Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Or a Jew.
You dont know what Ive read or not read unless youre a mindreader. But thats not relevant in any case. I dont particularly care what youve read or not read, thats irrelevant too. What is relevant is whether or not the scientific method has been used by the proponents of ID whom you have referenced.There is no point in arguing about whether the scientists who proposed design relied on scientific methods, accepted scientific principles and provided scientific rationale, etc. or not. I've read many of the papers these scientists have written -and YOU clearly have not. Some of them -like the quantum physicist who claims that after working through a decade of formulas, proved the existence of a cosmic singularity -are beyond my level of comprehension and probably yours. But he provided all his work -and only another quantum physicist can prove his work is wrong. And NONE of them used, included or relied upon anything remotely religious in their work. They simply relied on the science to reach a conclusion that OTHER people find quite compatible with their religious beliefs.
I completely agree -theology and religious doctrine have no place in a science class. But that doesn't mean some science MUST be rejected out of hand if someone else found a particular theory to fit in well with their own personal religious beliefs -even though that scientific work did not arise from or was based on religious doctrine. That isn't the same thing.
Do you really mean to suggest that science is NOT allowed to reach certain scientific conclusions if those conclusions happen to coincide with some religious doctrine somewhere even though they did not arise from that religious doctrine? Because that is no less stupid than insisting all science must ONLY reach conclusions that always agree with a particular religious doctrine. Whether or not some religion finds a particular scientific theory more in line with their religious doctrine, or whether the nonreligious dislike a particular theory because it doesn't fit in nicely with their atheist beliefs -just is not how the validity of science is determined.
Some of that stuff that you think that I said... I didn't say. Who cares? Accuracy is a bitch. Otherwise...
Cool. By your own admission, both Darwin and the rest of the scientific community have not been resting on Darwin's laurels. Ain't progress grand? I guess you have nothing to bitch about.
Was it really that thickly veiled???
How about the ID nutjobs aren't real crazy about Jews either.
Really???
I thought they loved Dick Cheney.
I didn't know what you meant. That's why I asked.
And ID nutjobs love us when we're fighting the anti-Christ.
You dont know what Ive read or not read unless youre a mindreader. But thats not relevant in any case. I dont particularly care what youve read or not read, thats irrelevant too. What is relevant is whether or not the scientific method has been used by the proponents of ID whom you have referenced.
Your second point about theology and religious doctrine. As I understand it a scientific theory is usually accepted after certain conditions have been met. The beliefs of the individual proposing the theory, whether those beliefs be religious or any other form, arent relevant to the theory being put forward for examination.
Do you really mean to suggest that science is NOT allowed to reach certain scientific conclusions if those conclusions happen to coincide with some religious doctrine somewhere even though they did not arise from that religious doctrine?
No and Im surprised youd even have to ask the question because I thought I was perfectly clear on what I was saying.
The Catholic Church dealt with that in Vatican II. It accepted the the theory of evolution wasn't incompatible with the theology of the Catholic Church. And in so doing Blessed John XXIII brought back into the Church the late Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (sadly posthumously).
But in the meantime the world outside of the Catholic Church, particularly the worldwide scientific community got on with its research and solidly accepted prevailing theory.
Let me reiterate my position:
Religion shouldn't affect science and religion shouldn't pretend to be science.
ID isn't science. That has been proven in court. ID can't be taught in public schools in the US because it's not science.
If you can show a peer-reviewed independent science journal has published a paper from an IDer seeking to attack the theory of evolution then that will go along way to establishing ID is a science.
In the meantime I'll continue to make the point that ID is not science and I'll make that claim and support it with evidence.
ID isn't science. That has been proven in court. ID can't be taught in public schools in the US because it's not science.
If you can show a peer-reviewed independent science journal has published a paper from an IDer seeking to attack the theory of evolution then that will go along way to establishing ID is a science.
In the meantime I'll continue to make the point that ID is not science and I'll make that claim and support it with evidence.
Do you actually read all of Fraz's posts? My head starts to drop after sentence number 2.
Haven't you figured out yet that spazzled is nothing more than a propaganda spammer?
I know you're a fair minded guy and all, but I think you've been giving him the benefit of the doubt for long enough now.
Haven't you figured out yet that spazzled is nothing more than a propaganda spammer?
I know you're a fair minded guy and all, but I think you've been giving him the benefit of the doubt for long enough now.
ID isn't science. That has been proven in court. ID can't be taught in public schools in the US because it's not science.
If you can show a peer-reviewed independent science journal has published a paper from an IDer seeking to attack the theory of evolution then that will go along way to establishing ID is a science.
In the meantime I'll continue to make the point that ID is not science and I'll make that claim and support it with evidence.