Comment Re:HOORAY! Hooray for Thought Control! (Score 1) 792
>>"Grilled cheese sandwiches are made with bread and cheese" by saying "That's not true! I have a theory that the bread was baked in an oven on Main Street, which is opposed to your theory!"
No... it is like saying people asking "Is that the ONLY way to make a sandwich."
The people who ASK the question believe sandwiches can be made of bread and Monkey Spleen.
Because bread and monkey spleen sandwiches are disgusting, and no one really EATS them, science is saying, "Yes. All sandwiches are bread and cheese."
That does not make the declaration TRUE, or SCIENTIFIC.
Not at all... that doesn't even make sense... you are talking about SCOPES... which is ENTIRELY different, Scopes was about suppressing science in favor of metaphysics.
As I've said, about 2 dozen times over the last few days... God is irrelevant. Can macro-evolution scientifically, legitimately, argued. Do we have definitive proof of it? No.
Does everyone misunderstand ID this way? I explained the difference before (Random versus [Evo] Something else [ID])... and you apparently ignored it. My "declaration" of what ID is asking for was ignored. Why? Why can't even the argument for ID be addressed scientifically. Why does science refuse to admit that it doesn't have a solid grasp on evolution?
And ultimately, the impetus, why are so many people happy to be misled?
ADDENDUM: I just did a check on a half dozen of the ID laws that are in process or have died are all EXCEPTIONALLY religious in their wording. Which is idiotic. This does not me ID is wrong, nor does it say Evolution SHOULD be taught as law, but I do acknowledge that it seems to be impossible for a conservative legislator to write a law.
Dover PA got really close, but suggesting ID is anti-darwinist is not accurate, and encouraging them to read a non-science book is unacceptable... minus that one paragraph, it's pretty solid.
No... it is like saying people asking "Is that the ONLY way to make a sandwich."
The people who ASK the question believe sandwiches can be made of bread and Monkey Spleen.
Because bread and monkey spleen sandwiches are disgusting, and no one really EATS them, science is saying, "Yes. All sandwiches are bread and cheese."
That does not make the declaration TRUE, or SCIENTIFIC.
Not at all... that doesn't even make sense... you are talking about SCOPES... which is ENTIRELY different, Scopes was about suppressing science in favor of metaphysics.
As I've said, about 2 dozen times over the last few days... God is irrelevant. Can macro-evolution scientifically, legitimately, argued. Do we have definitive proof of it? No.
Does everyone misunderstand ID this way? I explained the difference before (Random versus [Evo] Something else [ID])... and you apparently ignored it. My "declaration" of what ID is asking for was ignored. Why? Why can't even the argument for ID be addressed scientifically. Why does science refuse to admit that it doesn't have a solid grasp on evolution?
And ultimately, the impetus, why are so many people happy to be misled?
ADDENDUM: I just did a check on a half dozen of the ID laws that are in process or have died are all EXCEPTIONALLY religious in their wording. Which is idiotic. This does not me ID is wrong, nor does it say Evolution SHOULD be taught as law, but I do acknowledge that it seems to be impossible for a conservative legislator to write a law.
Dover PA got really close, but suggesting ID is anti-darwinist is not accurate, and encouraging them to read a non-science book is unacceptable... minus that one paragraph, it's pretty solid.
