In mission to reach FBS, Flames set for a following
Printable View
Wow.....a billion dollar endowment and their own TV network......with a built in audience of fans. Nice.
Yeah, visit their campus and lots of new buildings (my son graduates in May) are everywhere and more being built. They only have about 12-14K students or so on campus.
Give them credit, they have a very ambitious plan, money to fund it, and incredible drive to achive it. In short, they get it.
I guess you could say they have a "higher purpose" and it definitely shows.
I'm rather surprised to be saying this, but I think the Sun Belt should bite the bullet and offer them an invite. Get to twelve, have a championship game that will have some people actually watching a conference game. Liberty looks better than I would have guessed to fill that twelfth slot.
Incidentally, the Bill Carr quoted in the article is our former AD. He was the guy who ushered our transition from the SWC to C*USA. There are basically two narratives: Bill Carr the forward-looking AD who saw that our future was with the Metro Conference, and Bill Carr who was caught flat-footed with a seachange that everybody and his brother could see coming and failed to even initiate contact with the WAC while our SWC brethren were collecting invites.
No one wants these religious zealots in their conference - the same way the PAC12 will never take BYU. Okay, so maybe the Sunbelt will take them or the old WAC to pair with Grand Canyon. Not worth the trouble.
The MWC would take back BYU in a minute.
Any conference would take the religious zealots at ND.
The religious zealots at Baylor, SMU, Tulsa, TCU, Wake, Duke, BC, etc seem to be doing well enough in their conferences.
Those are all academically respected universities that have been around a long time, and schools like TCU have distanced themselves from the church. Liberty is essentially an upstart online school that puts their mission (politics and religion) and making money ahead of academics, which makes them more similar to Grand Canyon than those schools you mentioned. I think that's the biggest part of the equation why university presidents don't want to be associated with Liberty.
A quick search on their website tells me Liberty was founded in 1971 and gained full accreditation in 1985. There are 12,000 students on campus with 90,000 total including on line students.
They have the money and structure in place to be very successful...
They have already experienced some success on the hardwood
I'd submit that faith, politics and money were the impetus, in some measure or fashion, for the creation of each of those institutions I noted above. The founders of Liberty started their school for more or less the same reasons as the founders of BYU, ND, Baylor, et al.
The real reason to shut out Liberty (or Grand Canyon, for that matter) is to protect the status quo. Online classes, for-profit ownership, and alleged zealotry are weak excuses offered to protect the establishment.
I specifically said PAC12 wouldn't take BYU -- there's a difference, just like there's a difference between the schools you mention and Liberty. None of those schools qualify as religious zealots, so simmer down. Liberty's soul purpose is 'training champions for Christ through Christian education." Nothing wrong with it, they've done a great job with what they have, great women's basketball team however they're the equivalent of University of Phoenix. They don't get a free pass because their online students are religious, sorry.
Liberty has a larger grad and undergrad oncampus enrollment than Tech.
Liberty has real athletic facilities (Vines Center is larger than the TAC), real dorms, real cafeterias, real academic buildings.
Liberty has a law school.
Liberty has a seminary.
Liberty has an endowment of $1B+.
They are in a 4 year, $400M building program.
They are finishing a new $50M library.
Liberty is a real school. They were a real school before the Internet craze. Just because they have a lot of distance learning students, does not mean that they are not a real university in every sense of the word.
I interviewed a dude that graduated from Liberty one time. Weirdest dude I have ever met.
Liberty's admissions numbers are better than I would have expected. They'd fit in with the Sun Belt, at any rate.
The on line enrollment numbers include a whole lotta military personnel.
LU athletic facilities (note the "built" dates):
http://www.liberty.edu/flames/?PID=16998
So how's Liberty doing? CUSA-ready yet?
Atheists will burn in Hell forever.
Can't try to use the excuse "I didn't know" when Judgment Day comes. You do know. You are choosing to reject the truth. Fortunately for you, it is still not too late. God is forgiving and will happily accept you into the fold, but you have to have a change of heart. God gave all of us a free will. It's up to you.
Again, the NCAA is discriminating on the basis of belief.
Either let Liberty in, or move the tournament games back to North Carolina (and kick out BYU for that matter).
People's opinions on Liberty's may differ. That's fine. Don't apply a different standard to them, though.
I'm fine with your proposals, but I'm still confused what D80 was trying to make a point of saying.
If Christianity is a problem, they should also kick out TCU, Notre Dame, Duke, Boston College, etc. Or is it the not playing on Sundays thing? And I think NCAA's position on North Carolina will soften if Texas pushes those laws through. Texas is too big...
