The enemy of totalitarianism is context, so many [changed from “most”] scientists will not allow you to contextualize evolutionary theory within a teleological context, no matter how strong the indication is. That’s just sad.
No field of science allows contextualizing in a theological context. Why single out evolutionary theory?
Another way to put it is that science already has a philosophy, so just stick to that philosophy. I think it might be easier to define what is included in science instead of trying to make an exhaustive list of what isn’t included in science.
Who is speaking for all of science as though they’re the authority?
The several prominent evolutionary scientists already named as also being Christians, for example, have not thereby been thrown out of the academy, nor their work’s validity been questioned, despite the fact that they contextualize their science.
Remember, the Constitution calls for freedom of religion, not freedom from it.
That means that even the high priests of scientism are not to be stifled, as they approach their altar of random, undirected purposelessness (thrown in for the full drama).
I do not understand what that means.
It calls for both.
Why are you singling out evolutionary theory for your complaints about God not being allowed as an explanation?
The scientific community doesn’t employ any thought police, so you are free to contextualize all you want. What you may not be able to do is convince the scientific community that your conclusions are scientific and supported.
No, it doesn’t call for both. There are no laws outlawing religious dialogue in the public square.
I am not singling out evolution, I am responding to the thread from which this comment arose.
I didn’t understand connection. Can you explain?
The totalitarian exclusion of considerations of teleology or conscious agency from the tenets of life origins or developmental pathways.
That is not going to change within science. Sorry.
Not calling for it to change; it’s already highly present in poorly conceived ideas like “selfish genes,” e.g. I’m just calling out the falsity of the position as an underlying certainty, and pointing out the irony of the self-deceit.
Well yes, it does,. You can’t force anyone to submit to your religion.
You’re free to opine in the public square about God producing life all you want. Trying to claim it is scientific and demanding it be taught in schools as science will only get you laughed at. That’s true of all science, not just evolution.
You are free to include them all you want. But again, you are going to have a tough time convincing the scientific community that it helps explain what they see.
You seem to be confusing the exclusion of ideas with your inability to convince scientists.
And I will laugh right back at them. They are already including them, to a high degree, without recognizing it.
There’s a lot more of them than there are of you.
That just makes it even more laughable --for both sides. Aren’t we having fun, noting each other’s blind spots?
If only you could offer something to science besides your religiously motivated incredulity. But alas, you can’t.
Oh yes, I already have. A mirror by which to self-scrutinize. But, willful blindness does hinder its effectiveness.
Ironically you seem to see “religious motivation” as some kind of defect, as the religion of scientism would require.
Or am I mistaken?
Until you can show us some specific applications in specific experiments, I can’t see what relevance your ideas have in science.