Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [coCBanned] Re: "Purely scientific"

Expand Messages
  • PIASAN@aol.com
    First, a quick comment to David.... I ll get to those messages you sent me privately as soon as I can.... ... So does that mean if you point out the
    Message 1 of 3 , Sep 4, 2011
      First, a quick comment to David.... I'll get to those messages you sent me privately as soon as I can....

      ##### previous comments ####
      >>David:
      So does that mean if you point out the inadequacies of "purely scientific" (naturalistic) explanations for matter and life, then your arguments and objections to naturalism are invalid too?...because you have "predetermined" that God is the source of matter and life?

      Pi:
      This isn't just pointing out "inadequacies." It's an open declaration of refusal to objectively consider evidence.... the exact opposite of a scientific approach.
      ##### end previous ####

      David:
      So was that a yes or a no to my question? Why are YOU allowed to point out any inadequacies of the naturalist view, but if as YE does that it is anathema?

      Pi:
      To put this in context, the "previous" comments above were with regard to me pointing out that creation "scientists" hold to the ANTIscientific view that any evidence in conflict with their literal view of Genesis is INVALID BY DEFINITION. It has nothing at all to do with pointing out "inadequacies" of any scientific view. In fact, it's all a smoke screen to obscure the fact creationists are not engaged in pure science at all.... they are far more concerned with Bible apologetics.

      Science seeks to take an objective approach to evidence. In what way is it objective to make an apriori claim certain evidence is "INVALID BY DEFINITION" before even examining it? In what way is that a "purely scientific" approach?

      The issue isn't simply pointing out "inadequacies." Scientists do that all the time. The issue is that YEC "scientists" who have embraced that position aren't engaged in science at all.... let alone pure science.... their work is most accurately describe as Bible apologetics.



      David:
      You just prefer letting people teach lies to little kids. You ADMIT they are lies, but you like it that they are taught to kids instead of the truth!

      Pi:
      I prefer teaching my students science and leaving their religious training to their parents.... where it belongs. There are a number of options available to those parents who object to their children learning what science says and why science says it. More on that later.....



      #### previously #####
      >>Pi:
      In what way am I misrepresenting him? I never said Humphreys tried to exclude God. My statement is that the inclusion of supernatural acts places his model outside that which is "purely scientific." Your comment merely confirms mine.
      >>
      #### End previous #####

      David:
      His writing addresses the question you insist we consider...which is if God DID create the universe recently, would it make Him a deceiver if it appeared older?

      Pi:
      That's your question, not mine. The question before us here is whether or not your claim: " PLUS the jury is still out on whether on a PURELY SCIENTIFIC (emphasis Pi's) basis one could say that light from stars indicates great age, because of the time dilation effect." is true.

      You use Humphreys' model to support that claim. The fact is the evidence I've presented here clearly demonstrates his model is much more about Bible apologetics than Einstein's Theories. Why else would references to God and the Bible outnumber those to Einstein and relativity by 4 to 1?




      David:
      RH says "no" because there are natural phenomenon that would produce that natural effect without it requiring some purposeful act of God to make it appear older. GET IT?

      Pi:
      Humphreys also says his model doesn't work nearby objects. HIs new model is long on God and short on Einstein. We've already established the mass that would be required for the smallest event horizon that would do the job. Your solution to the absence of sufficient nearby mass was that God moved the stars after things like Sn1987a took place while earth time was dilated. If that isn't "some purposeful act of God," I don't know what is.

      GET IT?



      David:
      You cannot continue to affirm that YE implies a deceiving God...and what RH explains about a natural process of time dilation is just one of several reasons WHY.

      Pi:
      Except his "natural process of time dilation" doesn't work without a "purposeful act of God." Where's the "pure science" in that?


      ##### previously #####
      Pi:
      Let's put this in context .... you made a claim that:
      "PLUS the jury is still out on whether on a PURELY SCIENTIFIC (emphasis Pi's) basis, one could say that light from stars indicates great age because of the time dilation effect."

      I stand by my initial response that "purely scientific" does not include acts of God. Those are supernatural acts that are outside the scope of investigation by the natural and physical sciences.
      ##### end previous #####

      David:
      Same goes for the origin of matter and life... and design in the non-biological universe. All of these are unexplained by any "purely scientific" means. YET they get discussed in the "scientific" literature all the time...and are welcomed in science classes like yours...or at least your collegues.

