wrote in message oups.com...

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
wrote:


Two of the three are irrelevant to the issue of theory as they
are not theories. A theory is more than just a notion or an idea.


True, and if scientists say they see evidence for design they aren't
just throwing out an unfounded idea.


The Steady State Universe may be differentiated from the Big Bang
Cosmology by a number of observables which is why one theory is now
favored over the other.


But you miss the point. The steady state universe was/is part
of science. Einstein even fudged his numbers in order to fit
the prevailing view at the time.



The other two are notions that will not rise to the level of theory
unless one can suggest a testable hypothesis to differentiate from
other Cosmologies. Some who work with those notions may use the
word theory in reference to them but they do so coloqyuially, as
many people, even scientists, will use the word 'experiment'
coloquially not in refence to what is an experiment in the formal
scientific sense.

I doubt very much that you will find parallel universe or cycling
universe theory published in scientific journals, and I saresay
they should not be taught, as science, in the public schools.


Are you saying they are never mentioned or that you hope not?


... Albert Einstein ...


Most of the people promoting ID want it taught in a classroom
or published in scientific journals. Einstein NEVER advocated
either for his religious views.



Another diversion.

Nonsense, check the subject line above.


You erected a strawman. I don't know that he ever spoke on
public education or what should be published. We certainly weren't
discussing it.


No one claimed that he even discussed it.


Indeed, your introduction of Einstein into the discussion
was obfuscation and diversion. I brought it back on subject.


The fact that a noted scientist like Einstein saw evidence for design
isn't relevent? I was right, you are having a conversation with yourself.
That amounts to public masterbation. Whatever floats your boat.




What do you suppose to be the reason for that difference?



I don't think you even know what ID supporters want.


I am quite clear the the people who are promoting ID want to
use it as a means to inject religious teaching into the public
schools.


Then I was right. You don't know what they want.

If you look hard enough you can probably find
one or two ID advocates who do not,


One or two?


but the majority care
not one whit about science, they care only about religion
and their leaders care only about power.


I think I see a pattern here. You're a bigot and it didn't take long
for it to bubble to the surface.