The definition of science

Dr. Ken Miller of Brown University talks about recent cases including the case in Kansas that look to literally change the definition of science. This definition would be broadened to be wide enough to accept the supernatural within a scientific class room.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Science
• evolution
• creation
• intelligent
• design
• religion

[dilemmix]

What a great scientist this man is!

[Xenophile665]

@LJCampbell25 Amigo, we live in a natural world. So how else can I think? Supernaturally? If someone told me they talked to invisible unicorns, what should I assume about them? Your belief without evidence is no different to me. Invisible god, invisible unicorns? What's the difference?

[TheKcsmithy]

This is a great video

[xtremetom180]

very interesting thanks

[prchecker]

great video thanks

[msjessypp]

love the video really good

[docpot27]

I wonder what is "supernatural" in the original ideas of alchemistry, considering the fact that nuclear transformations were indeed observed later? And, a more general question: how can one a priori say that any idea, whatever strange it looks today, will not be supported by observations tomorrow? Examples of this a many in the history of science.

[docpot27]

"More adequate" is amusing

[docpot27]

"More adequate" is amusing

[Tsresponds]

@LoricaLady Physics and chemistry support evolutionary theory you moron. So where do you get that evolution isn't backed by what's testable, repeatable and observable. Biology and geology are also observable and testable and they also support evolution.

Keep your retarded ignorant-ass mouth shut unless you're going to actually learn the science your trying to close-mindedly dismiss and then accuse of being close-minded.

Being open-minded doesn't mean ASSERTING so called "possible" explanations

[Tsresponds]

@LoricaLady "So he is telling everyone that we can use observation, hypothesis, testing, experiments, etc. only when HE says so?"

No that's not what he's saying at all. The thing is supernatural explanations are just made up concepts to fill gaps in knowledge. They're not science because you can't test them, there isn't any evidence for them. Only hypothesis.

We're all eagerly awaiting your revolutionary evidence of the supernatural though. I think James Randi has 1 million dollars for you.

[LoricaLady]

2:43 Here we go again with the evoevangelists constant use of the logical fallacy of equivocation. The word "science" can have various meanings. When Miller lumps in neurobiology, chemistry and astronomy he is, again, incorrectly equating one kind of science, i.e. operational science, with a totally different kind of "science" (actually a pseudo science all the way), namely the theory of evolution. Then they argue, "Well! If you are against evolution then you are against science!" B.S.!