Teehee. Three words: supersport, Christian, Forums.

A "senior member" of the christianforums.com website with 793 posts under his belt has continued his chirade against all things logical and tangible in a spiel entitled "Evolutionary Science is a fairytale". [1]

Allow me to dissect his paragraphs, only a little.

Define 'Science'

Nothing is more humorous than when an evolutionist pokes fun at creationists or IDists for not putting forth a scientific theory to explain life.

I agree. There is more to anything than putting forth scientific theory.

Those who claim to be able to describe life scientifically are kidding themselves because life is more than material — it's metaphysical, which by defintion [sic] is in conflict with science. Science is the study of the material world.

Indeed, supersport's definition of "science" is in conflict with that held by those who actually practice the, er, science. [2]

The American Heritage Dictionary defines science partially as: "an activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing" or "knowledge, especially that gained through experience". Experience at studying fossil records and empirical exposure to supposedly near-related creatures (e.g. monkeys) which clearly share some human traits is just the first step to understanding where we come from, but it's a step nonetheless.

McGraw Hill's Sci-Tech Encylopedia makes a distinction between "exact" and "descriptive" sciences:

Examples of the former are physics and, to a lesser degree, chemistry; and of the latter, taxonomical botany or zoology. The exact sciences are in general characterized by the possibility of exact measurement. One of the most important tasks of a descriptive science is to develop a method of description or classification that will permit precision of reference to the subject matter.

Houghton Mifflin's Thesaurus classifies science as "known facts, ideas, and skill that have been imparted: education, erudition, instruction, knowledge, learning, scholarship. See knowledge/ignorance."

answers.com's library does include a definition which reads along the lines of "study of physical part of world", but in the context of an interpretation in which the only direct antonym of the word is "art". Neither of these phrases make any reference to metaphysical studies or phenomena, so the definition attributes such studies neither to "science" nor to "not science".

supersport goes on:

"Science" is (or should be) the study of the material world. But what the world's evolutionists have forced down our kids' throats is not science. Instead it's long list of "what ifs," "probablys," "maybes," and "more-than-likelys." What they're attempting to sell the unsuspecting public is not to be found in nature — it's found in their books.

He doesn't make any direct reference to a personal belief in creationism, but given that he's a "Senior Member" of a Christian forum I think it's a fair assumption; it beggars belief that he'd form an argument against opinion based on "it's not to be found in nature; it's found in their books" which describes precisely Christian belief. Not much more and certainly no less.

Besides, just who is he to decide what science "should be"?

Pages: 1 2 3