OgreMkV
Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009
|
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 16 2012,21:20) | Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 16 2012,20:25) | Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 16 2012,18:30) | Quote (blipey @ Dec. 16 2012,09:42) | I really want to know how seeing things violates the separation of church and state. Surely this national security crisis deserves more play. Tell us, oh wise one. Don't tease us, Gary Schnookums, fill us in. |
Without having to go into sordid historical examples such as similar repression by the Stalinist Atheism movement, the NCSE and others have been using the ID controversy to impose their religious/philosophical views into the science classrooms. Popperism (falsification), philosophical naturalism, and other scientifically useless philosophies which only lead to arguments (normally because of those who correctly point out that it's not really "science" it's their personal philosophy/religion) are all examples of how the science classrooms can be used to promote a religious world-view. Scientific integrity is sabotaged, for the benefit of self-appointed control-freaks who need to redefine "theory" and "hypothesis" in order to stop progress of emerging sciences and scientists who do not help further their religious goals. |
I know I'm going to regret this...
But what is science if it's not falsifiable, naturalistic, and methodical? |
Let's see. What sudden new discovery would force you to immediately throw "evolutionary theory" out of science? Anomalies like a Cambrian bunny that instead only leads to parallel-evolution alien visitor theories galore, cannot be accepted.
All the rest of the words are extra baggage. Might make sense to you but it's none the less philosophy, not science, where there is a simple method that only requires a functional understanding of theory and hypothesis.
After an engineer develops a circuit/device are they supposed to write a "Theory of Operation" or a "Hypothesis of Operation" that after years of making sure it still works like it did before you later turn into a "Theory" for them? |
What would cause me to reject the THEORY of evolution?
Well, here's a list: 1) DNA evidence doesn't support common descent 2) Genetically closely related organisms don't have very similar morphologies 3) Fossil evidence doesn't support common descent 4) Biochemical evidence doesn't support the mechanisms for evolution 5) Homologous structures appeared on unrelated organisms 6) Patterns of embryological development did not match structural development of ancestral organisms
I could on, but those are just a few of the things that would cause scientists to reject evolution.
However, every single piece of evidence across dozens of disciplines and hundreds of years of research support evolution. At this point (because this is how science actually works), there is no single piece of evidence that would falsify evolution. It would require a massive change in our knowledge about how everything in biological systems worked.
That's just not going to happen, not when evolution is as well supported and effective at predicting future states.
But, I further note, that you didn't actually answer the questions...
What is science if it's not falsifiable, naturalistic, and methodical?
Are you aware, that if science is not those three things, then anything 'scientific' you do is doomed to failure just as anything real people do? If you truly believe that science is not falsifiable, naturalistic, and methodical, then by using the tools of science to disprove the entire concept of science, you are the ultimate hypocrite.
-------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|