      Pi:
      This is just another attempt to obscure the fact your clear statement about the "time dilation effect" being "purely scientific" is false.





      David:
      You prefer the idea of letting LIES be taught to students about the origin of matter or life...all for the sake of your god "science education."



      Pi:
      That is completely and totally false.


      First:
      With regard to your claim (above) about what is "'welcomed' in science classes like yours...or at least your collegues." must be put in the context that many, if not most science teachers will not teach evolution at all. According to a poll of science teachers conducted by the National Science Teacher's Association, something like 31% of science teachers (including myself) have been intimidated or threatened for teaching evolution. You must be living on another planet if you think the other 69% don't know about the risks they take by teaching mainstream science. I have met science teachers who invite the local minister to their public school science class to teach Biblical creation right after teaching evolution.


      Second:
      With regard to what I teach in a public school science class. It is my constitutional, professional, and Christian obligation to restrict my teaching to what science says and why science says it.

      Constitutional because multiple court decisions all the way to the United States Supreme Court have consistently found that (a) creationism is a religious belief and/or (b) evolution is a scientific theory. Because creationism is a religious belief, I am prohibited by the constitution from teaching it in a public school by the first amendment of the United States Constitution.

      Professional because, as a public school science teacher, it is not my place to teach students religion. That is the responsibility of the parents. For me to favor one religious explanation over another in a public school classroom would be disrespectful to those students and parents who hold different religious beliefs. For example, if I'm going to teach the Genesis account of creation, I should also teach the creation story of these people: http://www.darkside-goddess.org/

      Finally, as I Christian I'm also obligated to restrict my teaching to mainstream science. We are instructed to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's." As I'm teaching in a government school, it is my obligation to follow the supreme law of the land, the United States Constitution. There is also the fact that, as a military veteran, I have taken an oath to preserve and defend the Constitution "so help me God."


      Third:
      Parents who object to their children being taught what mainstream science says and why science says it for religious reasons have a number of alternatives:
      1) They can have their child given alternate assignments for the portion of the curriculum to which the parents object.
      2) They can have their child take a school approved alternative course.
      3) They can put their child in a private school that may be more in line with their religious beliefs.
      4) Home school.

      So, parents have a number of options if they think their children are being taught "LIES" in school.....




      >>David:
      So does that mean if you point out the inadequacies of "purely scientific" (naturalistic) explanations for matter and life, then your arguments and objections to naturalism are invalid too?...because you have "predetermined" that God is the source of matter and life?

      Pi:
      This isn't just pointing out "inadequacies." It's an open declaration of refusal to objectively consider evidence.... the exact opposite of a scientific approach.
      ##### end previous ####

      David:
      So was that a yes or a no to my question? Why are YOU allowed to point out any inadequacies of the naturalist view, but if as YE does that it is anathema?

      Pi:
      To put this in context, the "previous" comments above were with regard to me pointing out that creation "scientists" hold to the ANTIscientific view that any evidence in conflict with their literal view of Genesis is INVALID BY DEFINITION. It has nothing at all to do with pointing out "inadequacies" of any scientific view. In fact, it's all a smoke screen to obscure the fact creationists are not engaged in pure science at all.... they are far more concerned with Bible apologetics.

      Science seeks to take an objective approach to evidence. In what way is it objective to make an apriori claim certain evidence is "INVALID BY DEFINITION" before even examining it? In what way is that a "purely scientific" approach?

      The issue isn't simply pointing out "inadequacies." Scientists do that all the time. The issue is that YEC "scientists" who have embraced that position aren't engaged in science at all.... let alone pure science.... their work is most accurately describe as Bible apologetics.



      David:
      You just prefer letting people teach lies to little kids. You ADMIT they are lies, but you like it that they are taught to kids instead of the truth!

      Pi:
      I prefer teaching my students science and leaving their religious training to their parents.... where it belongs. There are a number of options available to those parents who object to their children learning what science says and why science says it. More on that later.....



      #### previously #####
      >>Pi:
      In what way am I misrepresenting him? I never said Humphreys tried to exclude God. My statement is that the inclusion of supernatural acts places his model outside that which is "purely scientific." Your comment merely confirms mine.
      >>
      #### End previous #####

      David:
      His writing addresses the question you insist we consider...which is if God DID create the universe recently, would it make Him a deceiver if it appeared older?

