So called "secular science"

[staveoffzombies]

I've heard this phrase tossed around here by the YEC's, in order to make an attempt to discredit certain scientists...simply because they are secular.

Anyways, I found this quote by Kenneth Miller (a Catholic Theistic Evolutionist) in his book "Finding Darwin's God" that I thought was particularly appropriate.

The world has many religions, but just one science, and that tells us something about both. I do not mean, of course, that all scientists agree all the time on all issues. Science thrives on controversy and disagreement. But there is one science, worldwide, in the sense that scientific issues can be addressed by a common set of principles. All scientists use experiment, observation, and analysis to settle scientific issues, and ultimately all subscribe to a final test of their thoeries in the reality of nature. Among scientists, whatever our individual prejudices and however differently we might see things, we can get together and talk about genuinely scientific issues, like the controol of DNA replication, using a common language of understanding. However imperfect, there really is a single, worldwide, scientific culture.

[emphasis mine]

 

[busterdog]

I've heard this phrase tossed around here by the YEC's, in order to make an attempt to discredit certain scientists...simply because they are secular.

Anyways, I found this quote by Kenneth Miller (a Catholic Theistic Evolutionist) in his book "Finding Darwin's God" that I thought was particularly appropriate.

[emphasis mine]

Secular science says that its frame of reference is paramount and supercedes religious revelation, if it even acknowledges that revelation at all. Many here will say that it can't. The biblical inerrant view says that scripture is the ultimate frame of reference.

If you want to call that dichotomy an effort to discredit science, that is up to you. But the term "secular" has an objective meaning, which I think I summarized quite well.

 

[notto]

Secular science says that its frame of reference is paramount and supercedes religious revelation, if it even acknowledges that revelation at all. Many here will say that it can't. The biblical inerrant view says that scripture is the ultimate frame of reference.

If you want to call that dichotomy an effort to discredit science, that is up to you. But the term "secular" has an objective meaning, which I think I summarized quite well.

This demonstrates exactly why creationisms isn't science and why we cant' have anything except 'secular' science and continue to call it science.

By using a religious text as the ultimate frame of reference, there is by design and definition no objective way to eliminate contradictory explanations.

Every religious text can provide a different explanation and they all carry the same weight as evidence. Either they are all right and can be used or none of them can be used.

It is an anti-scientific view. Why not just accept that and stop trying to call it science or teach it in science class?

 

[theFijian]

Secular science says that its frame of reference is paramount and supercedes religious revelation, if it even acknowledges that revelation at all. Many here will say that it can't. The biblical inerrant view says that scripture is the ultimate frame of reference.

Do you understand the difference between special and general revelation? Someone who did would have qualified the 'ultimate frame of reference' statement.

 

[archaeologist]

By using a religious text as the ultimate frame of reference, there is by design and definition no objective way to eliminate contradictory explanations

by eliminating the religious text or texts you have elimated objectivity. everything is now done or influenced by the secular mode of thinking.

Every religious text can provide a different explanation and they all carry the same weight as evidence. Either they are all right and can be used or none of them can be used.

not at all. that is why you put them to the test, God even invites or tells us to do just that. i do not remember the scripture verse off hand and will have to look it up.

It is an anti-scientific view. Why not just accept that and stop trying to call it science or teach it in science class?

no, it is anti-secularism not anti-science. science is not above God and has no authority to eliminate Him from what He created.

If you want to call that dichotomy an effort to discredit science, that is up to you. But the term "secular" has an objective meaning, which I think I summarized quite well

yes you did and so did i. by using the term 'secular' we are identifying the source from which that brand of science comes. It is secular for it is not of God and has its roots in the evil one.

this has been pointed out too many times but the denial of those who participate in secular science is glaring, as they wish to do science the world's way and not God's.

But there is one science, worldwide, in the sense that scientific issues can be addressed by a common set of principles. All scientists use experiment, observation, and analysis to settle scientific issues, and ultimately all subscribe to a final test of their thoeries in the reality of nature

The world has many religions, but just one science

these show the naivity and depth of denial that goes on in the scientific world. to delve into the complexities of the issues raised by these words would make this post and subsequent posts too long.

suffice it to say that what he touts as guiding science is also present in religion.

there is one true religion and we have principles which differentiate between that one true belief and all the false ones in the world.

the two quotes show a limited understanding of what is taking place in the world and denies the existence of evil which plays a large role in all events, research, observations and so on

arrogance is not a good trait to have and scientists need to remove that from their beliefs, and emotions ifthey ever want a hope of a chance to find the truth.

 

[random_guy]

arrogance is not a good trait to have and scientists need to remove that from their beliefs, and emotions ifthey ever want a hope of a chance to find the truth.

there is one true religion and we have principles which differentiate between that one true belief and all the false ones in the world.

...

 

[archaeologist]

is that addressing the topic or attacking the poster?

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

is that addressing the topic or attacking the poster?

It's a pair of quotes.

 

[USincognito]

is that addressing the topic or attacking the poster?

Is that a leading question or a false dichotomy?