"So your ever drifting argument is science does wonderful things and proves stuff , but because it doesn't prove everything , therefore anything might be true?"
Anything that can't be proved false, might be true, yes. So, since anything might be true, there is no reason to present ideas that can't be falsified, build paradigms on the concept of random chance, and indoctrinate children in public schools into belief systems of empiricists.
I favor people holding any particular belief they want, as long as they don't force that belief on others. Educate a child fully in how to think, when they know how to think for themselves on such issues, then let them be presented with the arguments and think for themselves what to believe or not.
As you know, but won't likely admit, a design theory does not change the processes of evolution. It is just as probable that design is in play as non design. What the real issue is for the atheists is primarily Christianity. Deism doesn't really concern the atheists, as Deism is not a religion of creed and dogma, nor is it political the way Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are. The reaction of atheists in the west, is a reaction to western religions.
All of this has spilled itself into the minds of scientists, who take as an unproved and unprovable proposition that random chance is the driving force behind evolutionary process. Substitute design as the first proposition and driving force (which does not require an active designer...merely a programmer who has initiated the program to run on its own) and you get the exact same science.
Or just stick with the process, and leave the guessing out of the model. Or teach that it could be either design or non design. In any case, since there are such enormous ramifications in the minds of the theists and atheists to take either side, the most reasonable approach is to take neither, and tell little Jimmy in school, "Jimmy, we don't know if design or non design is at work, we only know that these processes take place. We know that living organisms have certain properties, we know they interact with their environment, we know we have a fossil record, we know that scientists have created new species of goop, etc."
All of that can be taught, without taking either a design or non design first assumption, as there is no way to know the probability of either. Design is just as possible as non design. The universe does appear designed by many observers, some of them scientists.
For longer than not, the humans on this earth viewed the sun as moving around the world. It took time for the theory of the earth moving around the sun to take hold. Science change the point of view from earth based, to studying relationships of something other than the earth as the reference point, and observed enough data to convince the average person that while they were looking at the sun move, it was actually the earth turning.
Can that same thing be done with the cosmological argument or first cause? Nope. Can there be enough data to prove that what looks like a designed universe, is not actually a designed universe? I don't see it happening, as all data points are within the universe. Just as it took looking to data points outside of the earth, namely astronomy, to conclude the relationship between the earth and sun were different than direct perception of just the sun and earth from earth alone, the assumptions made of cosmology are still earth bound so to speak...because they are not getting any reference point outside of the confines of the system to reach an objective truth of causation, design, or non design.
Science can and should continue to do what it does, and theories can and should continue to be proposed. However, when people accept theories of scientists in the same manner that people accept the theories of TV Evangelists, then I see a big problem.
Ask the average person to explain evolution, and they might say, man evolved from apes. I respond, "prove that" and he says, "Well, read this science book."
Okay, so the average person who is a Christian about the truth of God, and they might say God is the creator of heaven and earth. I respond, "prove that" and he says, "Well, read this Bible."
No difference really in concept. People take the word of a theologian as fact, or they take the word of an atheist as fact, or they take the word of a scientist as fact...when they have not reached any conclusion on their own...beyond taking faith in someone else and their opinions.
Anything that can't be proved false, might be true, yes. So, since anything might be true, there is no reason to present ideas that can't be falsified, build paradigms on the concept of random chance, and indoctrinate children in public schools into belief systems of empiricists.
I favor people holding any particular belief they want, as long as they don't force that belief on others. Educate a child fully in how to think, when they know how to think for themselves on such issues, then let them be presented with the arguments and think for themselves what to believe or not.
As you know, but won't likely admit, a design theory does not change the processes of evolution. It is just as probable that design is in play as non design. What the real issue is for the atheists is primarily Christianity. Deism doesn't really concern the atheists, as Deism is not a religion of creed and dogma, nor is it political the way Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are. The reaction of atheists in the west, is a reaction to western religions.
All of this has spilled itself into the minds of scientists, who take as an unproved and unprovable proposition that random chance is the driving force behind evolutionary process. Substitute design as the first proposition and driving force (which does not require an active designer...merely a programmer who has initiated the program to run on its own) and you get the exact same science.
Or just stick with the process, and leave the guessing out of the model. Or teach that it could be either design or non design. In any case, since there are such enormous ramifications in the minds of the theists and atheists to take either side, the most reasonable approach is to take neither, and tell little Jimmy in school, "Jimmy, we don't know if design or non design is at work, we only know that these processes take place. We know that living organisms have certain properties, we know they interact with their environment, we know we have a fossil record, we know that scientists have created new species of goop, etc."
All of that can be taught, without taking either a design or non design first assumption, as there is no way to know the probability of either. Design is just as possible as non design. The universe does appear designed by many observers, some of them scientists.
For longer than not, the humans on this earth viewed the sun as moving around the world. It took time for the theory of the earth moving around the sun to take hold. Science change the point of view from earth based, to studying relationships of something other than the earth as the reference point, and observed enough data to convince the average person that while they were looking at the sun move, it was actually the earth turning.
Can that same thing be done with the cosmological argument or first cause? Nope. Can there be enough data to prove that what looks like a designed universe, is not actually a designed universe? I don't see it happening, as all data points are within the universe. Just as it took looking to data points outside of the earth, namely astronomy, to conclude the relationship between the earth and sun were different than direct perception of just the sun and earth from earth alone, the assumptions made of cosmology are still earth bound so to speak...because they are not getting any reference point outside of the confines of the system to reach an objective truth of causation, design, or non design.
Science can and should continue to do what it does, and theories can and should continue to be proposed. However, when people accept theories of scientists in the same manner that people accept the theories of TV Evangelists, then I see a big problem.
Ask the average person to explain evolution, and they might say, man evolved from apes. I respond, "prove that" and he says, "Well, read this science book."
Okay, so the average person who is a Christian about the truth of God, and they might say God is the creator of heaven and earth. I respond, "prove that" and he says, "Well, read this Bible."
No difference really in concept. People take the word of a theologian as fact, or they take the word of an atheist as fact, or they take the word of a scientist as fact...when they have not reached any conclusion on their own...beyond taking faith in someone else and their opinions.
