Replies

It’s starting from the desired conclusion, and then looking anywhere for evidence to support it.

>>>>>Sounds just like evolution and several other scientific theories to me!

And so far they have none, and probably never will because the desired conclusion is pretty firmly in the supernatural.

>>>>Like cell phones 300 years ago.

Unless we can get God to perform magic tricks on stage before the camera it’s going to be very hard to prove that Adam was formed out of dirt and then a rib taken from him to form his wife. And how weird is that, anyhow?

>>>>Well, doesn’t this really all come down to your point of view or perspective?

Take a medication, some scientists might study a drug for their entire lives and be married to the success of it, indeed as Freud was to cocaine. But any drug will do, take morphine, some would swear by it and proclaim it does (or doesn’t do) things it doesn’t (or does) do (according to others), or that it shouldn’t be so tightly controlled. ALL of them have run exhaustive experiments, written papers, run trial after trial. Indeed some doctors won’t even prescribe it out of all kinds of fears or biases. Some might steer away from it because of the DEA ALONE! HARDLY science...SURPRISE!

And yet most would agree morphine has a place in medicine, yet doctors agree, disagree, then back again on MANY drugs. So again, it’s concensus.

But saying a Dr. is a quack because of his beliefs or disbeliefs over medicine begs the question: aren’t they ALL quacks? Isn’t medicine a mixture of science and art? I know nursing sure is!

And let’s just go ahead and ban those we disagree with?

Science doesn’t come in a nice neat vacuum all by itslf, it’s influenced by religion, art, history, math...sheesh, can you imagine a history professor scream: “but, that’s not history”...or a math teacher scream: “but that’s not math”?

That’s not science has been said before: if you showed up in time travel to 800 AD in Europe with a cell phone and microwave, SCIENTISTS would burn you at the stake! Scientists are peole, they don’t know evewrything, they make mistakes and we’ve made discoveriesthat have literally redefined what we call science, so why the need to censor or prohibit free speech?

But this isn’t just true of science, as I said before, liberals re-writing history books comes to mind. Hi-jacking the country in all kinds of ways.

As far as God’s ways being weird...you seem to want it both ways, it can’t be science and HAS to be supernatural, but something like creating man from dirt or Eve from his rib is weird? Isn’t that the very idea of being supernatural though? Yet, the supernatural has become natural to us with cell phones and micowaves over time...something evolution gets a pass on btw...but not ID?

How weird is everything just “is” with absolutely ZERO explanation how matter just big banged it’s way here and nothing has a purpose or explanation, not to mention there was once upon a time a big glob of cells, then salamanders, then rodents, then apes then oh yeah, man!?

It’s really perspective AND science.

And since science is run by imperfect humans, I’ll be a little open minded and not judging what is or isn’t science now, let alone what it might look like in the future.

If it’s “not science” what’s the harm in letting that play out?

It’s the rib thing that was weird.

And evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life and certainly the astrophysics of the Big Bang. It addresses the origin of species.

I think I kind of get what you’re trying to say about cellphones, but simply because they might have been considered supernatural devices three hundred years ago does not equate them with ID. They were at least something that could have been looked at, handled and studied at the time. ID is merely an argument. Much different.

If we could study ID, find evidence to support it, or do anything else except argue about it, then it would be in the scientific arena. This should not be that hard to agree with.

Nobody is banning ID. It’s out there and it sells a lot of books, and one movie that isn’t doing that great.

But you just don’t get to win the argument that it’s science and should be taught equally with other scientific disciplines until it’s something more than a conclusion.

I can make a bunch of conclusions about nature, but that doesn’t make them science. Teach ID all you want. But you may not teach it as science until you play by the scientifc rules that existed long before Darwin.