincoompatable with Sicnece. I have a lenghty hisoty of noting how those arnet hte onlyt wo views, and frequently cite origen. DOn’t ebelive me? Check aroudn online.

    If you genuinely wanted to talk about differing views, then as well as biblical creation you must also talk about the Hindu creation story, and the ancient Gods of Greece and Rome, and the Dreamtime of the native Australian people, and all the other thousands and thousands of origin stories in the world.

    This is a false statement, sicne your makign a false claim.

    You think that this new legeslation will teach the Biblcial creaiton acocunt alone. Intellegent design theory is not, hwoever, the same hing as striclty teachign Biblcial creation.

    Just as when you said that the school coudl teach how the Bibles view is incompatbale wiht sicnece and eidence, you seem to overlook a yriad of actual points, from exaclty what ID is , to people who hodl to an Origanian interpretation of the Genesis acocunt.

    So don’t tell me of false dichotomies.

    Yoru preachign one above.

    Biblical creation is just one story out of thousands.

    One on which you’d be happy to teahc impresisonable children is a fairiey tale, and tell them its incompatable with Sicnece and evdence, base don your own presupposiitons, whilst compatign it to other cration accounts, and ignorign the real work of Intellegent Design theory, and alternate Biblical undertandings.

    Way to go, yu’ve made a case for totolitarian cotnrol of the topic base don misinformation.

    Evolution however, stands apart from all of these because it carries clear physical evidence of its truth.

    The last I checked, no one wants ot rmove Evolutinary teachign from schools. They just wan tot add alternatives.

    Unliek you, thos ealternative sinclue Biblical interpretaitsn compatable with Evolution, and Intellegent Deisgn which itself isn’t nessisairly reliant on the Geneis creation narrative.

    You act as if its just Genesis VS Evolution, when is not, and Creationsist dont just rest on the Genesis narrative for thier case.

  12. I don’t “believe” in evolution, if you want to go with your definition of belief.

    Rather, I “believe” that the natural world is subject to natural laws, and that supernatural explanations for phenomena (like the idea that God created the world) are unsupported by any evidence.

    There’s another term for this belief: it’s called science.

    This is the basis of scientific understanding. To pretend otherwise is to try to change the definition of science!

    I have no problem with people teaching biblical creationism and ID (they’re really the same thing) in their churches. But the fact remains that it’s not science, and therefore doesn’t belong in a science class.

  13. I don’t “believe” in evolution, if you want to go with your definition of belief.

    SO, you don’t accept Evolution as true, then?

    Because my definition of Beleive is to actulaly accept soemthing as true. Incidentlaly this is also the definition the word has in the english language.

    Rather, I “believe” that the natural world is subject to natural laws,

    So do I. In fact, this is a Christian idea. Have you ever read Francis Bacon? How about Rene Des Carte? Thomas Aquinas? The Venerable Bede?

    The idea that the natural world operates on natural laews is something that is actulaly foudn in Christian thouht long, long ago.

    Sayign this, and the beow, shows how little youve studied the matter.

    THen again its easy tomake htis a fight between Religion and Sicnece base don sterotypes, sint it? You also pretended we set up a false dichotomy and listed other creaiton narratives form other reliigions, as if there ar eonly two vews ont he table in this new legeslation, Young Earth Creationism base dont he Biblical account of Genesis andnothign more, or Evolutionary theory as presente din Modern Science.

    Of coruse, you never did respond to that point, that these arent th eonly two views available. You overlooked that ID isn’t just quotign Genesis. You overlooked that the Biblcial view on the matter is not simply Young Earht Creaitonism, and many who follwo the Bibel follow everythign form Old Earth Creaiton to thinkign of the creaiton as Allegory.

    You ignroe that.

    Then you want ot talk abut how you dont beleive in evolution, you know it, even though that is sayign you beleive in it. (Knowign doenst cancel beleif, and relaly you dont know much of anything, nor do we all.)

    and that supernatural explanations for phenomena (like the idea that God created the world) are unsupported by any evidence.

    What abotu God creatign the world but without adding a SUpernatural?

    Really your shortsightedness is amazong. Not all Christians think there is a Supernatural world. In fact, the concept of the supernatural, a seperate relm which is removed form the natural world, is a relatively new creation, startign only in the enlightenment. Before then, peopel thought things liek Angels and Demons occupied our world,a nd many still do.

    The lable of “SUpernatural” need not be applied.

