>>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.”
Depends on the methods/experients used in the process.
Scientific methods can be used to prove that a form of intelligence created computers (if anyone needed such proof). If scientific methods can also be used to prove that a form of intelligence created the cell let them proceed in the name of science.
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.”
************************************************************
Spoken like a true accountant, or pencil pusher, or some other non-scientist.
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.”
Peer reviewed and published data regarding Polonium 218 halos meet all the criteria for science. Halos
Science should simply be the search for truth. Creation Scientists look at scientific evidence and present alternative theories on the origins of the earth. Neither evolution or Creation Science are completely testable since they are making claims about the past (which makes them more akin to archeology than the more easily testable forms of science.) People who try to attack Creation Science by throwing ad hominems and attempting to dismiss it without carefully critiquing their arguments are no better than the Scientists who tried to establish the global warming scam by shouting down everyone who disagreed and accused their critics of being unscientific. The same sort of political tricks (ie trying to lock their opponents out of all peer reviewed literature) have been used by both the global warming elite and the Pro Evolution elite scientists.