Replies

"It looks like a scientific controversy to me and 2/3 of the general public, which is significant in a social policy discussion. "

But absoltely meaningless in a scientific discussion. And that poll said that 48% of the population believes in evolution in some form or another. 2/3rds said that ID should be taught with evolution.

"There was an interesting line in the TV series "Law & Order"... "if enough people think it's about race, then it's about race". If enough people think it's about a scientific controversy, then it is about a scientific controversy."

"I have realized that I don’t need to be a biochemist to engage in social policy discussions."

This is a science discussion though.

"Scientists start to be looked at from the prism of what the benefit is to society. "

Science should be judged on the merits of the theory.

Laughably absurd analogy. If enough people think it's about a scientific theory, it says nothing if it is really a scientific theory. Most people don't know what a molecule is either.

" And the evo/abio philosophy, when you look at it from an inductive spiritual perspective, comes up bankrupt."

Science doesn't deal with the spiritual.

"When I look through the mass of material, I see a big scientific controversy with eggheads on one side ridiculing eggheads on the other side."

You see incorrectly.

This is a science discussion though.
***It is? I thought I was on Free Republic, a POLITICAL news discussion site? How did I land on a science discussion site? From Jim Robinson: As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. …. Free Republic is the premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah! ….Most visitors to Free Republic are attracted to our very popular (and, warning: addictive) conservative news and discussion forum which can be found by clicking here or following any of the forum links in the sidebars.

Science should be judged on the merits of the theory.
***Ok, now we’re starting a discussion here because you used the word, “should”. Why should it? Why should we spend money on this useless 150 year old controversy that doesn’t contribute much to society? Who decides what gets taught to our kids and when? POLITICIANS. Some of them like to call themselves political scientists…

Laughably absurd analogy. If enough people think it's about a scientific theory, it says nothing if it is really a scientific theory. Most people don't know what a molecule is either.
***And it is those people who vote in guys who determine social policy. For purposes of social policy discussions, when people see that a “theory” still has unknowns to it, they know instinctively that it is a philosophical guess as good as any other guess, and that it is a philosophy. Since most people don’t know what a molecule is, AND they are voters, is it your position that they shouldn’t hold sway on what gets taught to our kids in school?

Science doesn't deal with the spiritual.
***Copout. Since what gets taught to our kids is of primary concern to parents, they should have a say in it. Posted earlier: it's a copout to claim that it's "only a scientific pursuit". Bull cookies. It's obvious to everyone that there are moral, social, sociological, religious, and inductive implications to the haps side, and it is good and right to limit any evil that results from those implications.

You see incorrectly.
***Even if that is true, for purposes of social policy discussions it is still a big blinking red light on the panel that needs to be dealt with, has not been dealt with in the past and now we have a president who thinks like I do. Deal with it.