Kansas Redefines What "Science" Is

dmp said:
to allow for the discussion of ID.

It just seems like if you have to go and rewrite the definition of science, you're sort of admitting that ID wasn't science...
 
The ClayTaurus said:
It just seems like if you have to go and rewrite the definition of science, you're sort of admitting that ID wasn't science...


It wasn't based on that definition - 'natural' is the keyword.

:)

This place and everything around us was created by 'supernatural' processes.
 
dmp said:
It wasn't based on that definition - 'natural' is the keyword.

:)

This place and everything around us was created by 'supernatural' processes.

But that's my point, science has never been about the supernatural.
 
Not so sure I agree with KS here. Obviously, science is about the natural world. But science is not the only way to ascertain truth, which is where this whole debate gets into.
 
as well.. I can see it now.. 4+4= whatever God wants it to dangit. Seriously this belongs in Sunday School not Public School...
 
The ClayTaurus said:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051108/ap_on_re_us/evolution_debate



I don't really care to get into the ID in school debate, but why was there a need to redefine what science is?
Because religious freaks weren't satisfied that their magic stories weren't considered science. Now they are! Whoopeeeeeeee! :cuckoo:

Before scientific inquiry, people thought lightening was supernatural.
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom