Hello Platt and Ham, Creationism, as a theory, was not developed using the scientific method. Attempts to back-fit it into the large body of existing scientific observation have been unsuccessful to date. Until such time as it is substantiated by observation, I must respectfully discount it as a valid scientific theory. Proponents seem to demonstrate a willful disregard for the scientific method, while yet insisting on a fair hearing. The scientific community has obliged, and, unfortunately for its proponents, has been unable to substantiate its claims. To persist in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, indicates a lack of respect for the scientific method. To reject the results of repeated scientific scrutiny simply because one does not like the outcome is your prerogative, but does not make the theory valid from a scientific point of view.
Creationism is something entirely different from science, and I would appreciate it if it were removed from my son's 9th grade biology textbook. If the State of Texas believes he requires instruction in Creationism in order to achieve a well-rounded education, he can take a comparative religions class. Science class should be reserved for the study of theories which are supported by the scientific method. In fact, teaching the scientific method is one of the major aims of any class in the basic sciences. By affording Creationism a place in Biology textbooks, the implicit message is that the scientific method is only useful if it supports your belief system. This is a truly dangerous idea that, if left unchecked, will subvert a generation of scientists. The whole point of the scientific method is to remove as much bias as possible from experimentation and observational results. In summary, in case anyone fails to get the point, Creationism is a Christian fundamentalist religious theory, which, I must respectfully point out, does not enjoy complete agreement even within the Christian religious community itself. Evolution, on the other hand, is a scientific theory which has gained wide acceptance by virtue of observation within the scientific community. Please do not confuse the two. Mary -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 4:58 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MD] Metaphysics On 14 Jan 2010 at 16:59, Krimel wrote: > Is this a joke? Creationism (I notice you use the honest term, at least, > rather than disingenuous ID) has a stranglehold on biology? I think what > pisses Dawkins off is the persistence of this stupid idea. Creationism is > rooted in dogma not logic or science or anything else. If ever there was an > example of people being held in the thrall of an idea for social rather than > intellectual reasons this is it. Dawkins and his fans are as rooted in dogma as were the priests of the Inquisition. Platt 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/ 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/
