While your missive for scientific rigor is admirable, it is not without its flaws.
Let's stipulate (just for the purpose of discussion), that no scientist who even softly supports any manner of intelligent design theory has been able to prove a single thesis in support of intelligent design (not a point I'm conceding at this juncture). With that stipulation, we can still safely say that such a lack of evidence does not prove that God has not dipped his finger into the soup. Example: At one time, scientists had not yet proven that cigarettes cause cancer. At that time, would it have been logical to say, "It is not proven that cigarettes do not cause cancer; therefore, cigarettes do not cause cancer." Of course that not a logical argument. It's an argument supported by ignorance, not by fact. So what you're saying is, "It has not been proven that a creator mucked about with evolution; therefore, a creator did not muck about with evolution." Lack of evidence does not prove a theory in either direction. Well, you may object, the cancer causing nature of cigarettes is a verifiable outcome; however, the touch of God is not verifiable, therefore it is not a valid field of study. Again, this violates basic logic. At best, you can say, "So far no scientific method has been found that proves or disproves a supernatural phenomena; therefore, scientists should not try and find a way to study supernatural phenomena." You should be able to see that such reasoning is facially illogical. In other words, the scientific method you are arguing for is simply grand circular logic. If ABC can't be proven, ABC shouldn't be studied. It is a system of reasoning designed to keep science a closed shop impregnable by any who dare question its orthodoxy. And by foisting this circular logic on our education system, a cadre of like-minded scientists are able to breed a form propaganda that imbues impressionable young minds with a possibly false understanding of the natural world. A final complaint: You seem to like to support a lot of your claims by referring to "creationist" or "creationism," which really confuses the issue since nobody here is in any manner advocating "creationism" as the term is commonly understood. I find this a disingenuous method to avoid dealing with the hard questions of the debate. H. Larry wrote: >If creationism, or Intelligent Design can fit within the criteria of a >scientific theory, then its appropriate to teach it in a science class. >Since both depend on religion, as far as I can see its just another attempt >by fundies to break the church state barrier. > >Remember a theory in science has to be able to be disproven by contradictory >evidence. Such as not happened. Where is the contradictory evidence? simply >put there is none. > >A competing theory must also provide a better explanation of the existent >data. Neither cretinism (pardon creationism) nor intelligent design meet >that criteria. Moreover there is no valid data that support either >creationism or intelligent design. > >Therefore creationism and are quite rightly dismissed. They do not explain >the findings of over a century of research. They do not provide a better >explanatory model, nor are they predictive as is the current models of >evolution. Given their inadequacies they are quite rightly dismissed by the >scientific community. ______________________________________________________________________ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
