"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen. " I Timothy 6:20-21
Euclid of Alexandria wrote 13 books called ‘The Elements’ around 300 BC. These books laid the foundation for geometry. They were assumed as axioms, without proof. Deb Russell, in her basic geometry course, makes this statement, “Not everything is proved in Geometry, thus we use some postulates which are basic assumptions or unproved general statements that we accept.”
Math and Science are like that. To determine an unknown you must begin with a known. To measure a distance you must begin with a fixed point. This is commonly known in all scientific fields, which is why I am surprised by a statement made by a scientist about belief in God.
Here’s what happened as reported by the New York Times in the August 23, 2005, edition. There was a scientific conference at City College of New York, a student in the audience rose to ask the panelists an unexpected question: “Can you be a good scientist and believe in God?” The reaction by Herbert A. Hauptman, a Nobel laureate, was quick and sharp. “No!” he declared, “This kind of belief is damaging to the well-being of the human race.” He also stated that belief in the supernatural, especially belief in God, is incompatible with good science. This is the kind of unscientific opinions that exclude the theory of Intelligent Design from our public school classrooms.
The debate is not raging over what is “true” science and what is not. No indeed! The debate is really about where you fix your starting point.
Evolutionary scientists begin their study with the belief that there is no God, therefore everything that exists is entirely accidental. They reason that because they can not see God anywhere than He must not exist.
The Intelligent Design scientists begin their study with an Intelligent Designer. They reason that because our world is full of specific design. It is rational to conclude that there was a force much smarter than we who designed it.
Can you see how both theories must begin with a fixed point?
I believe that a school education should not be about indoctrination of one idea or another. Education should be about exposing the students to the ideas and philosophies of the world. Let the student see the differences. Let them draw their own conclusions from the facts in front of them.
What some of these pseudo-scientists are afraid of is that a thinking person will naturally come to the fixed point of Intelligent Design. And that, by the way, brings with it some responsibility.
Comments