Skip to comments.Why young-age creationism is good for science
Posted on 12/07/2009 7:30:12 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
The current treatment of young-age creationists in the scientific community and society at large is unfair and unwise. Scientists and philosophers of science, including old-age creationists and naturalists, should respect youngage creationists as legitimate contributors to science. Young-age creationists offer to the current origins science establishment a competing rational viewpoint that will augment fruitful scientific investigation through increased accountability for scientists, introduction of original hypotheses and general epistemic improvement...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
Debate on church doctrine and or threads on specific religious matters may be best posted in the religion forum, but the defense of religious freedom, especially against those who wish to deprive us of same belongs front and center on FR....They banned God and prayer and creationism from public schools and public places, but Ill be damned if theyre gonna ban Him or it from FR!
Or to put it another way, in the marketplace of ideas, competition is a good thing, and unfair barriers to the same leads to poorer products for the consumer, and laziness amongst the monopolists. I see plenty of evidence for those phenomena.
These threads deliver ^__^
Are you sure? I immediately looked up at the keywords after your IBT and guess what I found???
Keep up the good work, GGG.
>>Or to put it another way, in the marketplace of ideas, competition is a good thing, and unfair barriers to the same leads to poorer products for the consumer, and laziness amongst the monopolists. I see plenty of evidence for those phenomena.<<
Creationism is NOT a “competing idea” any more than astrology is a “competing idea” to astronomy.
It meets exactly zero scientific criteria.
It may have some currency in a philosophical/theological arena, but that isn’t where the so-called “debate” is occurring.
Neither creationism nor ID are science. To suggest they are is to purposely misrepresent science and the scientific method.
This takes it our of the “arena of ideas” and into the “arena of fraud.”
YEC.... oooooo boy... one of these threads.
Precisely, if more debate was allowed to occur withing what should be the free market of scientific ideas, the origins/historical sciences would benefit just as much as as any other scientific enterprise...that is, so long as the debate is not declared “over” by those who have an agenda that has as its object something other than the truth!
FWIIW, I have never (that I can recall) added any keywords to your threads and certainly haven’t done so in this one — you can check with mods.
oooooo boy... one of these looney psuedo-science groupies pushing evolution....
>>that is, so long as the debate is not declared over by those who have an agenda that has as its object something other than the truth!<<
So you are cool with phrenology, astrology and alchemy participating in the “marketplace of scientific ideas,” right?
Thanks, that is about the nicest thing you have ever said to me, FD! No need to check with the mods, I will take your word for it :o)
“by those who have an agenda that has as its object something other than the truth!”
Its easier to use its screen handle: freedumb. :o)
So this is a marketplace of ideas? Very well, then: if this is a marketplace, then I ain’t buyin’ this “young-age Earth” nonsense, which completely ignores what we know about radioactive age-dating.
There are limits to how idiotic people can be, and still expect to be accepted by serious researchers.
In this “marketplace of ideas,” I subscribe to the view that “young Earth” nuts should go jump in a lake.
Wait... now this thread is about evolution?
So who has an agenda now?
>>oooooo boy... one of these looney psuedo-science groupies pushing evolution...<<
Quote the masochist, aren’t you? It is like “I DON’T UNDERSTAND SCIENCE SO I WILL KEEP EMPHASIZING THAT SO PEOPLE CAN PITY ME” in neon on your forehead.
If you have a SCIENTIFIC alternative to TToE that explains the BILLIONS of data, including MILLIONS of reproducible experiments and MILLIONS of observed examples — now is the time. Remember, if you can’t account for all of you have failed.
Meet the challenge or say goodnight Gracie.
Put them back in your toy box please!
How long do you think they would last if they threw their hat in the ring of the science? I should think that neither creationists or evolutionists have anything to fear from any of the long-since discredited disciplines you mentioned above.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.