      Pi:
      That's your question, not mine. The question before us here is whether or not your claim: " PLUS the jury is still out on whether on a PURELY SCIENTIFIC (emphasis Pi's) basis one could say that light from stars indicates great age, because of the time dilation effect." is true.

      You use Humphreys' model to support that claim. The fact is the evidence I've presented here clearly demonstrates his model is much more about Bible apologetics than Einstein's Theories. Why else would references to God and the Bible outnumber those to Einstein and relativity by 4 to 1?




      David:
      RH says "no" because there are natural phenomenon that would produce that natural effect without it requiring some purposeful act of God to make it appear older. GET IT?

      Pi:
      Humphreys also says his model doesn't work nearby objects. HIs new model is long on God and short on Einstein. We've already established the mass that would be required for the smallest event horizon that would do the job. Your solution to the absence of sufficient nearby mass was that God moved the stars after things like Sn1987a took place while earth time was dilated. If that isn't "some purposeful act of God," I don't know what is.

      GET IT?



      David:
      You cannot continue to affirm that YE implies a deceiving God...and what RH explains about a natural process of time dilation is just one of several reasons WHY.

      Pi:
      Except his "natural process of time dilation" doesn't work without a "purposeful act of God." Where's the "pure science" in that?


      ##### previously #####
      Pi:
      Let's put this in context .... you made a claim that:
      "PLUS the jury is still out on whether on a PURELY SCIENTIFIC (emphasis Pi's) basis, one could say that light from stars indicates great age because of the time dilation effect."

      I stand by my initial response that "purely scientific" does not include acts of God. Those are supernatural acts that are outside the scope of investigation by the natural and physical sciences.
      ##### end previous #####

      David:
      Same goes for the origin of matter and life... and design in the non-biological universe. All of these are unexplained by any "purely scientific" means. YET they get discussed in the "scientific" literature all the time...and are welcomed in science classes like yours...or at least your collegues.

      Pi:
      This is just another attempt to obscure the fact your clear statement about the "time dilation effect" being "purely scientific" is false.





      David:
      You prefer the idea of letting LIES be taught to students about the origin of matter or life...all for the sake of your god "science education."



      Pi:
      That is completely and totally false.


      First:
      With regard to your claim (above) about what is "'welcomed' in science classes like yours...or at least your collegues." must be put in the context that many, if not most science teachers will not teach evolution at all. According to a poll of science teachers conducted by the National Science Teacher's Association, something like 31% of science teachers (including myself) have been intimidated or threatened for teaching evolution. You must be living on another planet if you think the other 69% don't know about the risks they take by teaching mainstream science. I have met science teachers who invite the local minister to their public school science class to teach Biblical creation right after teaching evolution.


      Second:
      With regard to what I teach in a public school science class. It is my constitutional, professional, and Christian obligation to restrict my teaching to what science says and why science says it.

      Constitutional because multiple court decisions all the way to the United States Supreme Court have consistently found that (a) creationism is a religious belief and/or (b) evolution is a scientific theory. Because creationism is a religious belief, I am prohibited by the constitution from teaching it in a public school by the first amendment of the United States Constitution.

      Professional because, as a public school science teacher, it is not my place to teach students religion. That is the responsibility of the parents. For me to favor one religious explanation over another in a public school classroom would be disrespectful to those students and parents who hold different religious beliefs. For example, if I'm going to teach the Genesis account of creation, I should also teach the creation story of these people: http://www.darkside-goddess.org/

      Finally, as I Christian I'm also obligated to restrict my teaching to mainstream science. We are instructed to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's." As I'm teaching in a government school, it is my obligation to follow the supreme law of the land, the United States Constitution. There is also the fact that, as a military veteran, I have taken an oath to preserve and defend the Constitution "so help me God."


      Third:
      Parents who object to their children being taught what mainstream science says and why science says it for religious reasons have a number of alternatives:
      1) They can have their child given alternate assignments for the portion of the curriculum to which the parents object.
      2) They can have their child take a school approved alternative course.
      3) They can put their child in a private school that may be more in line with their religious beliefs.
      4) Home school.

      So, parents have a number of options if they think their children are being taught "LIES" in school.....







      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • PIASAN@aol.com
      First, it is worth note that David has apparently abandoned any pretext that creation scientists are doing pure science in their time-dilation work. ####
      Message 2 of 3 , Sep 11, 2011
        First, it is worth note that David has apparently abandoned any pretext that creation "scientists" are doing "pure science" in their time-dilation work.
         