    As ot no evidence ofr God creatign the Universe, tell that to Anthony Flew, he’d disagree, as woudl a host of Philosophers and Sicnetists.

    I’m sorry that your ignorant of the evidence of Gods existance, but it does exist, and isnt limited to we few humble CHristians who know nothign of Sicnece.

    There’s another term for this belief: it’s called science.

    No, its not.

    Science woudlnt make outragoeus claims like you did, without bakcing thigns up. In fact, Science as it is now came abotu largley due to Rene Des Carte and Francis Bacon, and they certianly wherent’ Ahtiests. Maybe you know Des Carte had proof of God in his Philosophy? A Philosophy still used today?

    No?

    That said, Science is really just a method. You observe a Phoenomenon, develop a hypothesis to explain the Phoenomenon, and test the hypothesis. This is a simplified verison of the full method, but he point is that Sicnece is not what you said above, what you said above is largley a personal Philosophical position that seems base don ignorance.

    This is the basis of scientific understanding. To pretend otherwise is to try to change the definition of science!

    The basis of Scientific understandign is Ahtiesm? Not really, since many Sicnetists today beleive in God and Sicnece owes its origins to CHristians. Neither is your idiocy abotu the natural world obeying naturla laws really discreditious to CHristianity, nor is it Sicnetific. (Science wudl admit Supernatural events if observed.)

    What your presenting as Science is personal opinion, not Scie=ience.

    I have no problem with people teaching biblical creationism and ID (they’re really the same thing) in their churches. But the fact remains that it’s not science, and therefore doesn’t belong in a science class.

    At leats accordign to you, but then, you didnt even addreess what Id said earlier that some people who beleive in the Biblical view do not teach the Creation account as literal history. You ignroed htis, and I suppose wont even give it a second thought.

    You also ignroed the fact that ID is actulaly not reliant upon the openign passages of Genesis, and can be applied ot any nu,mner of those other origin stries you mentioned.

    Have you acutlaly looke dinto it? Or are you just spouting?

    You ignore uoet a lot. I suppose its easier to think ther eis only one Biblical perspective, and that tis clealry wrong, and if taught at all in SIcnece clas its only to teahc how wrong it is, than to do real study on the matter.

  14. Zarove,

    Please look into using some sort of spell checker before you post. Your responses are very difficult to read.

    I am familiar with the all the philosophical and epistemological arguments you’re dropping all over the place. For example I concluded many years ago, like most modern philosophers, that Descartes’ Meditations are nothing but a deeply flawed, fallacious and circular argument.

    So you can dispense with the pseudo-intellectual posturing if you like.

    I was a little thrown by your question: “What about God creating the world but without adding a Supernatural?” (I’ve cleaned up your spelling)

    This makes no sense, Zarove, because God himself is supernatural!

    We agree that science concerns itself only with the natural world and natural laws. God is supernatural, therefore questions about God’s existence are outside the scope of scientific enquiry. This is so obvious as to be trivial!

    Getting back to the idea of “belief”, my belief is not in evolution. My belief is in the natural world. And following on from that, acceptance of the naturalistic worldview leads logically to acceptance of evolution simply because of the astounding volume of natural evidence that supports it.

  15. Zarove,

    Please look into using some sort of spell checker before you post. Your responses are very difficult to read.

    I am dyslexic. Thanks for noticing.

    I am familiar with the all the philosophical and epistemological arguments you’re dropping all over the place.

    No your not. You haven’t even addressed them or the main points I’ve raised. For example, you still havent explaiend why we shoudl teach that the Biblical view is incompatable with Sceince if we teach anythign at all, other than to suit your own philosophical worldview.

    Neither have you explained why I should see the Biblical view as wrong, nor explained why only one view is “The Biblical View” when the Ancient Jews themselves didn’t have only one take on it, neither did the Early Church.

    For example I concluded many years ago, like most modern philosophers, that Descartes’ Meditations are nothing but a deeply flawed, fallacious and circular argument.

    So you can dispense with the pseudo-intellectual posturing if you like.

    Its not PSeudo-Intellectual, and you misse dmy pooint whilst managing to not relaly prove Des Carte wrong. Nice feat.

    Here is my point. Modern Science emerged out of Cartesean and Baconian thinking. Neither man was actulaly Atheistic. Even in Modern Science, we have numerous peopel whop are THeistic, and from numerous Traditional Faiths, including Christianity. (And this is not Compartmentalisation before that tired old bromide is applied.)

    Your claim is simply false.

