This is entirely different. You disagree with Bush and Reagan because they are more conservative than you, and don't line up with what your liberal professors taught you.
VERY different.
Nobody's basing their scientific theory on what conservative Presidents believe............just noting that conservative Presidents agree with open debate in academia, and liberals agree with you........that students shouldn't be taught both sides of a legitimate scientific debate (i.e. taught only the liberal side of it).
What I want to know is the truth. How about you?? :)
That's if both sides were equally valid scientifically...they're not. Evolution is where it's at, Intelligent design chooses to spend its dollars politically rather than on research. Not a surprise that they have no scientific theories?
Obviously.
This is entirely different. You disagree with Bush and Reagan because they are more conservative than you,
Actually, I'd push that from the STRICT definition of the word, IDers are the ones trying to CHANGE current scientific theory, making the supporters of existing scientific opinion on evolution to be the conservatives in the field.
If you mean, and I suspect you do, conservatism from a POLIICAL standpoint, I'd have to point out that politics and science should not be the same thing.
And I'd have to point out that you might want to qualify your statment You disagree with Bush and Reagan because they are more conservative than you with the addition of "on this issue" unless you are trying to demonize evolution supporters (or, in this case, someone who just points out that there are evolution supporters who are conservatives!), and do the equivalent of dancing around them chanting "nyahnyahnyah, you are not true conservatives".
and don't line up with what your liberal professors taught you.
Really? I've never actually taken a college class where evolution was brought up ...
VERY different.
Nobody's basing their scientific theory on what conservative Presidents believe............just noting that conservative Presidents agree with open debate in academia, and liberals agree with you........that students shouldn't be taught both sides of a legitimate scientific debate (i.e. taught only the liberal side of it).
Cool. Please point out any post where I've stated that students shouldn't be taught both sides of a legitimate scientific debate . You may be confusing me with someone else.
What I want to know is the truth. How about you??
Immensely. Which is why I'd ask that the argument of science follow the accepted scientific terms, not take points away from a current theory because it has changed over time (as evolution has, and theories of disease have, and many others ... heck, the hypothesis of ID has changed over time, losing the strict idea that God was the creator, and allowing possibilities such as aliens), and follow strict scientific procedures. Once ID moves from hypothesis to theory, it SHOULD be mentioned in classrooms. But it hasn't done that yet ... the ID side is putting the cart before the horse here ... strengthen the scientific backing (not "numbers of scientists for", not "Bible says it's so", not "God exists, so of COURSE he has some bearing on the argument") but create a potentially falsifiable theory ... I mean, evolution has at least one big way to be proven false ...
Evolutionists will continue to laugh at ID until it tries to actually use science for support ... THEN the argument can move to pure debate. Most of these threads DO end up in name-calling and so on, simply because very little SCIENCE is actually discussed.
It's all ends up being a series of ad hominem, appeals to authority, red herrings, and all other argumental fallacies that I can;t remember the names for at the moment.
:)
;-)
And I do love how I have been added to the evolutionist camp just because I want scientific arguments to be (the horror) based in science. Just as I don't examine my Bible looking for scientific errors.
I have confidence that if the ID hypotheses is correct, science will eventually come to it ... but it needs to be through the scientifc method, and not some crazy idea that all opinions are equally valid.
(Please note that the statement above does not take a side in the evolution vs. ID debate. Really. If the statement bothers you, it must be for something other than evolution.)
Supporters of ID need to spend more time in the lab and less time in the courtroom.
(Heck, to put this in different terms, I believe the whole multiple universe ideas floating aroud right now are tenuous science at best ... wild guesses in may cases, presented as hard science ... but I'd counter them with science, not legislation.)
(Now someone will point out how multiple universes are possible, and I hope they do it with links and articles and data, and not just call me a moron, a liberal, or, strangle, a hard-core supporter of the multiple universe theory.)
I do appreciate how, at least, I haven't been labelled an atheist or Satan-worshipper yet.