Evidence for God from Science

Just goes to show you that scientists REALLY want full scale evolution to be a fact and corrupt society as we know it.

Evolution theory stickers taken off textbooks
Georgia county lost lawsuit to parents on church vs. state grounds

The Associated Press
Updated: 8:54 a.m. ET May 24, 2005


MARIETTA, Ga. - Workers in Cobb County have begun removing controversial evolution disclaimer stickers from science textbooks to comply with a judge's order.

By the end of the day Monday, several thousand stickers, which said evolution was a theory and not a fact, had been scraped off. The school district had put 34,452 stickers on textbooks across the county.

The evolution disclaimers read: “This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”

Six parents sued to remove the stickers saying the disclaimers violated the principle of the separation of church and state. A federal judge in January agreed and ordered the stickers removed.

An appeal by the school system, north of Atlanta, is pending.

“It's a sad day in Cobb County,” said Larry Taylor, a parent who favors including alternatives to evolution in science classes. “I hate to see the stickers go. I thought they were a fair compromise.”

But Jeffrey Selman, who was the lead parent among a group who sued to remove the stickers, said he was glad they were being removed. “I'm optimistic, but it ain't over till it's over,” Selman said.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7963494/

Wow, I really don't see how that is a "church and state" issue. No mention of a creator on the label at all. For a more humorous view, see here.

I would think they want people to think critically about any scientific theory. Evolutionists do, however, believe that evolution is both a theory and a fact. Perhaps this is their complaint.

Everything in science is either a hypothesis or a theory. Why is the theory of evolution singled out for a warning sticker?

Maybe it is the philosophy that undergirds a total evolutionary view that is controversial, and if this philosophy is wrong then it is not an accepted fact. The materialistic philosophy is pushed in many textbooks for explaining our origins, and therefore many make evolution out to be a fact, and not simply theory. Since we have philosophy being smuggled into science in the case of seeing evolution as fact, I think it at least proper to have a sticker on such textbooks.

I can't think of any other theory or hypothesis that is marked by philosophical materialism as much as "evolution" in its total form. Perhaps the sticker should read: "Evolution is fact if grounded in Philosophical Materialism, but only a theory if not." But then focus gets diverted from looking at the actual scientific facts for and against evolution, and this is why many want the controversies in science over different aspects of evolutionary theories to be taught. Something many "evolutionists" also oppose.

Kurieuo.

Kurieuo wrote:"Evolution is fact if grounded in Philosophical Materialism, but only a theory if not."

Be careful about the use of the word "theory". I was going to point you to this TalkOrigins rebuttal, but that one has some pretty obvious fallacious logic. Basically, evolutionists like to point out that "theory" in science means "explanation" rather than "potential explanation". Lots of ideas that are well accepted are designated as "theories". Only the directly observable can receive the "law" designation.

However, I feel like rebutting an easy point to rebut in that article.

TalkOrigins wrote:If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.

Two big gaping errors here. One is the reference to the "theory of gravity". This is used very, very frequently by defenders of evolution. However, all they are referring to here is the ideas of Newton and of Einstein as to how gravity works. The law of gravity is what states that objects fall when dropped. This rebuttal is true but misleading as far as defining what "theory" means.

The other is the reference to the "theory of limits". Mathematical "theories" are much, much different from scientific theories. By "theory of limits" they probably mean the basic definition of what a "limit" is, as well as the properties of limits that follow with 100% logical certainty. There is nothing even potentially false about the "theory of limits", as is the case with anything else in mathematics apart from unproved hypotheses. Even in the latter case of unproved hypotheses, once a proof is found the fact is known with 100% certainty.

Plus, there is no support for "the theory of evolution is no less valid than these" for the others. The other theories they mentioned received the same "theory" designation from the scientific community as evolution did. However, they are much better supported.

And their reference to the "fact" of evolution refers simply to "the observation that life has changed greatly over time".

Although I'm for such a sticker, I actually remember being taken back when I read what the sticker said. It is quite common to see Creationists who emphatically state evolution is only a theory and not a fact. It's almost like a motto. I would have preferred something different in this part of the sticker like: "There are scientific disagreements with how complex evolutionary speciation happens." Such a statement is specific, clarifies where the main disagreement lies rather than lumping all evolution together, and I think is reasonable to both sides.

Kurieuo.

There are serious scientific disagreements across most of biology (as well as much of chemistry and physics). Should these have warning stickers as well?

I'll just refer you back to my first post here.

Kurieuo.

Just a thought: Are there religions that support evolutionary theory?

If there are, there would be hell to pay with "separation of church and state" doctrines.

Science in only capable of dealing with the material world; its corpus of hypotheses and theories can only describe and be applied to that which is observable and measurable. Thus, all science is necessarily based solely in philosophical materialism.

Kelly wrote:Science in only capable of dealing with the material world;

And if science is only capable of dealing with our material world, then how does this rule out attempting to detect design within our material world? Surely if there are any hallmarks of design in biology, scientific methods could be developed to help recognise them just like in other scientific fields that deal with diagnosing intelligence?

Additionally, many "fathers" of modern science were Christian, and were interested in the workings of nature I believe to better understand the Creator through the created. Thus, science isn't necessarily based on Philosophical Materialism, rather science is simply incapable of dealing with truths that exist beyond, and leave no impact upon, our material world.

Kurieuo.

How does one do a scientific experiment to determine if a natural phenomenon is due to design or not?

Now your question is circular for if we know a natural phenomenon is a natural phenomenon, then design can obviously be ruled out. Rather your question should be how does one... determine if phenomena is natural or designed?

Well how does SETI look for intelligence in signals? If you strolled through a desert and saw something like Mount Rushmore, how would you know it is designed? How do we know if a stone artifact came about naturally or was designed? How do investigators determine whether a crime scene involved foul play? Can the concepts behind the way design is detected in such things be made into a general methodology one can follow to detect hallmarks of design scientifically? I believe it is certainly plausible.

Kurieuo.

Kurieuo wrote:Well how does SETI look for intelligence in signals? If you strolled through a desert and saw something like Mount Rushmore, how would you know it is designed? How do we know if a stone artifact came about naturally or was designed? How do investigators determine whether a crime scene involved foul play? Can the concepts behind the way design is detected in such things be made into a general methodology one can follow to detect hallmarks of design scientifically?

Oh so true.

I meant natural in the usual sense of the word: occurring in nature.

So taking these examples, how would one determine whether or not a hydrogen atom (or any other structure or property in nature) was designed?