Talk:Modern science

From Conservapedia
This is the current revision of Talk:Modern science as edited by Aziraphale (Talk | contribs) at 23:06, March 25, 2008. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Demonstrate that it is orderly. BobCherry 17:28, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Prove that you're a human being with free will, and not just the result of deterministic material forces. --Ed Poor Talk 17:32, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Needed?

We already have Natural science (which was Science, and was renamed Physical science. And then we got Science again as a separate article. Do we really need Modern science as well? Philip J. Rayment 01:50, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Er, and it's not so much an article, as a quotation. And there's no category, or bolding. HelpJazz 10:27, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
Yes, but then Ed would only have 49 articles. Perspective, please, gents. Aziraphale 15:59, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
Granted that we don't need three separate articles. But "science" is not the same as "physical science". Ever hear of the Category:Life Sciences?
Liberals say that the material world is "all there is", and on that basis they contend that "science" must limit itself to study of the natural world. For those who entertain (for the sake of argument) that a supernatural world or a supernatural being might exist, they always insist that its/their operations would be chaotic and arbitrary. (You can't study random stuff, right?)
This contradicts the (modern?) Christian view that "an orderly universe makes sense only if it were designed and created by an orderly Creator".
Liberal, atheistic thought sneaks in the idea of an insane god (like Zeus in a bad mood when some earthly virgin turned him down). They impute insanity and unpredictability to God and His work. We need not accept this view. --Ed Poor Talk 16:13, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
Neither Philip, nor HelpJazz, nor myself say anything about the truth or falseness of the content of the article. We're all, I think, expressing the opinion that it doesn't need an article and, in fact, leads to confusion should anyone use this encyclopedia for its intended purpose.
It has long been settled that the main article on any subject (on this site, that is) may contain the Christian point-of-view on the subject; many of them do so. Many of the ones that you've edited do so. Why deviate now? Aziraphale 18:21, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
Aziraphale is correct in that we are not disputing the truth of the content. In fact I totally agree with it, and not just because I know one of the authors of the quote!
Ed, you point out that ' "science" is not the same as "physical science" '. That comment is irrelevant, as we no longer have an article titled "physical science"! It was you who renamed "science" to "physical science", which was too restrictive, so it was renamed "natural science" so that the life sciences would be included. The question is, do we need "modern science" as well? For that matter, do we really need "natural science"? Why not just put it all (back) under "science"? Philip J. Rayment 23:04, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Moving On

Philip, do you have the ability to merge articles here? It's clear (to me) from Ed's edit history that he simply considers this matter "settled." So do I, for that matter, but probably not in the same way. Aziraphale 15:27, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

There is no "merge articles" ability (as far as I know). It's just a matter of copying and pasting the content of one article to the other, and changing the first into a redirect to the other. Something any editor can do. Philip J. Rayment 04:20, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
  • grin* "After you." "No no, after you." "No really, I insist." "I'm sorry, but I'm I'm afraid I really must insist."
I'll do it. :D Aziraphale 19:06, 25 March 2008 (EDT)