Creationism education bills

[IMMensaMind 462]

* I misspoke about the beginning of life; substitute time instead.

* Where does Shapiro claim he's "attempting to create the bridge between Christianity and Dearwinism"?

* How can you continue to think Shapiro's work says what you think it does. Dude has said he's not a proponent of ID. He knows this stuff better than almost every other person on earth right now. He understands the implications of his research and has stated he is not a proponent of ID. That's pretty damning in my view....but you seem to be well acquainted with how the man's mind operates....well, his and god's. That's why you have a MensaMind.

* Johns Hopkins could have used a mind like yours.

 

You - like so many other posters - cannot help yourself throwing in an inappropriate insult. I have been nothing but respectful to you when you are respectful to me. You know - as does Nikki, and any other poster - if you're killing a small part of your moral perpitude by choosing to try to deride someone merely because of their dogged views. You have dogged views as well; you're simply arguing a different side. Why would people who have to agree to disagree actually lower themselves to such petty insult?

 

You're no different than me. You think you're right - but you insult without provocation because you think you're right - and (as you've said) "I scare you". I believe I'm correct, but I continually attempt to post why using Shapiro's own words: he's the one who said that "we can now begin to bridge the gap between Christian and Darwinist".

 

Is this an acknowledgement that Science isn't enough?

 

He's also the one who said "although our knowledge of the molecular details of biological organization is undergoing a revolutionary expansion, open-minded discussions of the impact of these discoveries are all too rare".

 

Open-minded is remaining respectful of the positions presented by the other side. You're not doing that, but what's sad is that you and Voltaire are the closest to it, being able to at least formulate your view and minimize your insulting.

 

And that's supposed to be a reflection on me? Look in the mirror and tell me if you see a guy who truly thinks that insults are constructive here, and if you're truly being open-minded. I've said to you repeatedly that Shapiro is not an ID proponent. I've also said he's not an ID antagonist either. He's trying to bring the two sides together, and he's letting his research do the talking. That's what he meant when he said "bridge the gap".

 

He may have underlying suspicions about what his research is teaching him, however - and it is this strain of thought that I'm harnessing when I use his words to fortify my own opinion on this matter.

 

What is non-Darwinian to you? Something which was previously opposed by Darwinists. This is in micro-cosm why I've always said that I accept large chunks of Evolutionary Theory, but not the whole enchilada: not the part that attempts to explain the Origin of Species without an "underlying Intelligence at work which guides the Origin of Species".

 

Shapiro is trying to bridge the gap between Secularists and those who believe that ID research is legitimate. It's the same thing. One cannot bridge gaps between those two starkly opposed ideologies without holding views sympathetic to both. Think about that statement, for its fundamental truth - and it is where I as well lay. I am not an antagonist to the whole of Evolutionary Theory. I am merely suspicious when those involved in the research attempt to explain things - not without the need for a God, but the intentional omission of the possibility.

 

Here's the facts: before this debate, I had very strong beliefs that our environment is designed by an Intelligence - an Entity (many call it God). Before this debate, many strongly reviled that notion.

 

This information doesn't weaken my position at all. I do not believe that anyone looking at this information can intellectually honestly declare: "see! It has nothing to do with a God!", particularly when those people who voraciously supported the notion of a Secular Evolutionary Process held the belief that Evolutionary advancement was Random, and this information - this Scientific Data - stands directly in the path of such a claim!

 

If anything, it is their position which this information weakens. It describes...

 

Cellular Intelligence. We're talking about a massively complex program which is necessary to continue to ensure propagation of a species by being able to shatter DNA into 100,000 components - via what Barbara McClintock called "genome shock" - and reorder it in a manner which proves the organism's ability to overcome the new harsher environment in which it finds itself! Perry Marshall's analogy of a self-healing MS-DOS program was absolutely spot-on.

 

Could humanity rise to the point in the future where we could synthesize the same response in something as small as a cell? We would have become incredibly intelligent to have risen to such a level of capability.

 

And what would you have concluded about such an accomplishment? That no such Intelligence was necessary? For crissakes! You would have just proven the opposite.

 

And what I'm saying is just how indicative it is - that cells have always been able to do that (they had to, because it is now got to be the theory that replaces Random Mututation as the vehicle for advance and simply makes Random Mutation an aberration, just like any corruption of data would be an aberration) - that there is an Intelligence behind it all.