         
        #### previously #### 
        Pi>>The issue isn't simply pointing out "inadequacies. " Scientists do that all the time. The issue is that YEC "scientists" who have embraced that position aren't engaged in science at all.... let alone pure science.... their work is most accurately describe as Bible apologetics.>>
        ##### end previous #####
         
        David:
        Perhaps some would like to promote the biblical view however, the primary effort being used today is to merely attack the inadequacies of evolution and abiogenesis and "big bang" to explain the evidence. 
         
        Pi:
        Right, that's why that Vardiman/Humphreys paper cites the Bible 4x more often than Einstein.  Or this one from Jason Lisle: "The ASC model goes a step further and develops a cosmology based on the premise that the Bible is using such a convention " 
         
         
         
        David:
         That is what ID's try to do but they are opposed for attempting to do that.  They do not promote the Bible.
         
        Pi:
        ID is still creationism.  It's nothing more than an attempt to do an end-run around multiple court decisions.  The objective of ID is political and social, not the advancement of science.  That's why we see ID advocates more active before school boards and legislatures than in the forums of science.
         
         
         
        David:
          Yet you prefer that the atheistic approach be used to promote lies...things you AGREE are lies!
         
        Pi:
        No.  I prefer that in science class, we take the SCIENTIFIC approach to evidence.
         
         
         
         
        ######
        >>Pi (previously):
        I prefer teaching my students science and leaving their religious training to their parents.... where it belongs.>>

         
        David:
        Naturalism IS a religious idea.
         
        Pi:
        Naturalism is a philosophical position.  Natural science is the study of the natural world and natural processes.  You confuse a philosophy with a methodology.
         
         
         
        David:
          When your "scientists" go off into speculation about multiverses and absurd ideas about the origin of matter or life, you don't complain about THAT...
         
        Pi:
        Let me know when you can find an example of me supporting either multiverses or the teaching of the origin of life..... or the teaching of them in public school science classes.  I've made it about as perfectly clear as possible I consider them to be speculative from a scientific perspective and that's what I tell my students.  (Note: On the matter of multiverses, there are some new experimental results that may... I repeat MAY .... support their existence.  But, I consider those results far too preliminary to discuss in class.)
         
         
         
        David:
        like you do if a creationist promotes his idea about origins.
         
        Pi:
        When the creationist claims science supports his ideas, it's only reasonable from a scientific and objective standpoint to expect that creationist to be able to prove it.  However, when the creationist invokes miracles it becomes clear he's not engaged in "pure science" at all.
         
         
         
        David:
          They get a free pass from you...even though you AGREE that they are promoting LIES to little kids!
         
        Pi:
        I agree some of them go too far.  However, based on my own personal observation there are far more creationists "promoting LIES to little kids" .... in this area of the country, at least.
         
         
         
         
        ######
        >>Pi:
        Except his "natural process of time dilation" doesn't work without a "purposeful act of God." Where's the "pure science" in that?>>
        David:
        Any creation idea involves a purposeful act of God INCLUDING YOURS.  You just don't allow the Bible to inform you about what God actually did.
         
        Pi:
        And I have often pointed out that when my "creation idea involves a purposeful act of God," it has departed from the realm of science to the realm of theology.  In other words, I do the exact opposite from claiming those beliefs are "purely scientific."
         
         
        David:
          The question here is whether the idea of God creating and then expanding the U involves a deception...and because time dilation is a natural occurance, it would NOT. 
         
        Pi:
        No, that's merely an attempt by you to change the question.  See the subject line.  You had made a clear declarative statement that there was "pure science" that supported gravitational time dilation.  I have pointed out that is not true because every effort to do so REQUIRES "a purposeful act of God" to make it work.  Once you invoke "a purposeful act of God" you have left the realm of science.  Period.
         
         
        David:
        Atheists and naturalists would reject that idea...AND yours...about origins.
         
        Pi:
        Irrelevant.
         
         
         
        David:
          But for this discussion we are focusing on the question of whether such a young universe view (which would include apparent age if one ignored time dilation effects) is consistent with the biblical idea of God's nature.  It IS.
         