I'm not sure either. Hopefully he can clarify!
The schools you listed are pretty much only Christian in name. Baylor would also be one, but they were perfectly happy to look the other way when Brittney Griner was winning Final Fours. Liberty dares to put some of their beliefs in practice (at least, they claim to, I have my doubts).
We'll see. Sooner or later people will realize the NCAA is discriminating by letting men compete on separate teams.
Agree that Liberty should not be discriminated for being proud of Christianity. However, I would loathe to share a conference with them due to their extreme rules against holding hands. I would be scared to get a ticket/fine for holding hands at a Tech Liberty Sporting Event.
I'm trying to remember the specifics. I don't know if it was the NCAA itself or just a group of other presidents that reacted strongly to Liberty's interest, citing LU's insistence on biblical marriage and acceptance of creation teachings. I could be wrong - if you have better information I'm all ears.
The NCAA hasn't done anything to discriminate against Liberty to my knowledge. Like Bearpaw said, maybe you are confusing the NCAA with the Belch, but I also wouldn't say the Belch discriminated against them. The Belch simply invited Coastal Carolina instead for reasons I assume we can only speculate about.
It's not objective proof of God's existence that we want, but the experience of God's presence. - Frederick Buechner
What you fail to acknowledge is that it is equally baffling to many of us that you believe everything came from nothing. Even Dawkins now states that the argument for design is overwhelming. Frank Turek is an interesting dude. The book he co-authored called "Why I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" is very interesting.
This thread is gonna get good.
Human knowledge has progressed greatly since the time the Bible was written. Back then, without the benefit of new scientific learnings, particularly in the field of quantum mechanics, it may have been hard to understand how a universe could seemingly spring from nothing.
But even for those that still find the prevailing science unsettling, putting stock in an ancient book of preposterous stories requires a deliberate path of ignoring evidence to the contrary - or worse, celebrating the act of ignoring contrary evidence under the banner of "faith".
Suffice it to say you will always have your faith and I will have mine. I choose to believe in a universe that has a true beginner. I believe in a world that would exist in total chaos and lack any morality without the teaching of the Bible. I choose to believe we are in the exact spot we are in the universe and our galaxy not by chance or because it just has to be that way(it doesn't), but because God put us here. Science continues to catch up and give more evidence to the plausibility of a creator. As I said, you believe that many galaxies could support life and we happened to land on the one that appears to be designed(even though you don't believe it is). Historians of all faiths have largely reached a consensus that Jesus was a real person. I choose to believe that the Bible is true from "In the beginning" to "amen".
At least we can be cordial. That's a step above some people.
What is science, but the belief in observations. The scientific method does not provide for "facts" nor "proof" nor "truth" but the statistics of how often something has been observed, and the interpretations of the results. A scientific theory is something which has been observed in such a way very often. A scientific law is something which has been observed almost all the time.
However, these observations are based on belief and logic; I will provide 4 tenets which science must hold true to be considered valid.
1. The basics of the faith you have for science, and your belief of its veracity is based in your senses. You believe that what you feel, touch, smell, hear, and see are the undeniable truth.
2. You further believe that your brain is capable of correctly interpreting what your senses give you.
3. Science further believes in the linearity of knowledge (i.e. the past occurred, the present is now, the future will occur).
4. And the last belief I will impart is that we believe that our memories are correct (i.e. your memories actually occurred).
Scientifically, it is nigh impossible to prove the veracity of these beliefs, as the tools we could attempt to use to test these features, would be developed by the beliefs of these 4 tenets. All of our sensors which we use for science, are based on these principles. And we have found in the past that some of our sensors are wrong due to the poor interpretations of their results. At the very least, we scientists understand that undoubtedly our sensors are flawed.
Now, using these 4 tenets, someone can tell you whether your ability to use them are poor (e.g. Alzheimer's Syndrome, Mental Disorder, Drugs, injuries, genetic evolutions/mutations, poor senses); however, science cannot not prove these features objectively valid nor true.
Science cannot prove God real, just as science cannot prove God false. Science can only show what has been observed, and whether the "scientific community" statistically believe the interpretations to show God real or false. Science is based on the observations performed, but realistically these observations are only performed in a small sample size, as no-one and no sensor can be everywhere at once.
I cringe every time I read about a "proof" or "cure" in the news, as nothing but our abstract creations are capable of objective proofs (e.g. math, where we objectively state that 1+1=2). However, in the real world, everything is subjective, including science.