 

Beyond here, we're going in circles. You're going to disagree, so do so by not responding if you cannot add something new here.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Crickets from ImmensaTorridMuhammad. Dude, you too busy to read a one page Wiki article?

 

 

Dude: I already responded to the points in that video, by explaining that I do not disagree with the assessments made against IDers in that video. You're not reading, and I would suggest with-holding being smarmy if you're not going to pay attention.

[nikki2200 4]

I will try this again because clearly paying attention to detail is not your strong suit.

 

So far, only one person - GettnHuge - has acknowledged the ramifications of McClintock's and Shapiro's discoveries. These discoveries are not in question....the publicity of them is. Why is that?

 

You typed that MensaMind.

 

Gettnhuge made a few over the top replies to your posts. He quoted a passage from JRR Tolkien and asked you if you knew what it meant. You saw what you wanted to see. In your mind he was agreeing with you and you saw it clearly, just as clearly as I saw him mocking you, just as clearly as you see a correlation between Shapiro's study and ID. Did you even bother to read Gettnhuge's posts all the way through? Did you even spend half a minute trying to figure out what he was saying with the Tolkien nonsense? Probably not. Yet you had no problem declaring to the whole board that he was the only one who "gets it". Gettnhuge "has acknowledged teh ramifications of McClintock's and Shapiro's discoveries." You said that. It is 100% proven false.

 

Anyone who can't see the delicious irony in this is the one who is dense. It ain't me.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Mensa ....I like you...you know your sh!t ...but you take this place too seriously....you need to lighten up...I understand you're passionate about your beliefs...but I cant speak for everyone here but I'm pretty sure most of us come here to laugh to break up the monotony of real life.

I'm probably considered an ###### by many here but who cares ??? I would still have a drink with any and everyone one of them....even mobdeep so I can make a move on his hot wife.

Anyway .... ....don't take it so seriously ....its never been that serious place you're expecting it to be....and I for one hope it never becomes it.

 

I understand. This is my way of focking with this group.

[IMMensaMind 462]

I will try this again because clearly paying attention to detail is not your strong suit.

 

So far, only one person - GettnHuge - has acknowledged the ramifications of McClintock's and Shapiro's discoveries. These discoveries are not in question....the publicity of them is. Why is that?

 

You typed that MensaMind.

 

Gettnhuge made a few over the top replies to your posts. He quoted a passage from JRR Tolkien and asked you if you knew what it meant. You saw what you wanted to see. In your mind he was agreeing with you and you saw it clearly, just as clearly as I saw him mocking you, just as clearly as you see a correlation between Shapiro's study and ID. Did you even bother to read Gettnhuge's posts all the way through? Did you even spend half a minute trying to figure out what he was saying with the Tolkien nonsense? Probably not. Yet you had no problem declaring to the whole board that he was the only one who "gets it". Gettnhuge "has acknowledged teh ramifications of McClintock's and Shapiro's discoveries." You said that. It is 100% proven false.

 

Anyone who can't see the delicious irony in this is the one who is dense. It ain't me.

 

This isn't a response to what I said to you. Please go ahead and continue to suck up to a group that thinks so little of you that many question if you're even a girl.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Presuppositions of Science as Related to Origins

 

Great link. I particularly appreciate this paragraph:

 

"G.A. Kerkut, in his book Implications of Evolution, includes the following assumptions as involved in theories of evolution:

 

1. Non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred. 2. Spontaneous generation occurred only once. 3. Viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all interrelated. 4. The protozoa gave rise to the metazoa. 5. The various invertebrate phyla are interrelated. 6. The invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates. 7. Within the vertebrates the fish gave rise to the amphibia, the amphibia to the reptiles, and the reptiles to the birds and mammals.10

 

Kerkut evaluates each of these assumptions critically, noting arguments both for and against each of them. He also indicates certain alternate assumptions for some of these that may be equally plausible. Kerkut then notes: "...that these seven assumptions by their very nature are not capable of experimental verification."10

 

and...

 

"A belief that proteins basic for life as we know it appeared

simultaneously in the primitive milieu on earth is based on faith."