    That said, Cartesean Philosophy is acutlaly still in use today. Modern Philosophy hasn’t actulaly dispenced with Des Carte as fully as you pretend.

    I was a little thrown by your question: “What about God creating the world but without adding a Supernatural?” (I’ve cleaned up your spelling)

    This makes no sense, Zarove, because God himself is supernatural!

    Thanks for proving my point that you haven’t studied theology, or anything else apart from a narrow worldview.

    Not all theologians see God as supernatural. DO I need to name names? Or willy ou say thats namedroppign and PSeudo-Intellectual posturing?

    As I said, it woudl be better if you learned somehting before you speak, woudln’t oit? THis simplistic supernaturalism VS Naturalism ignroes enture branches of theology, including naturalistic and proccess theology.

    Shoudl I just up and forget what I know to accomodate your views?

    We agree that science concerns itself only with the natural world and natural laws. God is supernatural, therefore questions about God’s existence are outside the scope of scientific enquiry. This is so obvious as to be trivial!

    But, we didn’t agree to this at all.

    1: Science acctually doens’t concern itself only with the natural world. Science concerns itself withthe observable world. If a Supernaturla being, like an Angel (As if Angels can only be supernatural, you seem to think this is the case) showed up andd presented himself for long periods of time in a laboritory, then Science woudl actulaly be able to test said Angel.

    Science is interested in simply discovering how thigns work, by the use of the Scientific Method. (Francis Bacon again.) It is not limited to the Natural world, it is limited only by what can be observed.

    2: As noted, many branches of THeology do not accept that there is a seperate Supernatural Relm, and htus do not see God himself as Supernatural, so even if Science only considered the Natural world, then this is still not a closed matter.

    Your just spouting stock arguments andnot payign attention to what is said.

    Getting back to the idea of “belief”,

    You mean, the definition that I can find in dictionaries and that has existed in the english language? Really for some reaosn peopel fall in love with stupid arguments such as havign no beleifs or hatnot and forge to look at hat these thigns rlaly are, and then act as if I invented a novel new definition when I challenge their assertions.

    Its liek when the New Atheists atack Faith as irrational because tis beleif withotu evidence. Tellign them its not beleif wihtotu evidence doenst hinder them, for they simply insist it is and say Im makign up definitions, and carry on as usual.

    I suspect you will to.

    English Language be cursed!

    my belief is not in evolution. My belief is in the natural world. And following on from that, acceptance of the naturalistic worldview leads logically to acceptance of evolution simply because of the astounding volume of natural evidence that supports it.

    Thats all very well and good except that you still haven’t addressed the following.

    1: What about theologies that do not teach supernaturalism? As said this is acutlaly a new idea, of a seperate world apart from our own.

    2: What about CHristains who have accepted Evolutionary theory, and who do not find it incompatable with the Scriptures? You said that the Biblical view is incompatable with Sicnece and further said this is theonly hting that should be tauht in schools. Well, what about their view? Is it not Biblical? EVen if they follow the CHurch Fathers hwo lived before Darwin?

    If not, why not allow a bit of class time to explain that peopel can beleiv ein God and Evolution? And their reaosing?

    3: Not all peopel who support a Naturalistic view on things agree with you that the evidence for Evolution is Overwhelming. Though in the Sciences, to deny Evlution is career suicide, more and more have come up, who arne’t nessisarily Christian, who have some reservatiosn abotu it.

    4: Not everyone accepts a purly naturlaistic worldview, so why is it theirs has to be excluded? If only on the basis that their conclusions do not combine with your personal naturalistic worldview, then what you are essentially saying is that your worldview and yours alone shoudl be taught and not challened, whilst allowing for critisism but not defene of others. How is that justifiable?

    No, I’m afraid your views are not relevant to the matter. What is relevant is that if intellegent peopel have somehtign to say on the topic, it shoudl be said,a nd not all peopel agree with your conclusions abotu these things, and the students shoudl be aware of these alternatives.

  16. Zarove,

    Taking your points one at a time:

    1: What about theologies that do not teach supernaturalism?

    Such theologies are irrelevant to this discussion, because they must by definition exclude a supernatural God who created the world.

    2: What about Christians who have accepted Evolutionary theory, and who do not find it incompatible with the Scriptures?

    They would agree with me that Creationism should not be taught in science classes. For example, the science teachers at the center of the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial who were trying to get ID removed from the syllabus were Christians.

    3: Not all people who support a Naturalistic view on things agree with you that the evidence for Evolution is overwhelming.

    It probably means they haven’t looked at the evidence. It’s pretty hard to deny if you have.

