Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:



No. A materialistic approach to science. You have no
basis for declaring that a materialistic approach to science
implies a materialistic approach to everything.


Then you didn't understand my point. If science is misused to
teach and/or imply that there are natural answers to all of
creation it goes beyond a materiatistic approach to science,
it is proselytizing a materialistic faith. That's what's going on
in public education. That's wrong and it needs to be corrected.

As I understand it, you consider nonevocation of God to be
equivalent to evocation of atheism.


No, I said many times what my point was. Science doesn't know
for certain that materialistic answers for everything will be found,
yet that is the approach taken by public education.

Do you have an opinion on the implications of nonevocation of
God in the public schools?


Your words are curious. What do you mean by evoking God
and in what context?

My apology, I mispelt 'invocation'.

There are infinitely many ways to invoke God.

A statement to the effect that "This step in evolution can be
explained as the result of intervention by a pre-existing
intelligence.", would be one way to invoke God in the
context of biology.

--

FF