 

 

He captures one of those aspects of Evolutionary Theory which so many wish to accept as just as valid as the rest, but isn't - for this very reason.

 

Those same people who are attacking the notion of studying ID as "untestable" have not once questioned that same shortcoming in this component of Evolutionary Theory.

 

Are they seeing the same thing I am, and ignoring it (making them guilty of following a faith as much as anyone else is?), or are they simply unaware of such a hole in their "Science"?

[Mike Honcho 5,128]

Great link. I particularly appreciate this paragraph:

 

 

 

and...

 

 

 

 

He captures one of those aspects of Evolutionary Theory which so many wish to accept as just as valid as the rest, but isn't - for this very reason.

 

Those same people who are attacking the notion of studying ID as "untestable" have not once questioned that same shortcoming in this component of Evolutionary Theory.

 

Are they seeing the same thing I am, and ignoring it (making them guilty of following a faith as much as anyone else is?), or are they simply unaware of such a hole in their "Science"?

 

 

Probably they realize that Origin of Life <> Evolution. HTH & YWIA

[parrot 789]

this forearm is more filled with intellectual vandals who would rather fock up a good conversation and personally attack someone with differing views than their own than respect and attempt to learn about those differing views.

 

You say this like it's a bad thing.

[The Next Generation 10]

Wow, interesting stuff in this thread. I have much respect for both sides!

 

What I have gathered from Mensa is this: In the very far past (or possibly future, if it's cyclical), a super-Bill Gates-type (programmer/designer) who we'll call GOD, programed (programs) cells to mutate given external stimuli. OK I can roll with that premise.

 

So, IF this were proven to be true. Why the fock would anyone in their right mind pray to this focking super-Bill Gates-type? Why would this individual be worthy of reverence other than simple admiration and acknowledgment of their achievement? Just because we, in the here and now, can't comprehend how this is possible doesn't mean we should bow down and pray to this individual. In 500,000 years, who's to say that everyone left on Earth can't do this same exact thing?

 

That's what gets me. It's all the focking groupies!

 

Oh, and if this is ever taught in public schools than turn about would be fair play and every tax exemption for religion should be abolished. I'm not saying it should or shouldn't since, apparently, my cells weren't designed intelligently enough for that.

[MTSkiBum 1,620]

You say this like it's a bad thing.

 

How is that ghetto you call billings?

[parrot 789]

How is that ghetto you call billings?

 

I don't live in Billings. 'Missoula area' is about as specific as I get, but I am a Cat fan.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Wow, interesting stuff in this thread. I have much respect for both sides!

 

What I have gathered from Mensa is this: In the very far past (or possibly future, if it's cyclical), a super-Bill Gates-type (programmer/designer) who we'll call GOD, programed (programs) cells to mutate given external stimuli. OK I can roll with that premise.

 

So, IF this were proven to be true. Why the fock would anyone in their right mind pray to this focking super-Bill Gates-type? Why would this individual be worthy of reverence other than simple admiration and acknowledgment of their achievement? Just because we, in the here and now, can't comprehend how this is possible doesn't mean we should bow down and pray to this individual. In 500,000 years, who's to say that everyone left on Earth can't do this same exact thing?

 

That's what gets me. It's all the focking groupies!

 

Oh, and if this is ever taught in public schools than turn about would be fair play and every tax exemption for religion should be abolished. I'm not saying it should or shouldn't since, apparently, my cells weren't designed intelligently enough for that.

 

I think you're asking a question beyond the field of this thread. Just to make everyone clear: it is only my personal believe that this is "God's Creation", and - because I am very interested in Science - I view any Scientific information which supports this personal belief of mine very seriously.

 

Particularly because I also see many activist atheists/secularists attempting to harness Science for the opposite purpose. There is nothing which rises to the level of "proof of God" in Science, but this bit of revelation does heighten the stakes IMO. Where many (I believe) were hoping for Science to disprove a God, I think what is taking place here is indicative of the opposite.

 

And that to me is biiig news.

[OldMaid 2,129]

So... Anyone else here from Cali? There weather here has been fantastic lately.

[nikki2200 4]

So... Anyone else here from Cali? There weather here has been fantastic lately.