    4: Not everyone accepts a purely naturalistic worldview, so why is it theirs has to be excluded?

    Because we’re talking about science classes. Science is concerned only with the natural world. Anything outside of the natural world is not science, and therefore does not belong in a science class.

  17. Having visited your blog, my suspicions of you where conformed, in that your real motive is simply to attack anything Christian in the name of your religion of Humanism.

    Of course you will deny this, just as you will deny Humanism is a religion. You have to. You have made Religion a pejorative, it is the thing you struggle against, and have imposed upon it all that is wrong with the world. Surly you can’t be Religious, your fighting for reason and a world of peace and Religion stands in the way of all Human progress. But the truth is, yours is a religion.

    And this is why you are here, because your religion is threatened by allowing people to see other points of view. You want to impose a monopoly on what is taught in schools. I bet if you had your way there would be nothing at all taught about Christianity except how wrong it is. You’d have schools teach that Christianity contradicts Science, and Science is always right and never wrong, and would teach them that Science leads to Humanism. (In fact, Humanism and Science would become effective synonyms.) You’d teach them how dangerous Religion is and how it harms society. You’d teach them that anyone espousing morals founded in Christianity where dangerous lunatics who don’t really care about others and only care about their doctrines, placing hem above actually helping others, like you did on your rant about how bad the Pope was over his single sentence about condoms.

    All of this to make sure everyone learns how irrational and dangerous and outright evil Religion is, so you could convince them not to be Christian. (Religion and Christianity seem synonymous to you as well.)

    Then you’d teach them how much better Humanism is.

    And of ocruse you’d be sure fto brainwash them into thinking Humanism isn’t a religion with the usual rot about not believing n a higher power or the Supernatural, because you haven’t really studied religion and do not know what it is.

    ( And you’d teach that Paganism is Atheism in intent if not in language because you aren’t well versed enough to realise that the Ancient Pagans actually did worship external gods.)

    And this is what all of this is really about.

    Its not about Science or making sure propaganda and agendas aren’t implemented, its about implementing your own agenda to make sure your own religion is the only one taught to ensure most people grow up with the worldview you personally have chosen.

    You can’t even see past your own errors I’ve mentioned before. You still insist that God must be seen as Supernatural., I’ve repeated twice above, and this makes the third time, that God need not be understood as Supernatural. Your continued insistence that God is supernatural, and that anyone who has a theology that doesn’t allow for the Supernatural also excludes God, is just absurd.

    I realise you think your well smarter than I am, but God is not necessarily seen as Supernatural. You won’t admit this, but belief in God is not always belief in the Supernatural, either.

    Just as you repeated that Science only concerns itself with the natural world. No it doesn’t. If a Supernatural realm exists and can be observed one could apply the Scientific method to it. Saying Science only concerns itself with the natural world is false, because nothing in the Scientific method actually limits Science to the Natural world.

    When you say that anything outside of the natural world doesn’t belong in a Science class because Science only concerns itself with the natural world, you are repeating a talking point, but not addressing the reality of Science, which has no such limit.

    Then again, you also think that anyone who dares to disagree with your opinion on Evolution must be ignorant of the evidence. This is harldy the case, for either those who do not subscribe to Naturalism, or for those who do but still believe in God. (Yes I know, if they believe in God they believe a supernatural begin created us… but if you repeat this you will show only what a monstrous idiot you are as now I’ve said four times that God need not be understood as Supernatural. Also, rather than call me a moron because I’ve said God need not be supernatural when to you its obvious he has to be, keep in mind I’ve studied both Philosophy and Theology, and you haven’t. You’ve just read websites and books by “New Atheists” like Dawkins. That much is patently obvious.)

    Basically, what you are doing is limiting the terms to fit a predetermined outcome that places Science only in the realm of your private philosophy and restricts God to being a Supernatural being that Science can’t consider and that we likely shouldn’t believe in because belief in God contradicts Science.

    You then say that if we teach anything at all about the biblical view it should be only to discredit it as incompatible with Science to impressionable children, to show your disdain.

    And you insist that anyone who disagrees with you has not studied the evidence for things.

    Come off it, this sort of arrogant tosh is meaningless, just as claiming the Pope doesn’t care about people and only wants to push his doctrinal beliefs at their expense in the matter of HIV in Africa is closed minded arrogancy. You don’t really care abut fairness or truth, you care only about pushing your religion of Humanism.

