Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"John Emmons"

...
As for your "fairness" statement, there is nothing fair about the so called
"intelligent design" campaign. It is religious fundamentalism and evangelism
trying to force it's way into the arena of public education.

No, it's an attempt to balance secular fundamentalism for the sake
of a fair education.

"Fair" is in the eye of the beholder.

Fair 'nuff.

Science, like life, isn't a sport
w/ rules of "fair play" in the sense you're implying here.

I was talking about the education of science, not science itself.

It's based
on the best available knowledge at the time and as well as the subject
under discussion evolves w/ time. A fair amount of the physics my HS
instructor was teaching wasn't even conceived of when he was doing his
undergraduate training just as in biology the knowledge of DNA and gene
mapping is something new within our lifetimes. The problem is, what
you're advocating just doesn't make it on the scene as actual science
despite the protestations of vocal advocates, hence the fallback to
claims of deserving "fairness".

Then you misinterpreted the viewpoint. When you teach that we
crawled out of the mud it isn't science either. Many people want
their tax monies spent with some consideration to them instead
of just a biased secular view. That would be fair to the unbiased mind.

What is taught is the best _scientific_ understanding of how things
happened. You're again letting your theology get in the way of the
issue. If you want a theological being or basis for the non-scientific
portion, that's fine. The point is, that is theology and/or philosophy,
not science.

....
It was relevent to John's comment about evolutionists knocking
on church doors.

Not really. The point was only on actions, not numbers.


Science is the study. To exclude ID (unfairly) when many scientists
do see evidence of it isn't science either. But as you may well know
science isn't limited to what has been proven categorically.

Back to this specious "fair" argument again...we dealt w/ that already.


The point is that once you bring in this extra-terristrial, there is no
science left--it's now magic. Maybe in the end, science will admit
defeat in understanding (I doubt it, but it's possible, I suppose) and
the only rational explanation will turn out to be the supernatural. If
so, it bodes ill for our ability to progress much further in the
biological sciences as everything we think we understand will have been
shown to have been just a fluke of the point in time and point of
reference which can change at any time when this external power decides
to change the ground rules. As you see, that doesn't make any sense,
but it is the logical conclusion of demanding something other than
natural processes as what science deals with.