Steve Peterson wrote:
Science has no high priests. I already covered this:

That doesn't make it go away though. The field of science
does have members in leadership roles and it does have
the loyal followers of their decrees of faith, as we have been
discussing at some length. It's obviously a figurative, not
literal comparison.



no Pope, no bishops,
either. It is actually very anarchic. However, this statement doesn't
offend me at all, and it will fit very nicely into a philosophy course,
maybe into philosophy of science. In those courses, it can be talked to
death, as it (apparently) is in this news group. It does also state, quite
clearly, that it is not science although it discusses meta-science. It is
about science, a philosophical approach.


Which is what actually happens in science, whether you accept it
or not.


What it doesn't do is teach us how to recognize anything in evolution data
or theory that cannot be explained by natural science and therefore must be
due to the influence of an intelligent designer. What are such criteria?
The mere fact that we don't currently know the natural explanation for
something does not prove that we can't learn the natural explanation. No
one claims the theory of evolution is all wrapped up with nothing left to
learn. Neither is gravity, or continental drift, or nucleogenesis, or stem
cells, or superstring theory or .... In your philosophy class you can also
discuss the nature of scientific theories, what is provable and what is not
provable, as well as religious infallibility. Be sure to discuss which
religion is infallible. Since different religions, by definition, have
different credos, tenets, rites, doctrines, ..., only one can be absolutely
correct and infallible and the others must fall short of perfection. Man,
you will have such a great time!


Let's talk about the religion preached by the high priests of materialism
first, since that's more relevant to the misuse of science. Here's a scientist
that refutes Stephen Gould about the findings of the Cambrian Explosion:
The interview is worth reading to anyone who doesn't believe that science
is unfortunantly being misused to promote the dogma of a few.

http://www.origins.org/articles/chie...ionoflife.html

RI: As you became more interested in this and discovered more about it, did you find it
really was an "explosion of life"?

Chien: Yes. A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla of different
groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during that period of time (including
those in China, Canada, and elsewhere) adds up to over 50 phyla. That means [there are] more
phyla in the very, very beginning, where we found the first fossils [of animal life], than exist now.

Stephen J. Gould, [a Harvard University evolutionary biologist], has referred to this as the reverse
cone of diversity. The theory of evolution implies that things get more and more complex and get
more and more diverse from one single origin. But the whole thing turns out to be reversedwe have
more diverse groups in the very beginning, and in fact more and more of them die off over time, and
we have less and less now.