    And that’s why you’re here and why your upset, because if people start to question evolutionary thery, they may also question the rest of the humanism you’d like them to accept.

    If they accept Evolution but think God may have guided it, they will not really be Atheists and will be less susceptible to your indoctrination of them into your own religion as well.

    Ultimately this is simply you wanting to push your own religious faith onto the masses in order to make it grow by eliminating the competition. Its sort of the intellectual equivalent to Robesphere guillotining all of his rivals in the French Revolution to ensure his Republican ideals where supreme.

    But the one thing you cannot abide is anyone standing and saying , “Hold on there mate”, because you would much rather be unopposed. When you are opposed you of course fly into a usual tissy and try to diminish anyone else’s arguments.

    Not that this matters, I doubt you will read this post, with any comprehension. I’m pretty sure in the next post you make you will repeat that Science only concerns itself with the Natural world without even acknowledging that I contradicted this, even to show me wrong. I doubt you will acknowledge that belief in God is not necessarily belief in the Supernatural because God need not be seen as Supernatural. You won’t even acknowledge that I said God isn’t necessarily supernatural and will continue on assuming God is always understood as a Supernatural Creator, and act as if I agree on this point.

    This seems to be your pattern, to repeat the same things even when they are countered, not in order to defend and define them, but just to repeat them as if they are fact.

    It is an intellectually barren approach, incidentally, as it shows you do not care about the discussion at hand or what others have to say, you only care about propping up your own way of thinking and insisting everyone agree with it, and seem to think that by repeating the standard pat answers, such as “Science only concerns itself with the natural world, not the supernatural” works in all cases as a clear reason why these arguments fail.

    As I said now five times, God is not always understood as Supernatural, so saying he is a Supernatural Creator evades the issue.

    As I’ve said six times now, Science doesn’t actually limit itself to the Natural world, only the observable.

    Will this even be addressed? I doubt it, or if it is it will be in an off handed way by you saying I am an idiot who doesn’t know hat he’s talking about, and of Course God is by definition supernatural and by definition Science only considers the natural world. You’d say this because gee golly, its just ever so obvious…

    Except its not.

    You won’t put fourth a real argument for anything, and just mock me for my stupidity, rather than see if what I say is right. You’ll assume its wrong because it contradicts you.

    And that’s ultimately why you dislike this new move in the UK Schools, because it contradicts your personal, preferred way of seeing things you want everyone else to accept.

    And, like you, you want the schools to operate on these assumptions and never to look at other views, because then your view prevails.

    But, that’s exactly why we need to add this sort o thing back in, so people get more than one view and understand that rational people can understand the world differently.

    It beats the method your using, which is to just force your view as if its revealed truth that cannot be challenged.

    Of coruse, I doubt you will accept this, but then, people like you never do. SO why not go back to your own blog where you can accuse the Pope of not caring about people because he opposes Condom Use, and pretend that all Religious people are idiots and irrational and your ever so much smarter than hey, and use profanity to describe us, and we can go back to having reasonable talks like adults.

  18. Zarove,

    The natural world is what can be observed and measured, so in that sense science is concerned with the natural world. If an angel did appear as you suggest, that would obviously throw a lot of modern scientific thinking into question.

    Let me know when that happens. Until then, it’s an irrelevant example.

    I’m also fascinated by this idea of yours that God can somehow be thought of as not supernatural.

    Surely religion’s concept of God, specifically a Creator God, is that God created the natural laws.

    That would mean that God is not subject to natural laws, because he can change them by force of his will. What is that if not supernatural?

    What does it even mean to have a natural God subject to natural laws?

  19. Matt, this ost of question is why I say you have no formal trainign in Philosophy or theology. Even though you claim to have rejected Cartesean Philosophy, as has modern Philosophy, base don it being circular, the truth is,modern Philosophy still uses Des Carte, and its not circular, and that was the firts clue.

    Now you come along with htis.

    Religion understands God to be Supernatural? Do you even realise how stupid this sounds?

    Are you relaly sayign that Religion is a sngular thing, and that Religion has a singular idea about God? That Religion dictates God has tobe Supernatural? That this is what Religion says?

    Do you even realise that there are many religions, and they don’t all agre on all aspects of everything?

    How can I tell you about this when, in fact, the Theolgy I woudl tell you woudl rely heavily on Religious thinkers? Accoridng to you, anyone hwo postulates God as not Supernatural is not Religious because Religion’s concept of God is that he’s supernatural.

    How can I address that?

    The truth is, I can’t, because not all Religions approach this topic as you do.

