Sunday, July 17, 2011

Plato has been resurrected again!




4:13 am

Pardon me, Dr Liddle:

I cannot help but notice that we are here dealing with those “few” who control major institutions and are busily trying to redefine the actual meaning of science, turning science itself into applied atheism.

I particularly note what the US National Science Teachers Association, for a decade now, is on record (cf the above linked) on:

The principal product of science is knowledge in the form of naturalistic concepts and the laws and theories related to those concepts . . . .

[[S]cience, along with its methods, explanations and generalizations, must be the sole focus of instruction in science classes to the exclusion of all non-scientific or pseudoscientific methods, explanations, generalizations and products . . . .

Although no single universal step-by-step scientific method captures the complexity of doing science, a number of shared values and perspectives characterize a scientific approach to understanding nature. Among these are a demand for naturalistic explanations supported by empirical evidence that are, at least in principle, testable against the natural world. Other shared elements include observations, rational argument, inference, skepticism, peer review and replicability of work . . . .

Science, by definition, is limited to naturalistic methods and explanations and, as such, is precluded from using supernatural elements in the production of scientific knowledge. [[NSTA, Board of Directors, July 2000. ]

That is highly significant. Especially, as ever since Plato in The Laws, Bk X, 2350 years ago, it should have been plain that he relevant contrast is not natural vs supernatural but natural vs artificial. Where the artificial leaves empirically reliable and rouinely used traces that we infer on.

So, there is here a willfully misleading caricature of design thought, and there lurks the “creationism in a cheap tuxedo” smear.

And, the above is thus highly revealing of an extremely radical and question begging institutionally entrenched atheistical worldviews agenda, which becomes all the more evident when we realise that to such “science” is the gold standard of knowledge.

Remember, already our children are being taught this sort of radical and patently unjustifiable redefinition as the “true” definition of science.

Sorry, but — painful as this may sound — that sounds to me uncommonly like the problem of handing over the administration of the asylum to its inmates.

It is time to fix the chaos.



Oh shut up, gordy. Do you have to butt into every thread on UD with your paranoid Plato bullshit and other insanity and willful dishonesty? And you couldn't settle for posting your above drivel in just one thread, could you? You posted exactly the same shit in at least two threads, like you often do. What's that you constantly say about 'drumbeat repetition of rhetorical talking points'?

You are seriously sick in the head, and you and your ID buddies are the "chaos". Fix yourSELF.

And speaking of inmates in the asylum, how's the food in the nuthouse you're in? Are they spoon feeding you well?

By the way, gordo, why do you care about "atheistical" if ID isn't based on or concerned with a god, theism, creationism, or religion? Well??