        Pi:
        No, for this discussion, we are focusing on the question of whether "time dilation" provides a "purely scientific" answer for the light problem of YEC.  It does not because it REQUIRES "a purposeful act of God" which is outside the limitations of "purely scientific" consideration.
         
         
         
         
        ##### previously #####
        >>David:
        You prefer the idea of letting LIES be taught to students about the origin of matter or life...all for the sake of your god "science education."



        Pi:
        That is completely and totally false.
        >>
        ##### end previous #####
         
        David:
        I think I have stated the TRUTH on that.  You fuss and complain if any ID or creationist person promotes his views.  You are quiescent if an atheist promotes HIS.
         
        Pi:
        False, and you know it.  On this list, I have made it explicitly clear that it is just as wrong for an atheist teacher in public schools to teach there is no God as it is any other teacher to teach there is.  Further, I have also made it explicitly clear any atheist teacher who does so should be disciplined in exactly the same way as the public school teacher who uses the classroom to promote his religious beliefs.
         
         
         
        #####
        Pi (previously)
        >>I have met science teachers who invite the local minister to their public school science class to teach Biblical creation right after teaching evolution.>>
        David:
        How AWFUL!  After hearing LIES they also get to hear TRUTH about origins! 
         
        Pi:
        No.  How AWFUL that some public school teacher has taken it on himself to violate the Constitution of the United States in a public school by imposing instruction in HIS religious beliefs on students who are compelled, by force of law, to be there.  I wonder if you would take that position if the teacher were a member of the "Service of Mankind Church" and taught his students their creation story?
         
        Your open support of such clearly unconstitutional behavior by a teacher whose only purpose was to teach his religious beliefs to his public school science students is disappointing.
         
         
         
        ##### Pi previously ###### 
        >>Professional because, as a public school science teacher, it is not my place to teach students religion. That is the responsibility of the parents. For me to favor one religious explanation over another in a public school classroom would be disrespectful to those students and parents who hold different religious beliefs. >>
        David:
        Then you should be teaching them the naturalistic cause for the origin of life....why won't you do that?  It's your professional "duty" to do that!
         
        Pi:
        Nope.  My duty is to teach well established science according to state standards.  There is nothing in the state standards that requires I teach the origin of life.  Since I consider the origin of life to be speculative, there was no need for me to teach it when I taught biology.  Out of 5 chapters discussing evolution, only 3 or 4 paragraphs had anything to do with the origin of life .... I simply skipped them.
         
         
         
        #### Pi previously #####
        >>Finally, as I Christian I'm also obligated to restrict my teaching to mainstream science. >>
        David:
        That's baloney. 
         
        Pi:
        Then you should specify which of the two reasons I provided is "baloney."
         
         
         
        David:
         Do you teach what "mainstream science" says about the origin of matter, the origin of life, and the cause of apparent design in the non-biological universe?
         
        Pi:
        Origin of matter .... Big Bang.  What happened an instant  "before" the Big Bang is unknown and probably unknowable from a scientific perspective.
        Origin of life .... All proposed explanations are speculative from a scientific perspective.
        Apparent design.... we've discussed that one to some length.  My position hasn't changed since then.
         
         
      • PIASAN@aol.com
        DW here, ... ID is still creationism. It s nothing more than an attempt to do an end-run around multiple court decisions. The objective of ID is political and
        Message 3 of 3 , Sep 16, 2011
          DW here,
           
          >>Pi (previously):
          ID is still creationism. It's nothing more than an attempt to do an end-run around multiple court decisions. The objective of ID is political and social, not the advancement of science. >>
           
          David:
          You SHOULD be interested in the advancement of TRUTH.
           
          Pi:
          I am.  That's why I object to the teaching of YEC in science classes.
           
           
           
          David:
            But instead you approve of teaching LIES to children.  Lies you AGREE are lies.
           
          Pi:
          That is a LIE and you know it.  Go ahead, David... show just ONE case where I have endorsed the teaching of lies to children.
           
           
           
          David:
            There's something WRONG with that picture.
           
          Pi:
          There is.... you are LYING.
           
           
           
           
          David:
            Sure, the truth should be taught in homes and churches,
           
          Pi:
          RELIGION should be taught in homes and churches.  I'm sure you would hold the teaching of many, if not most, churches are also "LIES."  Some that come to mind:  Mormon, JW, SDA, Muslim, Jewish, Catholic, Hindu, Buddhist.... need I continue?
           
