Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
im not talking about you personally, grant.
|
Oh, I know... JMS, I have enjoyed talking about this issue with you more than most I have encountered in my life time. And I don't say that lightly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
ive followed this case to a good extent, this unscientific theory arose and is propped up not by science but religion. instead of submitting the idea to extensive scientific testing, scientific peer review and scientific consensus like every other scientific theory allowed in classroom texts, the creationists instead went to the courts.
|
In all honesty, going to court is a playbook that both sides of this issue have attempted. I think it's dishonest to go to court to resolve the deatails of the issue, instead of the merits of the policy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
this was for obvious reasons, one of them being the very close and public ties to religion instead of science. can something religious end up being scientifically proven? sure, but until it is, it simply isnt.
|
No one wants religious explanations for how gravity works. I don't, for sure. Because we end up with Dianetics people tossing themselves off of buildings because a little box told them they could.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
science welcomes new ideas and scrutiny, yes, but it does not welcome misnomers. and I didn’t misrepresent your position, i was talking about those involved in this case, specifically. although, you did touch on the need to redefine science earlier, so take that as you will. redefining science to rightfully present id as a valid scientific theory would most definitely undermine science. science is a very strict discipline for good reason.
|
No respected person, that I know of, wants ID to have an unequal place at the table. As a matter of fact, we who are honest, want you to douse the alter with water, 7 times, first. We want you to know the truth about origins because we believe it will lend credibility to our explanation of destination. We want you to see how it began, so you can understand how it ends. Strict discipline is what brought me to this perspective - I went from artist, to policemen, to computer software analyst. If you ever had your blood analyzed by a lab, chances are it was my software that did it. (from a QA standpoint, not from a development standpoint). I reviewed the code and certified it to the FDA, that your creatnine levels are high, low or ok... LOL I know what precision is.
I find no fault in your logic. I would argue from the same point of view if I was certain that there wasn't a God. But there is... a God. And that means that the whole paradigm changes. Not in the sense of the "how", but in the sense of the "why". If people want to know, why, then God provides proof in his creation, that He's there and that He's real. Nothing about God's existance causes people of good conscience to replace penicillin with Harry Potter, except if you are Tom Cruise at a Scientology convention. But we all are on to him, so that wont be a problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
origins are perfectly fine to discuss in science as long as the discussion is scientific (without redefining science). that’s the crux of the argument.
|
I respect this statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
science can test what it can test, ill leave it at that. don’t mix origins and god, because they’re completely different issues. you have every right to explain things to yourselves, but ideas in an old book that is never updated (this is a good thing?) have no business in the science classroom.
|
I promise I mailed the heating bill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
your position: "id cant be disqualified as a valid field of study." that by itself is perfectly fine, just don’t call it science when it isn’t, because that would injure science.
|
I really promise I mailed the heating bill.