I will add a 5th tenet of science which as scientist most of us take for granted: the belief that what others have done actually occurred as they state. Many things taken for granted by scientists are based on the observations and help from others before them, and even those on the same team. Because it is nigh impossible to approach science from first principals.
As a physicist and engineer, I will add that science is incredibly useful, but it is not objectively correct, nor the only thing belief. And I will lastly add that science, based on the 4-5 tenets of belief which I've listed above, has almost become the "world religion" in that the novices/poorly educated people believe the teachings of science to be undeniable fact, especially when it becomes a big story in the news, even when it has not been statistically shown to be more than likely true (i.e. with several scientific teams attempting to obtain similar results; e.g. many of the "weight-loss treatments we hear about). And, scientific experts often scoff at, at times even persecute, skeptics/non-believers in science because they do not believe in the objective veracity of science.
I don't think epistemology is within the province of science. ALL knowledge is fundamentally based on observation. You can say it is an assumption that we believe our observations, but you have to take observations a priori or nothing is knowable - even the logic that the counter argument (nothing is knowable) is based on is based on observation, so it is contradiction to argue against it.
Regarding the reliability of our senses, their limitations can be appreciated based on the same observational evidence they provide. When we "observe" something that we later determine to have been false, was it really failure of our sense organ or the faculty that assembled and interpreted the data? In most cases, I would say it is the latter.
Epistemology, one of the three types of Philosophy, is the foundations of science: https://www.marxists.org/reference/a.../ch01-s04.html
To have knowledge, you have to believe, or take for granted, those 5 tenets I gave. You agree the 5 tenets must be a given, that must mean you believe those 5 tenets. It is quite possible that one of our 5 tenets used for science are objectively false. You can observe something, and the observation may have been correct, but the interpretation was wrong. Or the other way around, or both. Statistically, it is more likely that both are incorrect, to some degree.
I will also disagree with your statement: "ALL knowledge is fundamentally based on observation". That statement is fallible, because to know something, you have to sense it (observe it as you say; tenet 1), but you also have to think about it (interpret it; tenet 2), you have to have remembered it (tenet 4), and it has to have occurred in the order you remember (tenet 3). Further, if you observe someone else's testimony (video, discussion, book, etc.) you have to believe that it has occurred in the way they tell you (tenet 5).
Regarding the "later determine to be false" the question you have to ask yourself is where was the fallacy made. Were my senses impaired, did I not process/interpret it correctly, did my memory fail me, or did someone else convince me using their tenets 1-4 (and 5 if their knowledge/observation comes from someone else; that person may have either lied/misled, or had some error in their tenets). I will state that statistically, no observation is objectively false, but statistically subjectively more likely to be right or wrong according to science.
As for your earlier statements on quantum mechanics, you said that it makes it more easy to understand how a universe could spring from nothing. If you have actually taken the course, you would know that 75%-90% of the course is statistics, the rest is theory. We can theorize that the big bang occurred, but we can never know, because no one actually observed it occur. We can theorize that the 5 tenets are true, but we cannot objectively state that they are. Christian believes there is an objectivity in the universe, and there is a reason we call Him the one truth, because with scientific knowledge you will find that nothing we can understand is objective, but subjective. As do many religions. Christians also believe there is an objective answer for what occurs to your conscience/soul after death, science can only offer subjective interpretations, mostly saying you disappear/become nothing.
Now, let's consider the scientific method http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/ph...appendixe.html, and compare it with the tenets:
I. The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena. (here you use tenet 1 to sense a phenomenon, and tenet 2 to interpret it)
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation. (this relies heavily on tenet 2, but also upon tenet 5)
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations (use tenet 2 and tenet 5 are used).
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments (use tenets 1 and 2 to evaluate/experiment; tenet 5 to determine independent validity).
And further, when such hypotheses have been repeatedly validated, they become laws:
A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Theories in physics are often formulated in terms of a few concepts and equations, which are identified with "laws of nature," suggesting their universal applicability. Accepted scientific theories and laws become part of our understanding of the universe and the basis for exploring less well-understood areas of knowledge. Theories are not easily discarded; new discoveries are first assumed to fit into the existing theoretical framework. It is only when, after repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it. The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory."