           
           
          David:
           but that does not justify your position that teaching lies to kids in schools or in science papers is a good thing and it would bad if those lies were opposed with the truth.  That's awful.
           
          Pi:
          What is "awful" is your continuing LIES about what my position is.  I have NEVER supported teaching lies to children and you know it.  Be honest, David... the only religious beliefs you want taught in public school science classes are yours.
           
           
           
          David: 
          No matter what form of anti-naturalism is considered, you would disapprove of any book or article (like RH's) that seeks to show how that the biblical account of origins is not in conflict with real science.
           
          Pi:
          You would see no objection from me if it were done using PURE SCIENCE (as you had claimed).  It isn't.
           
           
           
          David:
            No matter how it is expressed you would just dismiss it because it was a consideration of a model of origins that includes something supernatural that God does! 
           
          Pi:
          I would certainly dismiss it as PURE SCIENCE since it includes "something supernatural" which is outside the limitations of scientific investigation.... and I would not hesitate to point out that science does not deal with "something supernatural that God does."
           
           
           
          David:
          So I am not the least concerned that you don't like how RH made his case for a young earth model that includes science which shows there could naturally have been time dilation.
           
          Pi:
          The problem is he only "includes science" in a model that has, as its primary purpose, Biblical apologetics rather than PURE SCIENCE.  That time dilation takes place under certain circumstances is not in dispute.  Even Humphreys admits his model isn't PURE SCIENCE because it does not work for nearby objects.
           
           
           
          David:
            Would you disapprove of an article that argued for supernatural acts of God in the creation of matter or life...if it also includes some argument from nature that shows how impossible the atheistic view of origins is?  I would hope not...but you probably WOULD. 
           
          Pi:
          To be specific..... I would disapprove of such an article if it were presented in a public school science class because it is not PURE SCIENCE.  I would also disapprove of such an article if it claimed to prove God does not exist.... but you'll continue to ignore that part of my position, won't you?
           
           
           
           
           
          Pi (previously) 
          >>The objective of ID is political and social, not the advancement of science. That's why we see ID advocates more active before school boards and legislatures than in the forums of science.>>

           
          David:
          It shouldn't surprise you that the ID's don't make their stand in the atheistic realm of science...where the devotees are there voluntarily.
           
          Pi:
          Gee.... here I thought ID wasn't about religion.   (((snicker)))
           
          The inconvenient fact is science would be more accurately described as "agnostic" rather than "atheistic."  Further, in view of the "Wedge Document" it doesn't surprise me at all.... it merely confirms my analysis of the true intent of ID devotees.  You see, the correct process to have one's SCIENTIFIC arguments made part of the public school science curricula is FIRST gain general scientific acceptance THEN be put into the curriculum.  Of all the "scientific" proposals ever put forward the ONLY one that has insisted on being made part of the science curriculum before gaining scientific acceptance is ID.  Why is that, David?
           
           
           
          David:
            It is in the public education forum where the public's tax dollars are spent that there is a legitimate basis for their imposing themselves. 
           
          Pi:
          There is no legitimate basis for imposing your religious beliefs on students in public school science classes... at least not in the United States.  Don't like it?  Change the first amendment.
           
           
           
          >>Pi (previously):
          Naturalism is a philosophical position. Natural science is the study of the natural world and natural processes. You confuse a philosophy with a methodology.>>
           
          David:
          That is a false and overly-generous definition.  Any creationist or IDist could "study the natural world and processes" too.
           
          Pi:
          Fine.... and as long as they limit themselves to a discussion of the natural world and natural process in public school science classes, I'm all on their side too.
           
           
           
           David:
            But the "philosophy" (read "religion") of naturalism is the committment to the idea that all we observe will someday be explained solely by naturalistic processes.
           
          Pi:
          Philosophy.... down the hall, third door on the left.  Religion ... down the hall, fourth door on the right.... just past theology.
           
           
          David:
            And we should have a right to object to that false religion being taught in schools.
           
          Pi:
          First, nowhere has science been found to be religion except (maybe) in the shallow thinking of a few narrow minded fundamentalists who object mainly on the grounds that THEIR religious beliefs can't gain entry to the public school science curricula.
           
