To: Michael_Michaelangelo
Interesting. The "peer review" in those articles is laughable at best.
ID doesn't match the basic requirements for a scientific theory. As such, it doesn't warrant anything more than the most cursory mention in science class.
Once there is another theory that meets the basic scientific requirements, then it should be discussed. "Teaching the controversy" is a desperate move made by discredited people who have admitted that their "theory" is worthless.
49 posted on
09/22/2005 8:55:15 AM PDT by
highball
("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
To: highball
As such, it doesn't warrant anything more than the most cursory mention in science class.Guess we'll just have to leave that up to the instructors, eh?
52 posted on
09/22/2005 8:57:10 AM PDT by
Michael_Michaelangelo
(The best theory is not ipso facto a good theory. Lots of links on my homepage...)
To: highball
ID doesn't match the basic requirements for a scientific theory. As such, it doesn't warrant anything more than the most cursory mention in science class.
And they know this, which is why they're trying to rework the definition of science. I really don't like where this is going.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson