Matt, I do not have a bias against religion. And the constant claim that anyone who disagrees with ID has a bias is wrong, and purposefully mean, and frankly not at all Christian.
I have a bias against religion being taught as science. I have a bias against religion (any religion) being forced down people's throats. I am more than willing to explore alternate viewpoints. Most of which (in the case of evolution, creation, and ID) do not pass the scientific smell test. I have read tons of articles about ID, and they just do not hold together scientifically. And the reason is they are antithetical to science. They take a preconceived idea (their particular religious belief), and try to find disparate facts that can be stitched together to seem like a whole. And throwing away any fact that does not support the conclusion. Bad science sometimes does that as well, trying to fit facts into fully formed ideas. The difference is, sometimes the scientist will change the idea to fit the facts as discovered. ID proponents CAN'T do that without losing their faith. Good science observes the facts, and tries to stitch together a framework to hold those facts. Take evolution. It has changed repeatedly over time. It is constantly changing. The basic theory has held up, but the details and mechanisms have undergone revision. That is as it should be, if you understand the scientific method. Your example of astrophysics is a perfect example. That is EXACTLY how science should work. That willingness to change, based on new data, is vital to scientific understanding. And there is no objective "right" and "wrong", just a best estimation of the process based on all the data so far. On 8/23/06, Chesty Puller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's not a simple thought at all. The problem is that your bias against > religion does not allow you to consider alternative viewpoints. It appears > that you think that science already knows everything that should be taught, > and that it's right. Let's assume that evolution is right and that it was > created by God. That would be both ID and evolution, and leaving part of it > out wouldn't be correect, would it? > > A few years ago (like only 5 years) I was taught in my college astronomy > class that the universe is about 13 billion years old. Today the figure is > 15.3 billion or something new... scientists discovered some previously > unknown data and have revised the figure. Yes, their theories were based > on measurable phenomenon, but it seems they were wrong. > > Science searches for explanations - cause and effect. The effect is the > existance of life on Earth - how did it come to be in its form today. > Evolution is one possible cause. Another is ID. Both are possible causes > of the effect. Ergo, you have science. > > Assume that ID is actually right. Wouldn't that make it science? Your > assumption that it's wrong is not based on any proof, just your gut feeling. > Evolution is based on 100+ years of observation. Creationism is based on > 3000+ years of written documents, in many different forms, from many > different cultures. Guess what? We're just another culture with a creation > story. > > Ten thousand years from now, scientists will know that what we really are is > light crystals bent around magnetic iron cores, and will laugh at the > primitive people who thought that life came up out of the water and > magically transformed itself into humans over time. They'll discount > evolution altogether. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:213992 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
