Traditional definitions of "scientific theory" include (1) it must be testable, and (2) involve reproducible results. The definition used by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (and other Courts) has dropped that requirement.
When testability and reproducible results "are" part of the definition of scientific theory, all origin of life theories, including evolution, can no longer be seen as scientific theory. For the benefit of those who can not believe that, believe the words of a New York Times company, atheism.about.com, quotes in bold below.
"Empirical Criteria - A scientific theory must: 1. be empirically testable or lead to predictions or retrodictions that are testable. 3. involve reproducible results"
"A theory which cannot be tested empirically is useless for researchers" That most Atheists and liberal Theists believe through sincere faith or miseducation that evolution is scientific theory, does not make it scientific theory. A large group of scientists claiming evolution to be scientific theory does not make it so (they have religious motive to claim it scientific theory). The leading expert minds of a thousand years ago thought the world was flat, that didn't make it so.
What is or was so wrong about these groups declaring their beliefs a fact, or a scientific theory? No Testing! Without testing you only have faith.
Many voters and most American youth have no clue that other large groups of scientists exist that dispute the theory of evolution. These "outside the establishment" scientists are dismissed or ignored by the education establishment, and the liberal media... as people who propagate religion, not science. They do this while going about proselytizing a religious view or views of their own in blind ignorant hypocrisy. The word "science" is used as a figleaf to openly teach their religious viewpoint in public schools, to a nation that has been miseducated into believing that evolution is science.
Anyone with "religious" views, from the perspective of the blind education establishment, can't be trusted to talk about science at all, unless of course they happen to be a theist that agrees with the theory of evolution.
The viewpoints and knowledge generally "presented" as fact in the education establishment's scientific community, on origin of life issues specifically, are the views of a "unorganized" but relatively harmonious religious community (atheist and liberal theist), motivated at the "individual" level to keep it's one "unifying" religious belief exclusively taught in the public school system.
This should not be construed by any to be a conspiracy in any way. A majority on the Supreme Court is ultimately responsible for keeping abiogenesis and evolution taught exclusively in public schools.
A double standard:
Abiogenesis and evolution supporters point to two sources to make their claim abiogenesis and evolution is science.
- The Courts
- Scientists motivated by religious belief and/or indoctrination to call abiogenesis and evolution "science".
But when competing theories are brought up, these same abiogenesis and/or evolution supporters bring out Empirical Criteria to describe what is science.
"Productive discussion requires clear thinking about concepts and premises, but clear and coherent thinking are undermined by misrepresentations".
The quote above ironically came from one of the organizations in America most guilty of presenting irrelevant and extraneous information that confuses or outright miseducates the public at large, that organization is "atheism.about.com". (a New York Times company)
When you compare and contrast our position (why Atheism is religion) with their position (why Atheism is not religion), you will find their position to be irrelevant and extraneous.
|