> > Simply because they are demanding that it be treated as such. >
No dice. I demand my flying spaghetti monster be debated scientifically. It takes more than just a demand. > Scientists, as a body, should not, ever, be unwilling to test a > hypothesis. > That's not what science is about. WRONG. Scientists should conclusively and adamantly refuse to test a hypothesis that is outside the realm of science! Like....."There is a God", for instance :) > > Intelligent Design proponents should be forced to devise tests, perform > experiments and allow peer review of their conclusions just as anybody > else. Impossible. Their conclusion lies outside the realm of science...so any test or experiments within the realm of science would be pointless towards proving their conclusion. > > To dismiss any idea out of hand, without proper testing, is simply > insulting > to science. > NO, it's not, it's simply a part of science. It would be insulting to science to attempt to explain something outside it's realm. > At the same time, of course, ID should, like any other scientific idea, do > all of this BEFORE the subject of its being included in curricula is > raised. Again, you presuppose that ID is a scientific idea. It is NOT. > > Scientifically (as they want to be considered) no hypothesis would be > included in high-school curricula at this stage. There are thousands of > theories which much more evidence that are still considered to "new" to be > included. ID is no different from a purely scientific viewpoint. There is no scientific viewpoint on ID. > > If testing proves out the notions of the theory then, yes include it. If > not don't. Science, as a whole, asks for nothing more or less. It can't, so you can't include it. It's like asking a mathematician to prove that an oak is a tree...using only math. Math can't do it. Why? Because it's outside the realm of mathematics. > > The simple fact is that the IDers have placed this debate squarely on the > scientists "home court" and the scientists are not pressing that advantage > as far as I can see. Not true. The debate is whether IDers can or should be able to place this debate on the scientists home court. You have to step back and see the forest before the trees. You want to attack ID scientifically, I'm saying that this can't be done. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Get help! RoboHelp http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=58 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:183643 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
