Sunday, May 14, 2006
Science Without the Pesky Science
.
Perhaps the most interesting thing to come from the article was a quote from Ken Ham, the founder of AiG:
There is a report in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on the presentations, titled "Fascinating Facts About Origins," given by Mike Riddle, a biblical creationist from Answers in Genesis, at the Potosi, Missouri public high and middle schools. Unfortunately, there is little on the actual substance (using the word advisedly) of the talks. However, there was the following that may be telling in that regard:
Bill Mayberry, Potosi High's science department chair, said he "expressed concerns about this program from day one." But after seeing Riddle's presentation he was less concerned. "The questions (Riddle) raised were exactly the kinds of questions I raise in class," he said. "I want these kids to think outside of the box. We can accept scientific fact, but we also accept that things can change ... facts can change." ...
Mayberry admitted that he "doesn't teach the e-word," referring to evolution. "We talk about natural selection instead," he said.
In other words, the chair of the high school science department is afraid to use the word "evolution" in class and probably limits himself to the kind of adaptation that won’t offend his students’ religious sensibilities, shortchanging them educationally.
Perhaps the most interesting thing to come from the article was a quote from Ken Ham, the founder of AiG:
All scientists start with presuppositions. If you're starting point is 'we can explain the origin of the universe without the supernatural,' that's a bias.
Of course, what that bias is called is "science" and Ham is ag’in it. That he claims he isn't tells you all anyone needs to know about his version of science and maybe all you need to know about his religion as well.
.
Comments:
<< Home
" 'All scientists start with presuppositions. If you're starting point is "we can explain the origin of the universe without the supernatural," that's a bias.'
Of course, what that bias is called is 'science' and Ham is ag’in it."
That's not a presupposition of science, it's a conclusion. Long ago, everyone was sure that there were supernatural beings inside every rock and tree and beaver. As time went on, they observed that the world was acting with the kind of clockwork predictability that put the lie to those ideas.
Likewise, in Darwin's time the separate creation of all the species was the current accepted explanation for them. Using the methods and techniques of science, Darwin was able to show that that wasn't the best explanation of what we see.
Of course, what that bias is called is 'science' and Ham is ag’in it."
That's not a presupposition of science, it's a conclusion. Long ago, everyone was sure that there were supernatural beings inside every rock and tree and beaver. As time went on, they observed that the world was acting with the kind of clockwork predictability that put the lie to those ideas.
Likewise, in Darwin's time the separate creation of all the species was the current accepted explanation for them. Using the methods and techniques of science, Darwin was able to show that that wasn't the best explanation of what we see.
# posted by 
: 7:14 PM
: 7:14 PM
Well, I was playing just a touch loose with Hovind's statement, but not much. Science does presuppose that, if science can find an answer at all, it will be a naturalistic answer. This is known as "methodological naturalism" within the philosophy of science.
On the other hand, I don't think we can claim sufficient knowledge about the universe(s) to rule out the supernatural quite yet.
Post a Comment
On the other hand, I don't think we can claim sufficient knowledge about the universe(s) to rule out the supernatural quite yet.
<< Home
