Magic and miracles came out of the mix, Galatian, with Christianity. Check your history.
One of my interests is the history of science and religion and how they interact. Fact is, Christian thinkers in the middle ages severely confused science and religion. Newton had quite a number of alchemical notions. Kepler did horoscopes. It didn't happen all at once, and it certainly didn't happen with the rise of Christianity.
Interestingly, Newton used God to justify something that is anathema to creationists today:
"Newton employed the guaranteeing God to support his use of induction. Natural philosophers can use inference in experimental philosophy precisely because the faithful God of order allows one to expect parsimony in nature and since the unity of creation ensures that specifically observed principles and structures point to universals."
http://www.isaac-newton.org/science.doc
The philosophy of Science only observes that parsimony and induction work. But I think Newton was right about this.
The truth is today that anything the scientific establishment does not like is labeled 'religious,' whether or not it is.
There is no "establishment." The closest you can get to that is a general consensus among scientists. There is no such thing in science as you find in the ICR graduate school, which requires a loyalty oath to YE creationism. From time to time, someone tries that, and gets slapped down. Rightfully so.
Intelligent Design is about as far from religious as you can get,
In fact, the IDers are very clear about this. From their Wedge Document:
"Governing Goals
To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God."
I do not think any reasonable person would deny that this is a religious movement, seeking to advance religion.
actually, as it uses the same methods forensic science does.
The only attempt at "ID methodology" I know of, is Dembski's "explanitory filter." But it doesn't seem to work, unless you decide in advance whether something is "designed" or not.
If Darwinism was so truly sure of itself then it would not mind a bit if Intelligent Design were on the table for an honest look at it.
"If Creationism was so truly sure of itself, then the ICR would not require a loyalty oath to creationism for those applying to their graduate school."
"If Astronomy was so truly sure of itself, then it would not mind a bit if Astrology were on the table for an honest look at it."
These things are on the table. The question is whether or not we should teach students that astrology or ID is a reasonable alternative to science.
Nor would it mind if Darwinism itself got an honest inspection.
That's been going on for a long time. Darwinism, as conceived by Darwin, has been shown to be wrong on a number of points. By scientists, not astrologers or creationists. And accordingly, science has changed because of the successful challenges.
Of course, that is one of the things Intelligent Design is doing -- taking an honest look at Darwinism.
Unfortunately, "honest" isn't the mark of many of the leading IDers. Jonathan Wells, for example, in "Icons of Evolution", dishonestly asserted that Peppered Moths do not rest on tree trunks, even though he was aware of studies that say they do.
Here's what Kenneth Miller (a Christian) has to say about it:
1) Peppered Moths. For years, Wells has argued that the peppered moth story repeated in many textbooks is a "fraud," and that the moths do not provide an example of natural selection in action. What did I do at the debate? I made it clear that the moths are, as scientists like Bruce Grant (William & Mary) and Michael Majerus (University of Cambridge) agree, a perfectly sound example of natural selection in action. And I also pointed out that Wells is just plain wrong when he claims that the moths don't rest on tree trunks. The latter claim is particularly important, since this is why Wells feels justified in claiming that a photo of the moths on a tree trunk in one of my textbooks is a "fraud."
Wells presents a series of quotes from the literature to support his contention, made in "Icons," that peppered moths don't rest on tree trunks, a claim I rebutted in the debate. Like many opponents of evolution, he argues from quotation rather than from data. At the debate, I presented actual data on the positions in which moths have been observed in the wild, and guess what? Although the literature is clear that adequate studies have not yet been done to pinpoint the places where these moths generally rest in the wild, observations done to date show that most moths have, indeed, been found on tree trunks
Data and cites are here:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/wells-april-2002.html
But Darwinism cannot stand up to that. It rests on pure supposition and 'interpretations.'
Perhaps you have not read the literature. All it talks about is the evidence. If by "interpretations", you mean "inferences from evidence", you are correct. That is what science does.
Darwinism/evolution is not at all sure of itself when you peel off the rhetoric and shouts and insults and screaming.
In the literature, I've never seen any of that. It is very well reasoned, and good science.
By the way, are you sure that God does not plan where lightning is going to strike?
I pointed out that people once thought that lightning was God's revenge on His enemies. That is false, of course. It obeys natural laws like everything else.
Are you sure that demons have nothing to do with some kinds of mental illness?
I pointed out that at one time, people thought plague and other infectious diseases were caused by demons.
If so, the evidence is subtle. Can demons cause mental illness? Science can't say, because it can't deal with magic and miracles.
I know a number of very intelligent, educated people who would disagree with your statement above.
I would be pleased to know who thinks lightning is God's revenge, or who thinks demons cause infectious disease.
What is any darker about a few hundred years ago when you figure that we quietly murder millions of unborn babies each year,
You think it wasn't common in the Middle Ages? People then thought that if the baby had not yet "quickened", it was OK to abort it.
quietly kill thousands of elderly even where euthenasia is illegal,
You think the elderly weren't neglected and left to die? Hundreds of years ago, there were institutions where people could leave newborns in a sort of "night depository" if they didn't want them. The death rate for those foundlings in the first year was horrific.
Did you know that in many places, the insane were regarded as criminal, and locked up? In some places, they were put on display for a fee. Children as young as four were held accountable for criminal acts and executed.
Or maybe you would like to defend...
I'd prefer to stay on topic, thank you.
Yeah, we are in a really enlightened time now.
A bit better than the 90s. Most social indicators are going up, or were until the last few years. Murder rates and violent crime are down. More people report God is important in their lives. And the tide is finally turning on abortion. Fewer support it now, and even politicians like Bush and Clinton are modifying their stance on it.
And it's much, much better than the days when you could buy humans for labor or sexual slavery.
I have als of those in power in any area is to keep everyone else ignorant of what is really going on.
No kidding. Humans can't handle power. It inevitably corrupts them. Only strict accountability prevents them from becoming tyrants.
And no, I am not paranoid.
You certainly aren't.
I am simply stating what I have found in fifty-seven years of living here on this earth.
Good observation.
What I have also found is that there is incredible freedom in not being afraid anymore. Let people say what they want and do what they want I know first, that God is in control; second I know I am His; and third, I know I can look at the data myself and come to my own conclusions without someone taking away my livlihood or 'peer respect.' I can make informed decisions when I take the time to dig out the information.
Also good observations.
