But what is the scientific evidence that there is “no need to invoke God” to explain evolution? At most, science can say there is no need to invoke a God similar to the type that Intelligent Design people believe. Science cannot prove nor disprove a God who is responsible for creating and sustaining the laws of nature, for example.
The same scientific evidence that there is no need to invoke the Giant Spaghetti Monster or the Easter Bunny to explain evolution.
Science certainly has said LOUDLY that there is certainly **
** of a God similar to the type that ID people believe.
But science could say that there may not be any need for creating and sustaining the laws of nature. The laws of nature may be just there with no need for creating nor sustaining. End of story.
A Giant Spaghetti Monster God who is omniscient, omnipotent, immaterial, personal, immutable, and perfect isn’t ruled out by science either. Can you point out a specific scientific paper published in a peer-reviewed journal that falsifies such a God?
Yeah, but science doesn’t say that. Can you point me to an experiment that shows that the laws of nature don’t need to be sustained or created?
That’s not a scientific question, so it does not require scientific evidence.
It’s a philosophical question about the meaning of “explanation.” Personally, I think that issue should be kept out of the science classroom.
I agree with you, which is why I disagree with Patrick that someone like Dawkins should be allowed to say in the classroom that there is no need to invoke God to explain evolution.
So far, as science can tell, there is no all powerful Giant Spaghetti Monster, but it would be very comforting to me if there was (Theological statement) . According to their religion, their heaven has pasta which I love and would be a requirement of any place that I have to spend eternity in. (philosophical statement)
Again, Patrick, where is the scientific paper describing an experiment that falsifies an immaterial, perfect, omnipotent Giant Spaghetti Monster God? Please point it out to me.
This should not be difficult. For example, one can point to the Michelson-Morley paper that gave evidence against the existence of ether. Surely, if science has disproven the existence of the Giant Spaghetti Monster God, we can easily look it up and read it.
Here is all the scientific evidence. It was peer-reviewed by fellow Followers. And Published in Journals in the UK where Newton, Darwin and Hawkins lived
What scientific evidence is that? Why would a science teacher be mentioning God at all?
I’m serious, Patrick. Give me an actual scientific paper, not a website, that gives experimental evidence AGAINST an omniscient, omnipotent, immaterial, personal, immutable, and perfect God.
Otherwise, someone like Dawkins would be LYING if he were to say that there is no need to invoke God to explain the wonders of the natural world and evolution. He would be teaching false science.
Two issues going on here. 1. Government (public school) Church/State separation and 2. Science under MN.
A US public school teacher couldn’t mention God, the Giant Spaghetti Monster, nor the Easter Bunny in school as government must be neutral on all metaphysical myths and superstitions. #1 above.
So you agree then that Dawkins would be breaking the law, if in a US science classroom in a public school he said that “there is no need to invoke God to explain the wonders of the natural world”?
This would be mentioning God. You just said that you can’t mention God in the classroom.
Let me try again, since you answered neither of my questions. What scientific evidence are you talking about? Why would a science teacher be mentioning God at all in the classroom?
Not really sure on that one if he would be breaking the law on saying that. But what would the complaint be and from whom? “World’s most outspoken atheist scientist, Richard Dawkins says to children in a public school that there is no need to invoke God to explain the wonders of the natural world.” How dare he bring his “religion of atheist” into our fine secular schools. I guess if he changes God to Allah, he might have Fundamentalist Christians agreeing with him.
I would oppose it.
The complaint would be “Dr. Dawkins mentioned God in the science classroom of a public school. According to Dr. Patrick Trischitta, who is associated with the Freedom from Religion Foundation and has experience with many similar such cases, it is against the Constitution to mention God in the classroom. Therefore, Dr. Dawkins is in violation of the US Constitution.”
This is a valid complaint right? I’m just quoting what you said.
I am sorry Steve, you may be in the middle of a whimsical conversation about the Church of the Giant Spaghetti Monster. To be clear, science has no evidence of anything metaphysical in our physical universe. Also regarding science teachers in secular schools bringing God to the classroom that is something that still sometimes happens and we go after it hard, although we try to protect the teachers if it was just an innocent mistake.
I’m trying to be in conversation with you about the statements you’ve been making.
I don’t even know what that sentence means. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy dealing with the fundamental nature of reality, so what does it mean to have no evidence of anything metaphysical? More to the point, what scientific evidence tells us whether or not a divinity is needed for the operation of natural processes? How is that even a scientific question?
Let me try once more: Why should Dawkins be mentioning God at all in a class on evolution?
Why would science say this?
No that wouldn’t happen as I am also a member of the Richard Dawkins Society of Reason and Science and RDSRS and FFRF work closely together. I would probably be one who tries to get Dawkins to come to a NJ Public School. I certainly wouldn’t file a very expensive complaint against the school district for having him speak. Note that Dawkins himself, who is NOT a school faculty member, has free speech rights. So any legal complaint would have to go against the school district inviting him.