Greetings Ham,
You seem dangerously naive to me because of the ease with which you
overlay an idealized science onto a working science. There are not
the resources to chase down all anomalies and alternative
hypotheses. And the answers reached are often guaranteed by the
method, questions and instruments used for evaluating a theory. How
long did it take to correct Newton's physics? How many hundreds of
years to make that correction? From what I've read there were plenty
of anomalies along the way. (In my mind, it is better to see time
and space as static patterns of value, conceptually constructed. It
is a better perspective.) And I hardly think that science as a tool
of politics, profit and the military make it an exalted institution.
Science needs to work better.
Marsha
At 12:51 AM 4/29/2009, you wrote:
Marsha and Platt --
[Platt]:
The Darwinists are hard pressed to explain hobbits.
The theory is now challenged from within.
Wonders never cease.
[Marsha]:
Intelligent Design is not credible science.
My concern is that science is blindly followed without an
understanding of its danger points, and I am relieved
that it is being challenged. It should be properly
evaluated and monitored by all citizens.
Intelligent Design is not Science at all. It is an intellectual
perspective of reality based on man's sensibility to symmetry and
order. When we say that the universe is intelligently designed, by
whose "intelligence" are we judging its design? Human beings are
rational creatures who impute their own intelligence to the
objective world because of its value (high-quality) to them.
The "wonder" is that you don't realize scientific anomalies like the
newly discovered hobbit skeletons are constantly being
challenged. The method of Science is: investigate - test -
confirm. When you read the entire article, you see that
paleontologists, biologists, and archeologists are currently in the
"testing phase", ruling out possible explanations, such as early
migration of a more primitive species, reversion to an ancestral
lineage, genetic mutations or pathological disorders, or island
dwarfing. Eventually they will have the evidence they need to
confirm a conclusion. Until then, unlike armchair speculators and
journalists, they withhold any official pronouncement.
As Stony Brook's anatomist, speaking for the research team, said,
their investigation has entered "a period of wait and
see. ...Someday people [will ask], why was everyone so puzzled back
then - it's plain to see where the little people of Flores came
from." That's the way Science works. If Science depended on the
"evaluation and monitoring" of uninformed citizens, reaching
objective conclusions would be about as rare as it is on this forum.
--Ham
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
.
_____________
Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