 

 

Uggghhhh so jealous. I've been dying to go to Napa. Philly still hasn't warmed up yet. We had one nice day last week now it's back to cold again.

[OldMaid 2,129]

Yeah, the weather is one of the benefits of living here. The downside... Hmmm, can't really think of a downside.

[nikki2200 4]

Yeah, the weather is one of the benefits of living here. The downside... Hmmm, can't really think of a downside.

 

 

Earthquakes?

[OldMaid 2,129]

Earthquakes?

Earthquakes aren't so bad.

[nikki2200 4]

Earthquakes aren't so bad.

 

 

True. Unless it blowed up a nuclear reactor. Then it's kinda bad.

[OldMaid 2,129]

True. Unless it blowed up a nuclear reactor. Then it's kinda bad.

Well yes, there's that. LOL

[The Next Generation 10]

I think you're asking a question beyond the field of this thread. Just to make everyone clear: it is only my personal believe that this is "God's Creation", and - because I am very interested in Science - I view any Scientific information which supports this personal belief of mine very seriously.

 

Particularly because I also see many activist atheists/secularists attempting to harness Science for the opposite purpose. There is nothing which rises to the level of "proof of God" in Science, but this bit of revelation does heighten the stakes IMO. Where many (I believe) were hoping for Science to disprove a God, I think what is taking place here is indicative of the opposite.

 

And that to me is biiig news.

 

Understood. I applaud your enthusiasm for this and have very much enjoyed your posts (as well as those with opposing views). It is very interesting to me as well.

 

So what if there turns out to be a creator? Biiiiiig deal. To me, that creator would most probably be a scientist that was able to create something really, really cool (it's coolness factor lies in what context it was created. Can others create the same? etc..). Kudos, fella...check out the big brain on GOD.

 

What do you hope the byproduct of this intelligent designing of a cell to be? I'm assuming: There is a creator that is universally acknowledged. Then what? I'm VERY interested to hear your response.

[MedStudent 56]

You - like so many other posters - cannot help yourself throwing in an inappropriate insult. I have been nothing but respectful to you when you are respectful to me. You know - as does Nikki, and any other poster - if you're killing a small part of your moral perpitude by choosing to try to deride someone merely because of their dogged views. You have dogged views as well; you're simply arguing a different side. Why would people who have to agree to disagree actually lower themselves to such petty insult?

 

This is really getting old. Grow some thicker skin or scram. You are such a sensitive little boy.

[nikki2200 4]

This is really getting old. Grow some thicker skin or scram. You are such a sensitive little boy.

 

 

I'm not even sure where I derided him, unless pointing out mistakes is considered insulting. Is he gonna call me a f.ggot now?

[Frank M 181]

The sad thing is, Mensa actually linked some pretty cool research....like actual scientific research. But it didn't say what he wanted it to say.....so now we're gonna have to argue semantics instead of ideas.

 

 

None of it supports what proponents of intelligent design claim it supports.

 

It's all a variation of "How can you look at a tree or a sunset or a baby and say there is no God?"

 

There are no peer reviewed papers on any aspect of intelligent design in any scientific journals, only papers cited by IDers as proving facets of intelligent design that were not intended for that purpose.

 

The fundamental tenet of Intelligent Design is unprovable. It's not science, it's faith, and it does not belong in a science class.

[Strike 5,234]

Dude: I already responded to the points in that video, by explaining that I do not disagree with the assessments made against IDers in that video. You're not reading, and I would suggest with-holding being smarmy if you're not going to pay attention.

 

Right. In which post did you respond? All I've seen is you whining that it's TWO HOURS LONG!!! And if you didn't watch it how could you respond to the points in the video? But, let me give you the benefit of the doubt. If you "do not disagree with the assessments made against IDers in that video" are you agreeing that ID is just a front for creationism and has no scientific basis, as was decided by the court in that case?

[The Next Generation 10]

Right. In which post did you respond? All I've seen is you whining that it's TWO HOURS LONG!!! And if you didn't watch it how could you respond to the points in the video? But, let me give you the benefit of the doubt. If you "do not disagree with the assessments made against IDers in that video" are you agreeing that ID is just a front for creationism and has no scientific basis, as was decided by the court in that case?

