Tim Daneliuk writes:

a) The presumption that every discipline is best investigated in total
isolation to most or all others is suspect. Philosophy affects
epistemology which affects everything. Failing to have a discussion about
first propositions because "it's just not Science" (for example) is
a deadly way of thinking.


Fine. But many arguments for ID are done by theologists who pose
as scientists, and use pseudo-science to defend their theology, in such a
manner that people are DECEIVED to belive this is real science.

c) The fear that we are going to transform a particular field to more
resemble another one is bogus. Honest people seek better and better
approximations of Truth. They let their observations and rational
faculties lead them to shape the disciplines in question. They do
not cling to some orthodox fundamentalism in the face of new data
or contrary evidence. Say a credible case for "turtles all the way down"
could be made. Then this should reshape Science. Say macro-evolution
is demonstrated beyond any shadow of any doubt. Then the people who
hold to literal 6day creation stories should reinterpet them accordingly.

Why should scientists bother? Creationists are just going to IGNORE
science and find new pseudo-science to distort facts and deceive
people.

First creationists claimed there was no proof of evolution.
Proof was pointed out to them and they backpedaled.

Then they claimed there was no proof of evolution into a new species.
Proof was pointed out to them and they backpedaled.

Now they claim there is no proof of macro-evolution.

Macro-evolution is not a scientific term. PubMed shows FIVE references
to this term out of 11 million articles.

Macro-evolution is defined to be "something that evidence hasn't proved".
It's pseudo-science by definition.

Use theology to argue theology, and science to argue science, but
DON'T use theology to argue science.

--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.