In terms of experimental science, a deity is not relevant. In other words, to show a reproducible result in an experiment, lets say to produce hydrogen gas from water, an appeal to a deity should not be necessary. When you need god to explain something, its no longer science. Essentially science is agnostic. It does not know whether there is or is not a god. To achieve reproducability and prediction it is not required.
Moreover, in term of evolutionary theory, how life started is not relevant. Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory. Its observed in the lab, in nature, and in computer science (look up genetic algorithms). I also think you're wrong about how science presents Dieism. Generally from what I've read in the debate your characterization of science being atheistic and determined to force atheism down everyone's throats is completely incorrect. If anything its a common method used by the creatinist pardon creationist side to attack modern science. larry On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:52:48 -0500, Michael Dinowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Right. God is not science and theory is not fact. The problem, as I see it > is that teachers and scientists are presenting things like evolution as fact > without explaining that it is a theory that may have evidence to support it > but can be modified as new evidence comes to light. As such, it is presented > as a foil for religion where only one can be correct. Either God created > life in whatever way or it evolved over time. Science as fact denies God. > Science as theory does not. Science done right says that "God may or may not > exist and may or may not control things like evolution, but it's outside of > the discussion". Few present science that way. If they did, it would avoid > many fights. > > This is of course besides the original point of people pushing religion as > science, which I'm against. I'm for truth in presentation. > > > Actually Michael, the idea of God and or its/his/her existence has > > nothing to do with science. Its an unmeasurable and as such is beyond > > scientific research. We can measure belief, effects of religiosity > > etc, but for the existence of a deity, that's philosophy, not science. > > > > larry > > > > > > On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:53:32 -0500, Michael Dinowitz > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > That there is a God. It's a theory that science doesn't want to admit as > > a > > > theory at the same time as they push theory as fact. > > > > > > > > so you think they should present only one theory? the theory of > > > > evolution? > > > > > why not present both and let the students decide? > > > > > > > > > > > > Both? What would the other theory be? > > > > > > > > Jim Davis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Silver Sponsor - RUWebby http://www.ruwebby.com Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:140052 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