 

To be fair here, he is NOT arguing that certain species appeared whole as did the ID folks that were represented in that video and during that trial. He just refuses to change the moniker for this new/old information he is presenting from ID, though it seems to me to be something quite different from what the original IDers where espousing.

 

I kinda get why he still refers to it as ID, though. Because, IF it is true that cells were intelligently programed/designed, what else would you call it?

[MTSkiBum 1,620]

In what class should they be teaching the Man Made Global Warming myth?

 

It would be taught in a quantum chemistry course.

 

Sunlight hits the earth with a wavelength between 290 to 3000 nanometers. This is the same as .29 to 3 microns.

http://coolshade.tamu.edu/uv3.htm

 

Molecules do not absorb energy from all radiation, rather they have a very specific wavelength that they can absorb energy.

 

http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/images/image7.gif

 

Look at both of those graphs, the first one shows that ultra violet light enters the atmosphere with a wavelength of less than .4 microns, then open up the second graph, and look at what wavelengths that ozone absorb. It is exactly that of the ultraviolet radiation. This makes sense because as the ozone layer has gotten thinner there has been more ultraviolet light hitting the earth, and higher rates of cancer to go along with it.

 

 

Now look at the carbon dioxide graph, and look how it absorbs radiation. It absorbs radiation at 2.7 microns, 3.5 microns, and everything above 15 microns. The argument being made is that light hits the earth, which warms the earth up. The earth then releases the heat back into space as thermal radiation.

 

Thermal radiation is defined as electromagnetic radiation in the wavelength range of 0.1 to 100 microns (which encompasses the visible light regime), and arises as a result of a temperature difference between 2 bodies.

 

http://www.efunda.com/formulae/heat_transfer/radiation/overview_rad.cfm

 

A large part of thermal radiation is of the wavelength that carbon dioxide absorbs. Scientists theorize that carbon dioxide absorbs the thermal radiation, which puts the molecule in an excited state.

 

 

In quantum mechanics, an excited state of a system (such as an atom, molecule or nucleus) is any configuration of the system that has a higher energy than the ground state (that is, more energy than the absolute minimum).

 

The lifetime of a system in an excited state is usually short: spontaneous or induced emission of a quantum of energy (such as a photon or a phonon) usually occurs shortly after the system is promoted to the excited state, returning the system to a state with lower energy (a less excited state or the ground state).

 

http://www.chemistrydaily.com/chemistry/Excited_state

 

So as soon as the carbon dioxide molecule is excited by the thermal radiation, it releases that energy in a random direction, which directs about 50% of the energy that the carbon dioxide atom absorbs, back down towards the earth's surface.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

So it's the sun. Exactly what I've been saying all along.

 

Good to have you on bored.

[SUXBNME 1,458]

So... Anyone else here from Cali? There weather here has been fantastic lately.

Where at in Cali are you?

For a measly $2500.00 you can come clean my house and mebbe I'll even let you gimme a hummer.

[KSB2424 3,148]

You see? Just by bringing up differing commonly held theories, hypothesis, ideas, and beleifs, people can start a dialog that not only questions those beliefs, but questions science as well. It fosters intrigue in a subject. It gets people to think.

 

Wouldn't that be cool in school?

 

Of course it would.

[MedStudent 56]

You see? Just by bringing up differing commonly held theories, hypothesis, ideas, and beleifs, people can start a dialog that not only questions those beliefs, but questions science as well. It fosters intrigue in a subject. It gets people to think.

 

Wouldn't that be cool in school?

 

Of course it would.

 

questioning science with other science has gone on forever. ID is not science. Watch the video that Strike posted.

[SUXBNME 1,458]

Watch the video that Strike posted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaA_cs4WZHM

[MedStudent 56]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaA_cs4WZHM

 

Cats must be embarassed when they see dog videos like this. Dogs rule.

[KSB2424 3,148]

questioning science with other science has gone on forever. ID is not science. Watch the video that Strike posted.

You're way to entrinched in trying to put knowledge/education in tiny little labled boxes with bows on top. It's okay to question the philosophy of science in science class and/or question the science of philosophy in philosophy class. If by doing so it gets students to think. Hope This Helps.

[MedStudent 56]

You're way to entrinched in trying to put knowledge/education in tiny little labled boxes with bows on top. It's okay to question the philosophy of science in science class and/or question the science of philosophy in philosophy class. If by doing so it gets students to think. Hope This Helps.

