Re: Copy of: Re: Human explosion (fwd)
Stephen writes:
"When I say that "life arose 100% naturalistically from chemicals", I
mean *fully* naturalistically, ie. spontaneously, with no need for
direct intervention by an Intelligent Designer.
Students are taught this, but most theists don't believe its true.
Indeed, Burgy AFAIK does not believe it is true, yet he defends the
right of science, using taxpayers money, to teach it as fact.
""
One more time, my friend. You use the word "fact" in the last sentence
above, in the sense of "truth." Substitute "truth" in that last sentence
and I will disagree with it more vehemently than you! <G>
But the word "fact" is actually OK, if one modifies it by the word "scientific."
It is a "scientific fact" that the universe arose by natural means. That's
because,
of course, science has the MN presupposition.
If you & I play monopoly, Stephen, and you wind up in the monopoly jail,
it is a "fact" that you are in jail. A "monopoly fact." And we both understand
that.
If you & I play science, Stephen, it is a "fact" that we are here solely by
natural causation. A "science fact." I understand that; I think you do not.
We both will agree that the teaching of "monopoly fact" as truth is ludicrous.
We both should agree that the teaching of "science fact" as truth is poor
teaching.
That it happens, I don't disagree. That we need to (continually) point out the
offenses (and offenders) is one of my quests.
What you want to do is change the presupposition of science.
You tilt (IMO) at a windmill; it will not happen. IMO it ought not
to happen.
Burgy