To study science has always been my dream since i was small. I highly respected it, regarded it to be the 'purest' subject as it seeks the truth! In fact, it's the most worthiest subject to study since it wants to understand the higher form of truth. There are many kinds of truth : historical truth, geographical truth, relational truth,etc, but science deals with the constancy, unchanging truth about nature. Hence, since it conveys the notion of something eternal, i regard it as the greatest, most beautiful subject to study.

Yep..science wants to seek the truth. That very notion about science just changes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism

Right there!

 methodological naturalism is "the adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within scientific method with or without fully accepting or believing it … science is not metaphysical and does not depend on the ultimate truth of any metaphysics for its success (although science does have metaphysical implications), but methodological naturalism must be adopted as a strategy or working hypothesis for science to succeed. We may therefore be agnostic about the ultimate truth of naturalism, but must nevertheless adopt it and investigate nature as if nature is all that there is."

Science does not seek the truth! Well, to perceive science as something that seeks the truth was always my definition. But it seems that a whole lot of scientists out there sticks to this definition of science by methodological naturalism! Hence, if looking through their definition, of course intelligent design was nonsense! But using my definition of science, it mustnt contradict with philosophy, it may well be mixed up with theology, must have consistent worldview towards everything, and the most important thing is, it is not as narrow-minded as those who 'blindly stick to definition for the sake of just sticking to the definition'.

To sum up, i'm so sorry to see that they applied methodological naturalism into science. It was an insult! And it automatically degrades science into something of a mere convention, which i always hate!

People need the Lord

Every day they pass me by

I can see it in their eyes

Empty people filled with care

Headed who knows where

On they go through private pain

Living day to day

Laughter hides their silent cries

Only Jesus hears

Chorus:

(People need the Lord) 2X

At the end of broken dreams

He's the open door

(People need the Lord) 2X

When will we realise

People need the Lord

We are called to take His light

To a world where wrong seems right

What could be too great a cost

For sharing life with one who's lost

Through His love our hearts can feel

All the grief they hear

They must hear the worlds of life

Only we can share

Chorus

Arguments, i had always believed that it has the power to distinguish between right and wrong. An analogy is in a court of law. The proponents of the truth would be easier to win, simply because it is backed up with many evidences that points towards its victory. While the opposition of truth, they will left either with contradicting explanations, illogical deductions, or even inconsistent with accumulatively true evidences. Hence, with this power of argument, I tend to ask, why don't we do it with religion? Let's argue and the truth shall win! As in written in C.S Lewis Screwtape Letters, the devil hates argument! Since they know they will definitely collapse as all evidences points towards God.

This was my stand yesterday and my days before that. Yesterday, i had achieved a new understanding. From the prayer fellowship, from what i read and ponder, from my chit-chat with my friends, from a reflection of my experiences, i realised that arguments are quite useless in the presence of one fact : human biasness!

Because of human biasness, we tend to sustain our ego, be too prideful to lose in arguing. This might be the main motivation that drives us to argue, so to speak, not rationally and objectively. Well, take a case of the dispute between creationists and evolutionists. What people know, is that there might be hidden agendas. For creationists, they have the so called 'propaganda of their religion', as evolutionists would see. While evolutionists are biased that they might be motivated by atheism. But guess what, in arguments between the two, there are still many other hidden motivations! Each and every pride contained in every human beings!

Because of this pride, one refuses to admit lose despite they are losing. They will argue and build up new arguments just to prove that they are not losing yet! Their stand might be weak, irrational, they cant explain everything, but they just dont want to lose! In the Bible, how do the Pharisees explain all the miracles of Jesus? They dont have a full explanation of the miracles, but they just dont want to lose and therefore they hated Jesus! One option was to cater towards ignorance, but ignorance is supposed to be agnostic and not sentimental! We can't judge!

To sum up, winning arguments doesnt necessarily settles that the arguing parties will return to the correct stand. In a court, the losing party will end up with mulky faces walking out of the courtroom. They still disagree with the verdict, though they know it is right, no matter how many 'neutral' evidences declares their lost.