thordaddy
Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006
|
Henry J asks,
Quote | I was asking for clarification as to what you meant by "question evolution." |
Well, since you have no evidence for "no evidence" then it leaves only one possible answer, doesn't it?
CJ O'Brien opines,
Quote | Now, you'd like to claim, I suppose, that it was close examination of those various empirical phenomena that led our ancestors to attribute their vagaries to the action of supernatural forces? |
The claim is very simple. There is NO process outside of interpreting empirical evidence for the "belief" in a creator or creators. Take your pick! If no empirical evidence exists for an IDer(s) then how, scientifically speaking, did such a belief come into existence? What's the process that initiated this pondering of an IDer where NO evidence existed for such a pondering?
stevestory,
I don't believe you to be a serious participator in this thread. The point is simple. Judges are defining science. This begs the question.
Why can't preachers define science? Why can't teachers define science? Why can't politicians define science?
Judges do!
Please come up with a good answer for these questions.
Stanger than fiction opines,
Quote | 1. A little thing called precedent, of which Judge Jones's ruling is a particularly strong example.
2. The fact that judges are supposed to base their decisions on expert testimonies for cases in which they lack expertise. Consider the huge gap between expert witnesses for and against ID, in terms of both quantity and quality. |
Precedent is a legal mechanism that has NO business residing in the scientific sphere. Science doesn't seek stability, but the truth.
On point 2, it seems that you concede that those with less than the required expertise are defining science based on their less than expert interpretation of what the experts say. Huh?? Why does this power to define science only include judges? Why can't preachers, teachers and politicians define science as well?
Arden,
You haven't even gone passed the most basic question. If there is no empirical evidence for an IDer then by what process did such a "belief" manifest? How did the first "creationist" come by his "belief" if not by the interpretation of empirical evidence?
|