    Also, God as the creator of the Natural world is still not nessesarily Supernatural. Whern you stop and actually think about it, which you do not do, as I have shown just form you sayign Religion has a concept of God, as though it is a singular thing, you’d realise that the idea of a Creator God who created the Natural laws isn’t really Supernatural by definition.

    Here is why.

    Before I begin, I did not sya God had to be subject to natural laws, though there are theologies that say he is.

    Let me procceed.

    God woudl not be understood as existgn in a seperate realm, higher and apart from Nature, even if he was a Creator of the Natural order. He woudl simply be understood as the originator of the natural world, and thus, ultimatley, himself a part of the Natural world. He woudl not be subject ot its las in this htinking, becuse he regulates the laws, but is not existant in a seperate realm, which he’d be subject to its laws either. He woudl be “Ground Zero” as it where, the actual core of Nature itself, rather than seen as seperate form it.

    Now, this doens’t mean he’d have to be reliant upon Nature, but if Nature is reliant upon him, and was created by him, and he established the natural laws, and if he is not subject to a seperate Realms laws, then rather than see him as Supernatural, we’d se ehim as Central to the Naturla order and rmeoved.

    This makes God unique.

    Of course there are some other theologies such as Proccess theology, and some proccess theologians ( By no means all) woudl see God as subject to pre-existant natural laws that he simply manipulated to create the Universe we see aroudn us.

    That is another example. ( And its still “Religions concept of God” in case yo didn’t know.)

    And htis is the problem with talkign to the Dawkins Drones, withtheir little scarlet A’s and thier rantign and their illogicla conclusiosn that mustbe seen as logical…

    THey think they have all the answrs, then make statements that are sheer nonsence such as “Religiosn concept og God”, as if there is only one…

    Secular Humanism is a relgiion and Secular Humanisms concept of God is that there is no God.

    hehe, religiosn concept of God… indeed; Thats just one more example.

    I of coruse mean no offence but how can I really treat this as legitimate?

    It sliek when Dawkisn Drones tell me they dont need to udnerstand theology tomake a good case agaisnt CHristianity or Religion in General. If you don’t understand the topic then how on earth can you make a valid critisism of it?

    This is why Im OK with teaching a broad rang of thigns in the Science classroom abotu Creation,. not limited to Creationism and Evolution.

    This is why I’d liek to end the stupid culural onsturct that says that o accopet the Sicnetific view is to acct Evolution and to reject the idea of God. One can beleiv ein Evolution and still beleive in God, and one can reject Evolutionary theiry and still be Scientific.

    We relalyshoudl strive for broader minds and mroe open thought on all topics, genuine free thinking, not try to regulate peopels thoguths under a single auspecies, not in schools.

    I’m earnign two doctorates as we speak, one is in theology, and the other Psycology, and yet I am told what “Religion” thinks baout God.

  20. Zarove,

    We’re not talking about generalised religious views of God. We’re talking about teaching creationism in science classes.

    This is a very specific religious viewpoint in two ways:

    First, it’s about the Christian God, and second, it’s expounding the idea that the Christian God created the world.

    All your discussion about different religious views on the issue proves my point. This is not science. It’s theology.

    This discussion does not belong in a science class.

  21. Matt, stop being an intellectual coward.

    You are the one who drifted the conversation to theology in the firt palce by asking about how God coudl not be SUpernatural, and now your using it to claim Creatinism shoudln’t be taught in Sicnece classes.

    By the way, Theology is considered a Scence in its own right.

    All that said, the bottom line is this. Peopel shoudl be told that there are alternate and equelly respectable ays ot see our world. THey shoudln’t be taught that the bibel is incompatabel with Modern Science as you wish. They shoudl instead be taught that some peopel beleive there is an intellegent designer, a theory compatable with numerou religions, and explain why, including Scientific data, and shoudl be taught that beleif in God is not incompatable with Evolutionary theory.

    THis way, we dont have the false dichotomy of Evolution r God runnign abotu and we broaden student htinkign on the topic.

    No one wishes ot remove Evolution form the class rooms, but this legeslation will allow teachers to tell of a variey of different thoughts ont he subject of our origins and show how one can accpet Evolutin and still beleive in God. THat may upset an Ahtiest liek you whod prefer peopel t think beleif in God is incompatable soy ou can win more converts, but its harldy unfair.

  22. Also, Matt, we wheere talkign about Generalised Religion, when you said “Religions view of God”.

    Liekwise in this legeslation since Intellegent Design can be held by Muslims or Hindus. Its not striclty a Biblical thing.

