>> It’s a small point. To wit: Censors are unconstitutional in the first place, under the First Amendment.
Oh, these pesky details!!!<<
Cone on bb, you know you are being a bit disingenuous.
This isn’t about “censorship.” This is about ensuring science is presented as science and theology as theology and philosophy as philosophy.
Unless and until you can provide a forum for all creation stories/theories/etc. in a science forum (thus ending it as a science forum) you can’t make this a 1st Amendment issue.
You and AG (and a very few others) make erudite, interesting, engaging and thought-provoking PHILOSOPHICAL posts that deserve attention. But rarely do they pass the lower bars for inclusion into scientific debate.
It is like seeing a rock in the road and conjecturing on how it got there. Physics says that it fell or was placed at some point, based on the gravity constraints and forces applied to it at the time. Who tossed it what weather (or other) forces resulted in it are interesting and maybe significantly relevant but have no scientific currency.
Why is the who and the how of “no scientific currency”?
[[It is like seeing a rock in the road and conjecturing on how it got there. Physics says that it fell or was placed at some point, based on the gravity constraints and forces applied to it at the time. Who tossed it what weather (or other) forces resulted in it are interesting and maybe significantly relevant but have no scientific currency.]]
Again, another blatant misrepresentation of ID based on an asinien argument- Life is NOTHING like a simple rock with barely enough complexity to mention- to be more accurate- you shoudl have been honest enough to at least say- it’s liek seeing 1000 computers i nthe road and wondering how they were created since nature certainly would NOT be capable of creating them- to argue otherwise would be assinine.
But how can we talk about science without acknowledging its fundamental philosophical presuppositions? Such as materialism, naturalism, determinism, positivism? The scientific method — methodological naturalism — is based in these doctrines.
Further, is a historical science like Darwin's macroevolution theory "science" in any strict sense? Certainly, it's not "science" in the same way that physics is science. It is not primarily based on direct observation, falsification tests, replicable experiments, predictive power, and so forth. It has a mythic element to it that no one wants to discuss. Certainly not in public school classrooms!
You want to separate the knowledge disciplines into nice, neat little separate boxes. The only reason you think this possible is that you do not see how mutually dependent these disciplines are.
The German language makes this particularly clear. Its word for "science" — Wissenschaft — means all knowledge, in the broadest sense. Wissenschaft subdivides into two main categories, Naturwissenchaften — the "natural" sciences" (physics, chemistry, biology, et al.) and Geisteswissenchaften— the "humane sciences," the humanities, or sciences of Spirit (philosophy, psychology, history, the arts, et al.). Wissenchaft is the master term that contains and integrates its two subdisciplines.
Not to mention that scientific theories and discoveries often have outcomes that affect the humane sphere of persons and societies. Is this aspect something we want to see discussed in a science class? I'd say, yes. Moreover, scientific theories often have implications for ontology and epistemology, even if a theory didn't explicitly intend such a result. All rest on a cosmology, or worldview, of some kind.
So you can see, science is simply "filthy" with philosophy!
In the end, the question boils down to: What do we want for our children? Do we want them to be well-informed, critical thinkers, or do we want well-trained parrots — taught to accept the "received wisdom" and mindlessly repeat it?
You wrote:
Unless and until you can provide a forum for all creation stories/theories/etc. in a science forum (thus ending it as a science forum) you can’t make this a 1st Amendment issue.I'm sorry, freedumb2003, I can't make heads or tails of this statement. Would you kindly try restating it?