Hello Midnight,
Originally posted by midnight Target
The real point is... it doesn't matter if evolution is a fact or a theory. It is and always will be REFUTABLE. Science allows.... no it encourages refutation. Religion cannot have as a basic principle... "there might not be a God". That is why religion cannot be taught in science class.
Evolution, as it is currently taught in most schools allows for and encourages no refutation, in fact several science teachers have been jumped on by the ACLU with both feet and at least one was fired when they began assigning articles from mainstream science journals showing the massive holes in the rapidly disintegrating Neo-Darwinist paradigm. How is someone pushing "religion" if they assign an article from say
Scientific American showing that the transitional life-forms that Darwin and his followers had faith would be discovered just aren't there, or how the Finch Beaks in the Galapagos return to their normal size after the period of drought is gone, or how there is still no known chemical mechanism for creating the information contained in DNA.
What religion is ID exactly anyway? It shows that evolution, as a paradigm, can no longer "contain" the accumulated data especially in the fields of biochemistry and palentology, and that dogmatically clinging to it in spite of the rapidly accumulating evidence against it is actually a sign that most of the academy has embraced Neo-Darwinism as a religion and have become what Gould called "Neo-Darwinian Fundamentalists" and are philosophically (not scientifically) incapable of accepting change.
What ID proponents have managed to do is simply to make it possible that the old biology textbooks, filled with old and often discredited data will be supplemented by newer scientific material. They have not won the ability to teach Biblical creationism or even introduce the Bible, the Quran, or the Gilgamesh Epic.
As I've pointed out before, even if someone were to accept every proposal advanced by scientists who believe that there really is an irreducable biochemical and physical complexity to the universe and that just as 747s don't get put together by Tornados in the Junk Yard the mathematical odds against even the beginnings of life by spontaneous generation (especially now that we have much better data about the original gasses than Miller was working with) are so close to impossible as to be statistically the same, they wouldn't arrive at Christianity or the Bible.
To say or even conclude that the universe is created from scientific data teaches very little about the creator, it certainly tells us next to nothing about his will for his creation, how he is to be worshipped, whether he is the alone creator or if there are others, and so on. In fact, you can base a much more coherent religion (or anti-religion) on the writings of Darwin and Huxley.
- SEAGOON
