Further to “Naturalism only ever really had one strong idea: Ban ideas,” the new British school guidelines enshrining naturalism reminded me of something—by being the exact opposite. And I couldn’t really remember at first what it was.
Then I did: My old high school science teacher! He used to say, “Science is a verb.” He would have had no use for all this because, to him, science was the experiments a scientist does, and the information that results from them.
With him, every class was a lab or preparation for one. We learned what science was by doing it. (Today, he once told me, he wouldn’t even be allowed to teach that way. Too dangerous, they say.)
I don’t know what he thinks about evolution, but I bet he wouldn’t set much store by a science that lacks a subject (extraterrestrials, subhumans, etc.), about which you can’t do any experiments (evolutionary psychology, crackpot cosmology), that cuts the ground out from under the idea that we can really know anything (the latest nonsense about how the human mind doesn’t really exist).
The biggest problem with the new British science standards is that they would allow for all types of naturalist nonsense—and create barriers to critiquing it. Wonder who benefits from that?
See also: The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (cosmology).
The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (origin of life)
The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (human evolution)
Follow UD News at Twitter!
Science is a verb, and is it just me or is there a single species that “does science.” I wonder what the evolutionary explanation is for that. Whatever it is, it probably ranks right up there with evolutionary explanations for religion.
As to:
Seems your old high school teacher would have got along very well with Richard Feynman:
One of the ‘weird’ things about Darwinian evolution is that there is no experimental evidence, from four decades of lab work) to substantiate it (Behe: The First Rule). And although the numbers, coming from experimental evidence, against Darwinian evolution ever happening are overwhelming, (Murray, Dembski, Axe, Behe, etc.. etc..), Darwinists have pretended as if these gargantuan odds against their ‘guess’ are of no concern.
Yet, despite this bizarre scenario where Darwinists are in complete denial of reality, I think Feynman and you old high school science teacher would both be pleased that science has progressed to the point to show that Darwinism is wrong because it disagrees with experiment.
The empirical falsification of Neo-Darwinism is as such. Non-local, beyond space and time, Quantum entanglement is now found in molecular biology on a massive scale, in every DNA and protein molecule:
That quantum entanglement, which conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ in its pure ‘quantum form’ is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints (Bell Aspect, Leggett, Zeilinger), should be found in molecular biology on such a massive scale is a direct empirical falsification of Darwinian claims, for how can the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ in biology possibly be explained by a material (matter/energy) ’cause’ when the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ falsified material particles as its own causation in the first place? Appealing to the probability of various configurations of material particles, as Darwinism does, simply will not help since a timeless/spaceless cause must be supplied which is beyond the capacity of the material particles themselves to supply!
In other words, to give a coherent explanation for an effect that is shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself not limited to time and space! i.e. Put more simply, you cannot explain a effect by a cause that has been falsified by the very same effect you are seeking to explain! Improbability arguments of various ‘special’ configurations of material particles, which have been a staple of the arguments against neo-Darwinism, simply do not apply since the cause is not within the material particles in the first place!
Besides providing direct empirical falsification of neo-Darwinian claims as to the generation of information, the implication of finding ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, and ‘conserved’ quantum information in molecular biology on a massive scale is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious:
Verse and Music:
Science is a verb and not a noun. They use it like its a noun.
Banning conclusions or hunches in education is dictatorship. Period.
Its all attacking christianity. its attacking conclusions long held by many people then and now.
its a sign of desperate oppression. not the first time.
Its a great target to attack for thinkers and freedom lovers and truthers and on and on.