Such tests/experiments invariably employ statistics, in that only a sample of data is tested. 6 billion people can test gravity on earth, but they only test an infinitesimally small fraction of the space, and so cannot objectively validate something occurs similarly/the same in all places, and all times. Further, as seen from above, such laws are only validated through both repeated experiments, and the subjective viewpoints of "the scientific community." They are shown to be statistically more likely than not; they do not say that they are objectively true interpretations.
These laws and theories are then held to be the "controls" which scientists use to support further experiments. Thus, the fallacy of the scientific method and understanding of the world is based upon the five tenets. We observe things, and we interpret them. We use prior observation and interpretation to perform further interpretations, and so on. If there is an objective error in our original observations due to subjectivity, that error will be compounded in the future observations. However, we must understand that such knowledge, based on these 5 tenets, is subjective, and may be statistically more likely than not, but is never objectively right. Unless some objective being tells us so, which many atheist scientists do not believe is possible.
Your attempt to refute the statement that all knowledge is fundamentally based on observation, itself, relies on observation. Logic, itself, derives from the observation of the law of identity. You can argue against it all you want, but in doing so you still must rely on the truth of the statement.
The rest of your missive seems to overconcern itself with the problem of boundary conditions and domains for which a given set of laws or validated observations may be applicable. Knowledge based on science can deal with that - knowledge that is based on religion requires intellectual dishonesty, whether in the form of cognitive dissonance or ostriching, to deal with new information. Science is far more reliable. Believing in an ancient book of tales partly because everyone else you know does is not reliable. Have you ever considered how geography/culture influences the adoption of a specific religion. If you would have been born in an Islamic state - you would probably reject the Bible. Same thing is true growing up in a Jewish culture or any other country where another religion dominates. It is all about social conditioning - these cultures are aware of the Bible and Christianity. Religious beliefs are of the lowest reliability due to this social conditioning effect.
And how much of your relationship to science is due to this so-called "conditioning effect"? Just because everyone else is forced to learn science in school, doesn't mean its the only knowledge available. And Christians understand the Bible may be flawed: it's an interpretation of God's objective message through subjective awareness. The fact you cannot question the fallibility of science shows you do not understand the "intellectual dishonesty" of taking these 5 tenets as objective fact. Science, may be reliable, but it is flawed, because as subjective beings, we are flawed. We live in a universe which we attempt to understand it, whether through religion, which usually holds an objective truth to stay us, or by science, which holds a subjective view.
Regarding your first statement, I agree, my statements are based on observation, but also interpretation and thinking. As a scientist, I understand that these 5 tenets are the reality, and that my knowledge of these scientific principles are subjective truths. I understand that science is flawed. I also understand that those who either do not know, or refuse to consider, that science is flawed and attempt to say that science holds objective truths because a scientist, or a group of scientists, holds an interpretations of common experiments and observations to be one "theory" of how things are, is in fact incorrect. Theories are only theories based on flawed interpretations. While they may logically make sense, they are not objectively correct. Those who believe so, and believe science is the objective truth in the universe, or multiverse, seem to hold science to be their religion. And those people, seem to have been actively trying to "convert" others into this realm of thinking, and often persecute those who do not share the same beliefs. The same occurs for Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. However, to be a true scientist, you must understand that science can only bring subjective, not objective truth.
I think you are conflating knowledge and truth - epistimology and metaphysics. The former deals with our consciousness's relationship with the latter. I agree with the disciplined approach to undertanding truth and the scientific method does that. The method is rigorous and when done properly maintains the contextual nature of the observation.
Religion is a subjective guess at truth, based on the extremely limited knowledge of the pre-enlightened writer. Just because it is not malleable does not render it objective.
You are also conflating the scientific method with scientific knowledge. The former is a means for acquiring the latter. Lack of rigor in the application of the former can lead to problems with the latter, and that includes failure to consider the breadth of a data set (domain), boundary conditions, abilities and limitations of the observational tool, etc. Thus, if a scientist improperly accepts this knowledge without understanding its context (domain, boundary conditions, limitations, etc), the scientist could misapply it. This is not a problem with science (I.e., the rigorous method) but with the particulars of the knowledge the scientist has formed. But even if the scientist improperly shortcuts, rigorous application of the method - particularly when contradictory observations or laws/theories from other domains are learned - allows a scientist to correct its error and improve.
