Posted by Amanda on January 05, 1997 at 09:27:30:
In Reply to: Re: Science Education crisis posted by Tyler Bradley on January 05, 1997 at 03:38:52:
:
: : This idea to include creation "science" on equal footing as science is something crucially important to fight against. Science is by nature atheistic - any scientist must put his religious beliefs aside when experimenting with science. Many people assert that religion can live harmoniously with science but this I cannot agree with - they have always been in conflict, are still, and will continue to be for science denies a Creator. If the creationists make any more headway in this area - humanity will suffer. USA began as a product of the enlightenment - the constitution was based on rationality and intelligence and religion wasn't an influencial factor - we've lost sight of that somewhere and it's important to figure out what went wrong, how to return to the original idea but with modifications necessary due to new knowledge we've gained - though I may take an extreme view in this case - I believe it is imperitive that we keep the church and state separate and that we also keep the church and science separate.
:
: Hi Amanda,
: I'm not sure what you mean by "science denies a creator". Actually, I'm not sure that it does. Science is an endeavour which explains and describes features of the physical aspect of the universe (well, energy as well). In cosmology anyway, it does not claim to explain events prior to what is known as the "Planck Time (10[-43] second). All that we know does not work well in the time from 0 sec. to the Planck time; the physics is VERY different from what we observe now. Astrophysicists are uncertain that we'll ever be able to work it out. Sure, high-energy and quantum physics has demonstrated that particles can appear out of nowhere, but there is an apparent violation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle... and it is baffling! What is from before this Planck time is what philosophers and theologians cogitate over.
: I do find a remarkable consonance btw. the Big Bang theory and the Genesis account though. "Let there be light" and the idea of pure energy in the first 10[-60] sec. (before it crystallized into particles and matter). Gifted insight, I'd venture to say.
I see your point - I suppose I should have said that from all that science has uncovered there has yet been NO sign of a creator and when using science - a creator isn't taken into consideration unless evidence is found to support one.
You Big Bang Theory related to Genesis is probably a good example of an argument on their side - I haven't come across anything to defute it but there most likely is such out there. Can we really call all that resulted from the Big Bang as light? It was matter and energy in its simplest forms - and while the cosmic egg was a whole there is a bit of evidence to say it was creating 'light' already - turning hydrogen to helium may have been occuring before the big bang - it actually may have had something to do with causeing the eruption in the first place. Anyway, how can you take the first part of Genesis as possible truth when some of the other parts are obviously wrong? Interesting though! I also liked your physics info - thanks for the lesson.