    All that said, even the Christian God, who isnt relaly the Christian God but the God of al the Abrahamic Faiths, is not always undertsood as SUpernatural. Many of the theologians I’d list are actulaly Christian.

    Just because your too limited in understanding the topic doens’t mean I have to acocmodate your misconceptions as fact.

  23. Zarove,

    You clearly know a lot about theology, but you just as clearly know very little about science.

    When you can point a telescope at God and see him, or when you can objectively measure the effects of his presence, or when you can produce tangible evidence of his existence, then you can call it science.

    Until then, you can throw all the semantic arguments you want at the problem, but the fact remains.

    It’s just not science.

  24. Zarove,

    You clearly know a lot about theology, but you just as clearly know very little about science.

    Actually Im getting a Doctorate in Psycology,a nd later will take cpruses in Medical Scinece ot go into PSychietry.

    I actulaly do know a lot about Science.

    The trouble is, the issue really isn’t about Science for you. Its abotu maintianign a monopoly so that your personal religious worldview will be the only one taken seriously.

    You said it yourself, the only thing we shoudl teach regarding Religion in schools is how the Bibels accoutn is uttelry incompatable with Science. You, in effect, want the students ot beleive they cannot hold a Biblical worldview and still be in line with science.

    You also seem to want to teach a particulalry godles form of Evolutioin and not even mention that peopel can beeliv ein God whislt beleivign in Evolution.

    Basiclaly, we can’t even mention in passing theistiocic Evolution, it has to be your way otr nothing.

    What your advocating is a personal Philosphical view. Thats not Science, Matt, thats simply domeneiring.


    When you can point a telescope at God and see him,

    Matt, this is an idiotic thign to say. You can’t look at everythign with a Telescope.

    Subatomic aprticles for instance, or Dark Matter.


    or when you can objectively measure the effects of his presence,

    There are over 300 studies that show the positive effects of Beleif in God, and numerous tests reveal that God has an impact on peopel slives. This already has been measured objectively. The only reaosn it is rejected by peopel liek you is because it contradicts your presuppositions baout hte world. In other words, if God is objectivly proven, the test must have been faulty and is disregarded. Uttelry ignroed.

    But, this has been already measured.

    Shoudl I list the studies?

    I will if asked.


    or when you can produce tangible evidence of his existence, then you can call it science.

    Tangelble evidence has been produced. Ask Anthony Flew. The truth is, the reason ID is beign allowe dbakc into schools is because people DO claim Tangeble proof of Gods existance, and just because you ignroe that evidence out of a need to maintian your own personal worldview that is inherantly Ahtiestic and refuse to consider it, and wudl liekly invent an excuse to dismiss it rather than think it through logiclaly, doens’t mean such evidence doens’t actual;y exist.


    Until then, you can throw all the semantic arguments you want at the problem, but the fact remains.

    It’s just not science.

    The thing is, numerous peopel have been pursuaded that a god exists, because of ghe evidence. Again, jhust dismisisng it and pretendign it dpens’t exist because it contradicts your religious worldviewe isn’t the same hting as it not acutlaly being available. FIndign excuses to raitonalise it to make it fit your worldview downw’t make it wrong, ewither.

  25. Zarove,

    I’m perfectly comfortable with teachers saying that people can believe in God whilst believing in Evolution. In fact, I would advocate that.

    What I would not advocate, which is what you seem to want, is the suggestion that Creationism is, in any sense, a scientific viewpoint. It’s important to make clear what is science and what is not.

    And yes, please list the studies showing objective proof of God.

    I’ve noticed something about you, Zarove. It’s the same with the discussions we’re having over at target=”_blank”>my blog. You’ll spend paragraphs and paragraphs deriding me for ignoring all this apparent , while never actually producing it!

    You could save yourself a lot of time by posting a link and a brief summary.

  26. Zarove,

    I’m perfectly comfortable with teachers saying that people can believe in God whilst believing in Evolution. In fact, I would advocate that.

    What I would not advocate, which is what you seem to want, is the suggestion that Creationism is, in any sense, a scientific viewpoint.

    And yes, please list the studies showing objective proof of God.

    I’ve noticed something about you, Zarove. It’s the same with the discussions we’re having over at my blog. You’ll spend paragraphs and paragraphs deriding me for ignoring this apparent evidence, while never actually producing it!

    You could save yourself a lot of time by posting a link and a brief summary.