Truth, is the knowledge of something's validity, or correctness or rightness. Knowledge, as I stated in the original post, is the belief that a fact/experience is true. According to Google: a fact or belief that is accepted as true. knowledge is defined as: awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation. The acceptance of knowledge/facts is the belief that it is true. Thus, truth and knowledge are inexorably linked. Science is the pursuit of knowledge. However, that knowledge is subjective and fallible; it does not hold valid truth, i.e. it cannot produce objective truth in first principles. Religion is the Belief in an objective truth; belief may be subjective, but the belief in an objective truth does not leave the objective truth hoped for/believed in to be objectively wrong. Science does not produce any objective facts or objective evidence, nor objective knowledge. Science only provides subjective knowledge which is taken to be true with enough common experiments confirming the previously applied subjective knowledge. Just as two wrongs don't make a right, two (or more) subjective truths do not make an objective truth.
A scientist may be able to "correct" a previous error, but the correction and the interpretation of that correction is still statistically in doubt. It is not 100% an error, nor is the "fix" or correction 100% a correct or true solution. Rigorous application of a flawed pursuit of truth does not leave science to be objectively true. Nor does the rigorous pursuit of religion make religious teaches to be objectively true. The only thing which can make knowledge and truth objectively valid, correct, and/or true, is the presence of an objective thing/reality/person, and the objective truths that objective t/r/p can impart to us. This reasoning is why I am comfortable believing in my God, and still call myself a scientist. I understand that the interpretations of reality is flawed, and believe in an objective truth.
And I'm curious, why have you not replied to my rebuttal on the "indoctrination" principle of science in the modern western world? Are you perhaps unwilling to consider that possibility? ;)
Y'all cut Guiss some slack.
https://i.imgflip.com/i8wns.jpg
Not interested in getting into a line by line rebuttal. No one learns anything here.
Science may have originated with the Greeks, but it has found widespread acceptance mostly because the application of its concepts in the applied sciences and engineering have fueled new discoveries and technological progress. The only places it does it flourish are places where governments seek to suppress it or, through corruption, usurp resources needed to proliferate scientific education to the masses.
I am learning a ton, thanks
Bear paw is smart
I agree with your last sentence. I recently told my wife that all these asshole entertainers --including Bruce Springsteen, the NBA, the NCAA, the ACC conference, etc...-- who refuse to perform (concerts, tournaments, etc...) in the state of North Carolina because of the political "bathroom bill" are gonna feel the financial pinch themselves if more states follow suit. For example, I know Texas will take a similar stand. Let's see how profitable a performers concert tour is when he can no longer perform in Dallas, Ft Worth, Austin, Houston and San Antonio. :laugh: That will take a pretty big bite out of their pie. It could literally cost 'em millions. :laugh:
Why? He's a dick who believes everyone around him is nuts for believing in a savior. And he spends far too much time trying to convince people he's smart. That's pretty pathetic.
Now on the other hand, Bearpaw.....now that guys sounds like he really is smart. :laugh:
Ah, but I'm interested in your response to that single rebuttal. If you, and many in the world today, were not taught the principles of science from the age of 6-7, would you be so passionate to believe the knowledge gained through science?
In the same way, people who were brought up with religion believe that those teachings were beneficial to the people, you feel the same about science. Christianity in the least offers hope and peace to those dealing with struggles that there is something better waiting in the next life, and some objective truth is looking out for them. Science offers you understanding why you are dealing with a struggle, and possible solutions for how to overcome that problem. Christianity, if not taken to extremes, offers mental relief, and offers morals which are beneficial to western civilization, and have helped form our laws. Science has helped enforce our laws, improved our ability to physically and mentally help people, but also improved our ability to do harm, and possibly allowed for a corruption of our laws and morals (e.g. proof for a case of murder by a person who successfully tampered with video evidence [video recording provided by scientific inventions]; wrong person gets convicted or guilty goes free).
Science also has become entrenched in our secular societies, where there is supposed to be a separation of church and state; church referring to religion. Many governments believe that science offers objective truth. Thus, the "church of science" has become united with the actions of the state. The divided scientific community's decisions on certain aspects, abortion (is a fetus legally a human or are humans human after birth), how to determine when someone has died (brain death, heart death), climate change (human interference or natural phenomena, or both), scientific testimony being excepted in court (see above), etc.... define the political climate and have recently begun to define our law. I'm not saying that these features have not helped society, because in many ways they have, but just as science is not completely, objectively 100% true, nor has its total indoctrination in western law and governance been objectively helpful. I'm 75% for, 25% against.
I do believe, however, that the limits of scientific knowledge should be included in the education of scientific knowledge, so that non-scientists can understand its limits, and that every truth is open to "correction" and doubt.
