The two sides of science…

0303-creation-l

I just found out this via facebook…

Australian Christian schools will campaign against what they see as the thin end of the wedge – a decision by the South Australian Non-Government Schools Registration Board to effectively ban the teaching of creationism.

Under policies published in December, the board said it required ”teaching of science as an empirical discipline, focusing on inquiry, hypothesis, investigation, experimentation, observation and evidential analysis”.

[source]

It came from one of my non-Christian friends who basically ridiculed Christians – this of course does not surprise me.

Anyway, I just wonder how this will affect the Christian schools and their curriculum. I’m thinking that creation inquiry is out, creation hypothesis is out, creation investigation is out.  Experimentation is an observed thing so that is something that should stay. And evidence – well, there is evidence all around us. But doesn’t it all come down to how we interpret the evidence? 

I will just quote the following to sum it all up…

Many people do not realize that science was actually developed in Christian Europe by men who assumed that God created an orderly universe. If the universe is a product of random chance or a group of gods that interfere in the universe, there is really no reason to expect order in nature. Many of the founders of the principle scientific fields, such as Bacon, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton, were believers in a recently created earth. The idea that science cannot accept a creationist perspective is a denial of scientific history.

To help us understand that science has practical limits, it is useful to divide science into two different areas: operational science and historical (origins) science. Operational science deals with testing and verifying ideas in the present and leads to the production of useful products like computers, cars, and satellites. Historical (origins) science involves interpreting evidence from the past and includes the models of evolution and special creation. [source]

Can you see the difference between ‘Operational Science’ and ‘Historical Science’? They are two very different things. Perhaps we would be better off having two different subjects because one is clearly evidence and observation based while the other is presumption on BOTH sides of the creation and evolution debate.

Perhaps two separate subjects called ‘Operational Science’ and ‘Historical Science’  would make it easier to see the divide between science fact and philosophical faith?

I feel a poll coming on…

Advertisements