Higher Education Commissioner Raymund Paredes said at the time that the institute's program, based on a literal interpretation of biblical creation, falls outside the realm of science and therefore could not be designated "science" or "science education."This rep is making the tired old "fairness" argument, "Why are people who call themselves scientists afraid to hear two sides of a debate?" Berman asked Friday.
Note to Berman: Science is not a "debate". It is based on facts and a rigorous methodology for evaluating those facts to approximate the truth as closely as is possible to make predictions about the natural world. Creationism is not based on facts or a methodology at all.
Little Green Footballs - Texas Lawmaker Backs Creationist 'Degree'
Hey Jason, The ironic thing about your argument is that Christians have been saying the same thing about "scientists" and the Public School System for ages. Otherwise, why (would they) cry foul when we (Christians) try to teach (or even mention) an alternate view of origins in high school biology classes? (E.g. Created by an omnipotent Creator with the appearance of age) which I think is far more logical than something came from nothing (Ex-nihilo). The unfortunate dilemma for scientists is that the beginning of time only happened once, and is therefore not subject to true scientific observation (we were not there). PHILOSOPHY is called "Queen of all Sciences" for a reason, and therefore even the scientific method is built upon, or otherwise is undermined by one's philosophical predisposition.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, you seems to spend a lot of time analyzing this stuff much like Christians study their gospel. If I fuzzed the vocabulary up just enough, it would look to me like one religion battling it out with another. ;)