Truth is not knowledge. Truth is the property of knowledge being actually correct. "Valid" is a determination of the correctness of knowledge based on the rigorous application of logic and the self-evident axioms upon which logic itself is predicated.
This does leave open the possibility of valid knowledge not being true, which statistically must occur from time to time. But we don't get to work with truth, only knowledge, and science provides a basis for dealing with previously valid knowledge that becomes known to be invalid. Religion doesn't.
I'll say it again, do you accept any knowledge without believing it to be true? I accept the knowledge that there is an objective truth. And you're wrong in that statement, Christianity holds both the old and new testament to be valid knowledge. With the coming of Christ, previous knowledge became invalid from the old testament. For instance, the right to stone people to death. In the old testament, it was permissible to stone people to death for certain sins. In the new, Jesus taught that only God should judge the people based on their actions, not the people. The previous knowledge that stoning was permissible was now invalid.
ALSO, will you please answer this question: If you, and many in the world today, were not taught the principles of science from the age of 6-7, would you be so passionate to believe the knowledge gained through science?
Whoa, whoa, whoa. I know I said I wasn't going to do a line by line, and I hope this is the last time, but what you said her is a complete misrepresentation of science.
The issues you have identified involve application of scientific concepts to issues of morality and law. That is not the province of science.
[1] the definition of a "person" (not human) is a legal construct found in the US Constitution. The SC in Roe v Wade considered opinions of religious leaders, scientists and moralists to determine the criteria by which they would define something as a person for purposes of having constitutional rights. The scientists didn't disagree about scientific facts relating to fetal development.
[2] Death is also a term of art, having legal significance. The act of dying can occur in different stages and "death" is us trying to distill the process into a definitive test for legal purposes.
[3] Climate change. Again this is the application of science to policy. There isn't much scientific debate over the fact that CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing and that humans play a role in that, as do natural processes. We don't have sufficient data for our current models (or good enough models for our current data) to make accurate, specific predictions to inform policy. Politics is out ahead of research in this area - motivated by both good and bad reasons. This is just what happens when scientists are asked to draw conclusions from low confidence models.
[4] this reflects legal principles that are predicated more on traditional western legal principles than science. We err on the side of the defendant and so expert testimony can be excluded where the court feels like it is legally unreliable or where it otherwise injures a defendants constitutional rights (such as right to confront and cross examine).
On this point I agree with you. It's not true science which is being used in our government, but the religion of science. By that I mean those who unknowingly hold the interpretations by a portion of the scientific community to be objective truths. In other instances, some politicians may use portions of the scientific communities findings to support an agenda. In the first case, this usage of the objective truths found by science presents a state religion. Those who understand that science only produces subjective knowledge, facts, and truths understand that science cannot produce objective truths. As for CO2 in the atmosphere, it's debatable. Our sensors were designed by erroneous beings, and thus can be wrong. We also possess a small sample size, in that we are detecting these levels in finite places, over finite intermittent periods, and comparing the data over the last few decades. Assuming that we are correct that CO2 levels are higher than when we began testing, I don't deny that climate change may be caused by humans, but I'm not 100% convinced. It is further possible that some natural event may have caused this increase in CO2 levels, as many scientists theorize has happened in the past. Again, this data is fallible.
I don't disagree about climate change. Not statistically certain but the evidence points that way. If we were convinced there would be no harm in waiting for the research to catch up, then there would be no reason to do anything about it now. As it stands, I think it is responsible to look for international options to reduce anthro CO2 while balancing the needs for energy. But this a complicated issue of statistical risk and cost-benefit balancing happening in a forum driven by local, national, and international political motivations. It is just beyond science.
Outside of climate change, politicians are far more likely to support religion over your so-called religion of science, whether it is blatantly such as political leaders referring to us a Christian nation or nation founded under J-C principles or whether it is through laws and policies directed to religious dog-whistles like "family values", "defense of marriage" etc.
The opposition is not really promoting science as an alternative, but morals and values that have developed culturally since the enlightenment and age of reason - fairness, justice, equality, etc.
A little late but:
Attachment 13848
Wait. So are they CUSA-ready?
Will Liberty have to fire their new AD now that the Baylor report has been released?
Liberty Flames @libertyflames 5 minutes ago
PRESS RELEASE: NCAA Approves Liberty's Waiver Request for FBS Reclassification Process
Read: http://www.liberty.edu/flames/index....=17950&TeamID=
#GoFlames https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/72x72/1f525.pnghttps://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/72x72/1f3c8.png
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C40QVLVUMAAmjrl.jpg:large