 

You question science theories with facts not with philosophy. Darwin's theory has been questioned for 150 years and things like DNA mapping have bolstered his theory. If you want to bring things like astrology and religion into the science class then "God" help our children.

[Frank M 181]

You're way to entrinched in trying to put knowledge/education in tiny little labled boxes with bows on top. It's okay to question the philosophy of science in science class and/or question the science of philosophy in philosophy class. If by doing so it gets students to think. Hope This Helps.

 

ID does exactly the opposite. It teaches kids that there is an end to the questions that science asks, and that end is "because God made it that way." That is the precise moment when thinking stops.

[KSB2424 3,148]

ID does exactly the opposite. It teaches kids that there is an end to the questions that science asks, and that end is "because God made it that way." That is the precise moment when thinking stops.

You act as if by bringing up ID in science class that the teacher will say: "Now children, bring out your bibles and please turn to John 3:16. Let's recite it now"

 

I don't think anybody is saying to turn science class into vacation bible school.

 

What I read into it is that some people think it should be brought up as an opposing belief/idea/whatever. That when going to the chapter in realation to the beginning of life or whatever that it is also brought up that another very common belief system "ID" is also out there.

 

I'm creating dialog, expanding minds, and fostering individuals to think for themselves. You're for shutting people up, breaking people down, and telling people what to think. :sadbanana:

[Strike 5,234]

You act as if by bringing up ID in science class that the teacher will say: "Now children, bring out your bibles and please turn to John 3:16. Let's recite it now"

 

I don't think anybody is saying to turn science class into vacation bible school.

 

What I read into it is that some people think it should be brought up as an opposing belief/idea/whatever. That when going to the chapter in realation to the beginning of life or whatever that it is also brought up that another very common belief system "ID" is also out there.

 

I'm creating dialog, expanding minds, and fostering individuals to think for themselves. You're for shutting people up, breaking people down, and telling people what to think. :sadbanana:

 

We need a :fishing: emoticon.

 

[nikki2200 4]

ID does exactly the opposite. It teaches kids that there is an end to the questions that science asks, and that end is "because God made it that way." That is the precise moment when thinking stops.

 

Well said.

[MedStudent 56]

You act as if by bringing up ID in science class that the teacher will say: "Now children, bring out your bibles and please turn to John 3:16. Let's recite it now"

 

I don't think anybody is saying to turn science class into vacation bible school.

 

What I read into it is that some people think it should be brought up as an opposing belief/idea/whatever. That when going to the chapter in realation to the beginning of life or whatever that it is also brought up that another very common belief system "ID" is also out there.

 

I'm creating dialog, expanding minds, and fostering individuals to think for themselves. You're for shutting people up, breaking people down, and telling people what to think. :sadbanana:

 

Galileo would have disagreed that religion fosters individuals to think for themselves.

[Frank M 181]

You act as if by bringing up ID in science class that the teacher will say: "Now children, bring out your bibles and please turn to John 3:16. Let's recite it now"

 

I don't think anybody is saying to turn science class into vacation bible school.

 

What I read into it is that some people think it should be brought up as an opposing belief/idea/whatever. That when going to the chapter in realation to the beginning of life or whatever that it is also brought up that another very common belief system "ID" is also out there.

 

I'm creating dialog, expanding minds, and fostering individuals to think for themselves. You're for shutting people up, breaking people down, and telling people what to think. :sadbanana:

 

I'm for teaching science in a science class and religion in a religion class. If proponents of ID want equal billing with science, then let it's researchers go through the rigors of scientific testing, peer review, and publication.

 

You can think whatever you want. You can believe whatever you want. I'm not for silencing anyone. I'm for teaching things to our children in the proper arena.

 

And just for your edification, since both you and I are into mind expansion and because it seems like you're confused as to what science is if you think it's a good idea to bring up different "belief systems" in a science class, I will provide you with the definition of science and then you can tell me where the concept of "belief systems" jives with the definition:

 

 

sci·ence

 

1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences. 2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. 3. any of the branches of natural or physical science. 4. systematized knowledge in general. 5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study. 6. a particular branch of knowledge. 7. skill, especially reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.