To: Egregious Philbin
"Here's my beef with "Intelligent Design." Science starts with the questions. "Intelligent Design" starts with the supposed answer."
Not always so, go study the history of science. Scientists can be shockingly dogmatic about pet theories/concepts. One could say, some/many of them have almost a religious attitude towards evolution, amoung other things.
13 posted on
12/09/2004 9:40:01 AM PST by
Sola Veritas
(Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
To: Sola Veritas
Scientists can be shockingly dogmatic about pet theories/concepts.
What might be wrong with some science does not make "intelligent design" right. The theory of evolution has held up quite well. And, as a theory, it is not a final answer, it is an evolving (ba-du-bum) concept.
Even the name - "Intelligent design" - assumes a creator. That certainly can't be scientifically proven. ID relies on a religious text to attempt to make a scientific argument.
To: Sola Veritas
Scientists can be shockingly dogmatic about pet theories but science is designed to be self correcting. You can yell and scream all you want about your pet theories, but if you can't back it up with observation and reason... well you end up looking like Pons and Fleischmann.
30 posted on
12/09/2004 10:12:29 AM PST by
crail
(Better lives have been lost on the gallows than have ever been enshrined in the halls of palaces.)
To: Sola Veritas
""Here's my beef with "Intelligent Design." Science starts with the questions. "Intelligent Design" starts with the supposed answer." Not always so, go study the history of science. Scientists can be shockingly dogmatic about pet theories/concepts. One could say, some/many of them have almost a religious attitude towards evolution, amoung other things.
So what you're saying is that when science behaves like proponents of ID behave, science is wrong. What does that say about ID?
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson