Quote: it is impossible to study life and make observation about it apart from our view of faith
I completely disagree. While your world view may be tainted by faith, there are many of us who can view things objectively. Sometimes I don't, admittedly, but I certainly have the capability. For example, I would not deny the existence of God (or whatever other supernatural element) if the evidence presented itself, but I have no reason to believe in it now, and I'm not going to live my life by a credo that assumes something that not only might not be, but has no evidence of being. I'm sure you feel you have evidence, but I do not, and I would likely deny your evidence as coincidence.
Quote: There are those who believe that evolution is false. Many, many people.
There were also many, many people who believed that the Earth was flat. That didn't make them right. "Science" by populism is a terrible notion.
Quote: Now you can say all you want that what these people believe isn't science, but they think it is. So on what basis are they wrong?
Science depends on reproducible results. So unless you can convince God to make a new creature out of thin air (or, to the much lessannoying ID notion, create a new universe and let it evolve new creatures), it's not science. Now, I know you're thinking that evolution is not reproducible, but it is. Bacteria have been modified through controlled evolution. Flowers have been. And it's been seen in those moths mentioned previously. It's not been taken up much on a larger scale, as far as I know, because it becomes an awfully long-term process with higher life forms that have longer viability and gestation periods, and also calls into question a lot of ethical problems (eugenics, for example), but that doesn't mean that it's not reproducible.
Quote: Imagine if suddenly a new concept of math became popular where 6*9=42. Would it be wrong?
Um, yes. Why do you think mathematics was chosen as the language sent out on SETI-type missions? What you're saying is akin to the idea that if we decided that the speed of light was not 300,000,000m/s then it would change. There are observable hard and fast rules of the universe. We have not yet discovered them all, but there are some that are absolute, and they're mathematics. Now, it's perfectly fine to say that God created mathematics and defined the laws of physics. But it doesn't prove anything or lend any greater understanding, so it doesn't belong in a science class. (Slightly off topic, have you read Contact? Not seen the movie, but read the book? There's some very interesting theology in it related to this notion and I wonder how you'd feel about it.)
Quote: So how would we feel about this "new math" being taught in our schools, especially if it was nonsensical .... We'd all be angry for certain.
You mean like having religion taught in a science class?
Previous Topic
Index
