Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Buffy
So you're saying we shouldn't do anything at all?....that does not justify allowing any concept to be billed as "scientific"...Until there's more validating research, I will continue to argue that there's no excuse to "teach" it {ID} because it does promulgate the notion that any belief is a priori scientific...
My real issue here again is not ID, its pseudo science in general...
|
I agree with the pseudo science point. The only course of action is to defend the scientific method. The course of action is NOT to defend a specific position or theory.
Buff, you and I have argued before about my position that the evidence in support of speciation by mutation is thin. I don't mind folks talking about the evidence in support of it. I really mind folks assuming it is "proven". Anyone could argue that ID is a different view of the existing scientific-method-supported facts. Anyone could offer scientific-method-compliant studies to support their positions.
Defend the methods, not the theories. The rest will settle out.
Politics are not science. If politics were based on facts, we would certainly have a very different tax structure. Most of this discussion about "religion" in science is not religion at all. It is political behavior of an advocacy group. It is no different than NOW suggesting that they speak for American women, which they certainly do not.
----------------
Few problems are so complex that they cannot be substantially clarified by one more cup of coffee
(or a nice cabernet if it is after 5:00)
Moderator in absentia. Return anticipated. Timing somewhat vague.
