Skip to main content
Non-financial boards have been closed.

Non-financial boards have been closed but will continue to be accessible in read-only form. If you're disappointed, we understand. Thank you for being an active participant in this community. We have more community features in development that we look forward to sharing soon. | The Motley Fool Community
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
No. of Recommendations: 1
Science has evolved over the years to become what it is today, an empirically driven discipline that identifies facts solely by experimentation and observation of the physical universe, and postulates mechanisms using solely those processes that can be observed and manipulated. So if you want to find "truths" in a science course then what you are going to be limited to are scientific perspectives of that truth, and that is how it should be.

Isn't it true that not all scientists agree with your statement of how science "should be" ? Yes, it is true. So you are left with saying only that the majority rules in determining what is science.

I say that is a flimsy basis for making such a determination. How would you feel if the NAS were mostly YECs, and came up with a different definition of science? You'd be forced to accept whatever the majority said, since they are the experts. It becomes a political question then, not one ultimately tied to truth.

No, they are not the experts when it comes to one crucial item: what exactly is the nature of science. You can't put that definition in your lab and test it, because it isn't a scientific question. It is purely a philosophical question. Why do you think scientists trained in biochemistry, paleontology, or physics are qualified to answer philosophical questions?

Accusations are easy. Provide one NAS statement that was critical of God. Provide any NAS statement that takes a position on the likelihood of God's existence or that describes the nature of God.

It's not an accusation, its an observation of human nature. Its the probability that they are just like you and me in that regard.

I said they are biased . . . they have to be by definition of being also an atheist. I don't need to provide anti-theistic statements proving their bias; simply stating "I am an atheist" automatically provides evidence that they are biased against any non-natural explanation.

It's not like I'm setting myself and other theists above them in this regard. By choosing (or holding) an exclusive worldview, you are biased to filter experiential data through that filter.

I didn't think this was a controversial idea.

Print the post  


When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.