Replies

Thank you for sharing your views, dear BroJoeK!

Of course, anyone including scientists are perfectly free to ask and answer questions beyond the limits of science, just don't pretend those are science.

Outside the laboratory, the boundaries of science (methodological naturalism) have not been honored for a very, very long time.

There are too many people doing theology and philosophy under the color of science, in particular Dawkins, Singer, Lewontin, Pinker. Not to mention of course atheists and metaphysical naturalists for whom science is their supreme authority or 'holy' writ.

And then there are the politicians and activists who torture science to authenticate their own agendas.

It is disingenuous to tolerate these abuses while complaining about those who support an intelligent design hypothesis.

Alamo-Girl: "Outside the laboratory, the boundaries of science (methodological naturalism) have not been honored for a very, very long time."

Sure, but the world is chock full of sales-people hoping to sell you on something or other.
99.99% of them we ignore, and so with scientists hoping to sell you their religions beliefs.
It's still a "free country", and people are free to hawk whatever legal substance they think somebody will buy.
And it's still caveat emptor -- let the buyer beware.

So, obviously, what's needed is a "DO NOT CALL" register for people who seriously don't want to listen to a bunch of nonsense.

Alamo-Girl: "There are too many people doing theology and philosophy under the color of science, in particular Dawkins, Singer, Lewontin, Pinker."

Now that you mention it, I've never heard of any of those people, except Dawkins, and him only because the name appears so frequently on these threads.
And I didn't sign up for any particular "DO NOT CALL" register, so how are these folks such a problem for you?

Alamo-Girl: "And then there are the politicians and activists who torture science to authenticate their own agendas."

If you mean, i.e., AlGore's Glo-Bull Warming, I'm all in with you, FRiend.

Alamo-Girl: "It is disingenuous to tolerate these abuses while complaining about those who support an intelligent design hypothesis."

I don't "tolerate" any abuse, Glo-Bull Warming or otherwise.
But evolution is a valid confirmed scientific theory, and "intelligent design" is not even a scientifically expressed hypothesis.

Of course, as a religious-theological belief, I agree that G*d created the Universe, and all its scientific laws, for His purposes of which we are an instrument.
So, as long as we don't call that "science", I have no problem with it, FRiend.