          How about all the other "false religions?"  What if we teach the Muslim creation story?  Or the Trantric creation story of the Service of Mankind Church (which isn't about serving humanity, but about men being slaves to women)?  The Buddhist, Taoist, Hindu creation stories?  Each and every one of them would be an anathema to you.  But you fully approve of a professional religious minister being brought into the public school science class to teach Biblical origins, don't you?  You have no regard at all for the constitutional rights of the parents of those other religious beliefs to raise their children in their beliefs.
           
           
           
          David:
            The wimpy disclaimer you dribble out once a year is not going to placate those of us who CARE about lies and false religion being taught to children...paid for with public tax dollars.
           
          Pi:
          Sorry, David.... I'll continue to teach the best science available and leave the religious teaching to the home and church.... where it belongs.  I've already pointed out parents who object to their children learning what science says and why science says it have a number of options available to them to keep their students from being taught such dangerous things.
           
           
           
           
          >>Pi (previously):
          Let me know when you can find an example of me supporting either multiverses or the teaching of the origin of life..... or the teaching of them in public school science classes. >>>
          David:
          No one said you supported that.  You just can't get yourself worked up enough about that to be willing to speak up much against it. 
           
          Pi:
          You've had no hesitation at all in accusing me of supporting the teaching of "LIES to little children."  So, you have too said I support that.
           
           
           
           
          #### previously #### 
          >>David:
          They get a free pass from you...even though you AGREE that they are promoting LIES to little kids!

          Pi:
          I agree some of them go too far. However, based on my own personal observation there are far more creationists "promoting LIES to little kids" .... in this area of the country, at least.
          #### end previous ####

          David:
          There are enough conflicted "christian science teachers" like you that it is probably true that the atheist agenda of many naturalists doesn't get the full promotion they would prefer it gets.  However, you cannot be serious to suggest that naturalistic explanations for origins of life or matter would get any major objection when it is taught in class...compared to if a divine origin were taught.
           
          Pi:
          "A divine origin" is specifically a religious belief.  Whose "divine origin" story should I teach?  If the only one you want taught is the Biblical one, you are only interested in using public schools to further your religious beliefs.... which is a theocratic approach.  No thank you.... theocracies are always bad for the rights of those who are not part of the favored religion.
           
           
           
          David:
            That doesn't pass the stink test.
           
          Pi:
          You're right.... your objections don't "pass the stink test."  Parents of those other children have rights too and your open support of teachers who would deliberately, and openly trample on those rights in clear violation of the Constitution of the United States of America STINKS.
           
           
           
           
          >>Pi  (previously):
          And I have often pointed out that when my "creation idea involves a purposeful act of God," it has departed from the realm of science to the realm of theology. >>
          David:
          So does an atheistic idea about origins...but you are less concerned when THAT is being taught.  You should just rename your class "the philosophy of atheistic origins"...and then just teach your lies without disguising them. 
           
          Pi:
          You know that is not true.  I'm on record in this forum on multiple occasions as pointing out that I find teaching the ideas of "fundamentalist" atheists (Dawkins for example) to be just as objectionable as those of such fundamentalist Christians as yourself.
           
           
           
           
          Pi (previously):
          >> In other words, I do the exact opposite from claiming those beliefs are "purely scientific.">>
          David:
          Don't misrepresent what I said.  I was not saying that RH's view is "purely scientific."  I said that the concept of time dilation would or might provide a natural explanation for why the U could appear old when in reality it is young...once you accept the idea that God created and then expanded the U by supernatural means.  Time dilation is a natural idea...not supernatural.
           
          Pi:
          Here is exactly what you said:
          "...  the jury is still out on whether on a purely scientific basis one could say that light from stars indicates great age, because of the time dilation effect.  If indeed God created and then expanded the universe that would have significant effects on time, causing more time in deep space than what occurs on Earth."
           
          The problem is once you include a supernatural act of God, you are no longer talking about "a purely scientific" claim.  Humphreys admits his model doesn't work for nearby objects.  You weren't able to get it to work either.... unless you used "a purposeful act of God."
           
           
           
           
           
           
          Pi (previously):
          >>I have pointed out that is not true because every effort to do so REQUIRES "a purposeful act of God" to make it work. Once you invoke "a purposeful act of God" you have left the realm of science. Period.>>
          David:
          You don't whine when the atheist invokes such "unscientific" ideas as where the matter for the Big Bang came from, or what caused it to suddenly expand. 
           
