I do not believe "science" is under attack in the U.S., and even if it were history both recent and otherwise shows that science can take care of itself--and that ultimately it always wins.

There has ALWAYS been a large swath of American culture that is inherently anti-science, and if anything that group of people is much smaller today than it was at the Scopes "

monkey trial."

Another thing that hits me is that even though many posters have said that some posters are attacking Christianity it has nothing to do with Christianity. To call someone stupid because they reject modern science is in no way an attack on their religion. And if a Mulsim, or Hindu, or other fundamentalist believers had such a museum I would also laugh at them, not their religion.

There as some basic concepts being ignored pretty much wholesale here, folks.

Science is establishied by scientiic method (SM); SM is an inductive methodology. You cannot (that's right, you simply CANNOT) establish a fact by gathering inductive evidence. You can establish a preponderance of the evidence and make strong statements about the methods used to evaluate the evidence, but you have proved NOTHING. Science is NOT based on incontrovertible facts; it's based on the best guess I can currently make based on the cases I've examined. You don't think so? Go take a look through any basic texts in philosophy of science or history of science. Don't hurry, I'll wait. You might take a look any the graveyard in scientific theories from the last 200 years while you're at it...

Mathematics is a field in which absolute fact can be stated. It is a final, forever, incontrovertible FACT that proven theorms are correct. Only problem is, Mathematics in not a science! Certainly scientists use math in their work, and some mathematicians get ideas to think about from the sciences, but math remains a thing of its own. Problem with that? Go take a look through any history and philsophy of math sources: some of them try to wiggle around the issue, but any of them that address the issue head on come the the above conclusion.

Faith is destroyed by knowledge. If you have faith you will continue to believe something without needing or wanting knowledge of the status of your belief. As long as you're making statements about domains of faith you needn't worry about trying to establish knowledge, as a matter of fact there are a number of widely respected believers(even among non-believers)who suggest that trying to establish a matter of belief as a fact to make your faith stronger actually reduces the virtue of the belief. That's all out there, too, if you want to bother going to look for it.

Of course, atheists who are looking for factual proof that the is no instantiated diety are shooting themselves in the foot here, but that's OK, everybody does that sometimes.

So, the folks at the Creation Museum are way off the beam trying to force matters of belief into a factual domain, but others on this list are equally off the beam in trying to make their 'facts' (scientific ones, not mathematical ones) apply to areas of belief.

Consider the bold statement that in the Newtonian realm it is a 'fact' that 2 + 2 = 4. Nope. We have far and away enough cases in the induction to make it possible to use that belief effectively, but it cannot be proved inductively at a basic level, and it can in fact (mathematical fact) be proved that it cannot be proved one way or the other. Sorry.

It's way easier to note the myriad instance in which the Creationists trespass on SM. Hell, they start with one by being unable (literally Unable) to subject the basis of their position (the inerrancy of the Christian Bible, St. James Version) to investigation. Right there they fall off the band wagon and are left behind!

It is not my ability to call into question my neighbors science or faith that establishes the virtue of my own; is my ability to properly and effectively deal with my own challenges.

rray wrote:

Consider the bold statement that in the Newtonian realm it is a 'fact' that 2 + 2 = 4. Nope. We have far and away enough cases in the induction to make it possible to use that belief effectively, but it cannot be proved inductively at a basic level, and it can in fact (mathematical fact) be proved that it cannot be proved one way or the other. Sorry.

********

Ok, I'll concede that much. Consider a more rough-and-ready approach. One can calculate pi to billions of places, but one need only use the first three or four places to do useful work with pi.

If you want to argue about how far above one axis lies the asymptote, fine, but I have better things to do.

Because that, in essence, is what your post proposes: that the distance from the axis as the line approaches infinity is somehow important.

For the purposes of useful work, evolutionary theory, and my faculties together prove the absence of any supernatural being that created the Universe...or anything else.

It is elementary that I cannot prove a negative. What I was attempting to do was describe what my atheism is to me: a fact of nature as much as the laws of gravity. Not a belief system. There is no faith involved in atheism.

For the purposes of useful work, no faith is required. I think Dawkins has more than adequately made the case that evolutionary theory allows for nothing more than a blind watchmaker. If you choose to regard that as evidence of *God* I won't argue with you.

Did't that like just evolve in a matter of decades. People evolve new breeds of dogs and farm animals all the time. There's even species that are only female.

I think the real reason of denile of evolution is if it were correct, then Adam's creator would have been his Mother. She liked Adam's speaking abilities and decided to use Adam's or Adam's father's rib bone like phallus to create another and had Eve. Adam thought his sister Eve was made for him (simple misunderstanding)and got her pregnant. She miscarried and began to consume it as mamals sometimes do. She offered some to Adam , then they got caught by their Mom and banished from Eden. Adam turned his face from his creator/Mom and in revenge made a god in his own immage making females second class.

The moral of the story is to kick your full grown sons out of the nest before they get their sisters pregnant. When your mother tells you not to eat something cause it could cause death, listen to her.

It's not wise to screw with mother nature. Look what happened from this error in judgement. The original all powerfull masculine creator has fractured into many chards of theology.

I think the Apocalypse display should include seens of Iatrogenic Eugenics by forced circumcisions by religious zealots leading to Armegedon, when Jesus comes to wipe out the Christians, Jews and Muslems Hippocrates and Pharisees who practice ritualised routine neonatal circumcision.