thordaddy
Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006
|
stevestory opined,
ID is starting to meet the legal system and be obliterated.
This is naive. I thought the scientific method determined what was scientific, but stevestory seems to be lauding the "legal system" and its obliteration of ID. Some would suggest this is tantamount to defining science... judges defining science! Is this what stevestory is all giggly about? What makes stevestory think that such a trend will continue? What makes stevestory think that another faction of the "legal system" WON'T resurrect ID and REDEFINE science?
As I said, this battle is being fought on many fronts and not just in the laboratory.
Henry J opines,
Does it mean asking how a particular conclusion was reached? Or does it mean claiming there's no evidence for something for which plenty of evidence has been described?
You're not referencing me, are you? If so, please provide the appropriate quotes where I state "no evidence" for evolution?
In fact, it is the "scientists" that claim NO EVIDENCE for an IDer which leads one to ask,
How did the belief (faith) in an IDer come into existence starting with the very first human that looked above and said something greater and more powerful must have had a hand in all of this? How did this belief (faith) arise outside of the process of interpreting the empirical evidence?
Faid,
I will say it again, there is NO process outside the interpretation of empirical evidence in which a person comes to "believe" or have "faith" in an IDer. If there is, please explain? Remember, let's focus on that first human that looked into the sky and pondered the creator. What was the process that allowed such insight and speculation? Physics theory doesn't leave you much wiggle room, does it?
|