          Pi:
          Not if they are (accurately) reported as being hypothetical or speculative.  BTW, there was no matter at the instant of the BB... the universe at that time was, for all intents and purposes, pure energy with no matter at all.  However, that evades the real issue.... if your proposal includes "a purposeful act of God" it is no longer "purely scientific."
           
           
           
          David:
           They can do THAT and you have no problem with such "purely scientific" explanations being purported.
           
          Pi:
          Again, as long as they are presented as speculative or hypothetical there is no problem.
           
           
           
           
          David:
            Or at least you won't get yourself as worked up against that as against any ID view being expressed.  Even though you AGREE that the "science" idea is a LIE. 
           
          Pi:
          ID is well documented as a political/social/philosophical movement that is less concerned about doing science and much more concerned with advancing their political/social/philosophical agenda.  Oh yeah.... speculative ideas, when presented as such, are NOT lies.
           
           
           
           
           
           
          >>Pi (previous):
          No, for this discussion, we are focusing on the question of whether "time dilation" provides a "purely scientific" answer for the light problem of YEC. It does not because it REQUIRES "a purposeful act of God" which is outside the limitations of "purely scientific" consideration.
          >>
          David:
          It considers what would be the natural effects of God's creating and then expanding the universe supernaturally.  Those effects would (if RH is right) be "purely scientific."
           
          Pi:
          Obviously one of us has a comprehension problem.... and it is NOT me.  Once you invoke a supernatural act of God you are OUTSIDE the realm of science.... "pure" or not.  You continue to say (paraphrasing): "Well, once God is done with His miracles, it's 'purely scientific.'"  It doesn't work that way.  It's like you're arguing one can be a little bit pregnant.
           
           
           
           
          >>Pi (previously):
          False, and you know it. On this list, I have made it explicitly clear that it is just as wrong for an atheist teacher in public schools to teach there is no God as it is any other teacher to teach there is. >>
          David:
          Oh, I have no doubt if an atheist overtly taught there was no God you would complain.  I guess I should be grateful for that.  But if he does the same thing indirectly by suggesting to little kids that science can or someday will explain everything without any involvement of God...then that won't bother you much at all.
           
          Pi:
          If we include "any involvement of God" in the discussion, it's no longer purely scientific.  It's a simple concept.  Why do you have so much difficulty grasping it?
           
           
           
           
          >>Pi (previously):
          No. How AWFUL that some public school teacher has taken it on himself to violate the Constitution of the United States in a public school by imposing instruction in HIS religious beliefs on students who are compelled, by force of law, to be there. I wonder if you would take that position if the teacher were a member of the "Service of Mankind Church" and taught his students their creation story? Your open support of such clearly unconstitutional behavior by a teacher whose only purpose was to teach his religious beliefs to his public school science students is disappointing.>>
          David:
          Actually, I probably WOULD object if certain YE's openly taught certain ideas...so therefore I would have to object to openly teaching all ideas of origins.  I have objected to prayer in school for the same sort of reason. 
           
           
          Pi:
          I bet the Biblical creation story isn't one the ideas you would object being taught in public school science classes.
           
           
           
          David:
           However if naturalist religion is brought into classrooms, then it should be ok to oppose it...at least by pointing out its deficiencies and openly pointing out there is an alternative to naturalism.  You wouldn't allow that however because you would see that as opening the door to a non-naturalistic view. 
           
          Pi:
          Science is not "naturalist religion."  I won't bring it up as it's outside the scope of my responsibility to teach science.  If a student brings up issues of creation by God, I simply point out that is outside the limitations of scientific research. 
           
          It shouldn't be necessary to point out, yet again, that we call them "physical" and "natural" sciences for a reason.
           
           
           
           
           
          >>Pi (previously):
          Origin of matter .... Big Bang. >>
          David:
          Surely a sciency guy like you knows that BB is NOT about the ORIGIN of matter. 
           
          Pi:
          It's about the beginning of the universe and what became matter.
           
           
           
           
          Pi (previously):
          >>What happened an instant "before" the Big Bang is unknown and probably unknowable from a scientific perspective.
          >>
          David:
          Right...but sciency guys will freely speculate about that, as well as about the origin of life...without any major objection from you.
           
          Pi:
          Right.... as long as it's presented as speculation.  Speculation is NOT a lie.  I certainly teach that all ideas of what happened "before" the BB and the origin of life are, from a PURELY SCIENTIFIC perspective.... speculative.

           
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.