She's a witch!
On a purely technical level, as related to science you are correct.... that is if one is Spock the fictional Vulcan and can separate the logic from the moral and emotional analyses that Humans make when forming their opinions.
It hardly requires a "Spock-like" discipline, nor does it require a "separation" from emotion, to point out that several things which dishonestly try to pretend to be science, are not science. "Intelligent Design", for example, tries to present itself *as* science, and get taught *in* science class, in order to give the false impression that it has met the standards of science and should therefore be as trusted as real science, when in fact it has *not* done any of the things which would be required in order to actually *be* science.
Many self imagined objective science types can express quite a bit of out-rage when attacking a "notion" as "not of science", denoting moral and emotional out-rage...
The "moral and emotional outrage" is due to the gross dishonesty exhibited by the people who spread lies about real science, and who misrepresent their beliefs *as* science in order to mislead and propagandize.
which of course raises the question as to whether they have truly reasoned said "notion" from a truly scientific basis.
There's nothing wrong with having a negative emotional reaction to dishonesty. Anyone with a sense of honor and a respect for the truth feels an emotional revulsion towards that kind of intentional dishonesty. And you are making the mistake of confusing the unemotional process that went into *determining* that the IDers are misrepresenting their material, with the emotional response triggered by the realization that they're engaging in cynical distortions on a grand scale.
Look, just because Archimedes was so emotionally excited about the usefulness of his realization about how to measure the volumes of irregular objects (via water displacement) that he jumped out his bath and ran naked through the streets shouting "Eureka!", that hardly means that this, in your words, "of course raises the question as to whether he had truly reasoned said 'notion' of volume displacement from a truly scientific basis" -- the emotional response was in *reaction* to the implications of the scientific conclusion, it wasn't the *cause* of them. And so it is with the emotional revulsion which honorable scientists feel after they have assessed just how badly the "ID" people are engaging in gross dishonesty and misrepresentation.
We humans can't escape personal bias; we can at best account for it and factor such biases in as we strive to be as truthful, objective and as transparent as possible given the natures of our various circumstances and belief systems!
That's nice. Now if you find anything wrong in the analysis of the problems with "ID" and why it is not actually the "science" it claims to be, feel free to point them out. But simply waving your hands about "gosh, maybe bias might have led someone astray somewhere" just doesn't even begin to cut it.
<< Now if you find anything wrong in the analysis of the problems with "ID" and why it is not actually the "science" it claims to be, feel free to point them out. But simply waving your hands about "gosh, maybe bias might have led someone astray somewhere" just doesn't even begin to cut it. >>
My favorite argument -- which I have seen repeatedly in here over the years -- is in two parts. To paraphrase:
1) ID is not about God or the Bible, so why do you "evos" keep pushing that lie about ID?
2) If you want to keep ID out of the science classroom, that just proves that you hate God and the Bible.
I would not be surprised to see a response to THIS message -- which merely highlights what I have seen happen in these debates -- with some variation of one or both of those arguments being used against me.
If you are going to cite ancient Greeks, remember that many of these "founding" thinkers of mathematics, logic and reason thought that they could connect and join with the divine by the use of said tools. Pythagoras saw divinity thru the use of geometry for example.
How odd that modern science types use those same tools from the divine minded Greek founders of Logic and Reason in attempt to explain away the numinous, the divine and assumed superstitions; the very same the ancients embraced.
The human element BIAS, certainly explains this conundrum!