  27. Darn links.
    My blog.
    There.

  28. maybe thats because htis is a blog, and we are talkign in conversational tone.

    I also said Id present evidence if asked. You never asked before, except in the instance when I offered a coutnerview to show how speculation can be presented based on anyones interests.

    Askign for evidence in that instance was silly.

    Also, matt, I said spacificlaly that we can measure Gods effect, thats what the 300 studies show. This objectivley shows an effect. You can always interpret the Data differnelty an no doubt will, but if beleif in God and devotion tohim yeilds the expected benifits those studies say they do, one can then reasonabley argue that such a beelif is orrect owing tot he benifit invovled.

    Ill get the lost an dbe back in a bit.

  29. Also, Matt, the big thing you miss abotu me.

    I am a Libertarian, who thinks that all sides of an issue shodl be givin a fair hearng. Striclty speaking Intellegent Design isn’t spacifically Christian, and is compatable wiht other views of creation, and is roote din Scence as much as anythign else, so I see ho harm in presening it for consideration to students to let them know that such a theory exists.

  30. Zarove,

    If the data can be interpreted differently, then I suspect it may not be as objective as you claim.

    Still, I’ll wait and see.

    One final point: Intelligent Design is not a theory in the scientific sense. I’ve written about that here.

  31. Matt, your reason for sayign ID is not Sicneceis the same one I refuted here. I told you you will just ignore then forget that which contradicts yor view.

    Basiclaly, Science only considers the Natural world, and a Creator must be seen as Supernatural, thus outide of nature, and thus not Science.

    But here alon you admited that if a Supernatural beign showed up in a lab, it coudl be tested Scinetificlaly.

    Science doens’t operate on the assumpiton of a closed system, it is based on what can be observed.

    We’ve said that already, and the idea that Science only deals in the Natural WOrld is just a daft one.

    That said, your also forgetting the theological aspects. Again, God need not be seen as Supernatural.

    So how is your refutation any different form what Ive already dispatched above?

  32. Zarove,

    Let me repeat and expand upon my earlier refutation.

    I did not say that if a supernatural being turned up in a lab it could be tested scientifically. I said that such an occurrence would throw a lot of modern scientific thinking into question.

    Then I asked you to let me know when that happens, and I pointed out that until you can do so, it’s irrelevant.

    Also, you’re yet to produce any rational argument for God not being supernatural, so I’m assuming for the moment that no such argument exists.

    You repeating over and over again “God isn’t necessarily supernatural” does not constitute a rational argument.

    Finally, describing science as “considering the natural world” is woefully inadequate and imprecise. Of course,science does consider the natural world, but it does so in a very specific way and in a very specific way that excludes the supernatural.

    This is the definition of science from dictionary.com:

    Science noun
    1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws.
    2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

    Anything supernatural is explicitly excluded from this, based on its definition (also from dictionary.com):

    Supernatural adjective
    1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
    2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.

    I would say that’s pretty clear.

  33. Matt, re-read the Dictionary Definitoon.

    Definitoon 1 is not the same as 2. If you htink that 1 and 2 are both pats of the same definition, you commit a fallach of reading. Noth that it matters, since even 2 isnt preclusive of Supernatural events.

    Here is the thing, Definition one says only that Science is a branch of Knwledge that deals in knoeledge gained by a systematic method. WHy can’t that systematic method be used ot gain any useful Kwoelge of the Supernatural?

    As for Definiton 2, nothign in the definition you supplied of Supernatural is nessisari;ly preclusive of the Supernatural beign Mateiral.

    Now, on to the Supernatural, just because this ishwo th word is undertsood doens’t mean God has to be Supernatural. I did acutlaly rpesent theologies that beleived he wasn’t. I may not have goen into detail, btu its blithignly dishoenst ot think I shoudl have since there was no need.

    Nor will I here for space, btu I will intorduce you to terms.

    Pantheism, the theology that says God is Identical to the Universe we live in, need not see God as Supernatural, or even removed form Nature.

    Penantheism, whch teaches all of the world we lvie in is COntained inside God, but God fgoes beyond this, also need not see God as Supernatural.

    Proccess theology teaches that God develops, and osme branches of Proccess theology teachthat God works wihtin the boudns of natural law, which ar epredetermined. Other Branches teach that even thoguh God authored the Natural las, eh is himself subject ot them.

    There are three very basic theological systems that do not nessisarily understand God as Supernatural.

    I’ll repeat them.

    Pantheism, Penantheism, Process.

    Look them up.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: