"Duane Bozarth"
Duane Bozarth wrote:

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker


No, your mindblock has reared up again. Materialism dictates an
excusively materialistic answer, which is how you misuse science
and I don't care if you correct your personal shortcomings or not.

While I know you won't admit it and it is therefore pointless to
respond, the practice of science is not the equivalent of the philosophy
of materialism--as previously noted you and others find it useful to
equate the two for your own purposes.

Wrong. I've said many times that the two aren't equivalent,
shouldn't be and that science was being *misused* as materialism.
Science does not say that there are only material answers to the
questions, people who would misuse science, do. What part of
that can't get through your filters?

The part where you want to add something other to science to the science
curriculum.

That should have been "other than" rather than "other to", of course.

I'll note it wasn't I who raised "materialism" in the "debate".


I thought you did. Wasn't it you who said that natural answers will be
found?


You say
science is being 'misused' as materialism but complain that there should
be (apparently, this is where I still fail to understand what you really
want) a "science" that relies on a supernatural explanation for at least
some portion of its explanations.


I don't know why you're still confused. I've stated many times now that
ID should be introduced as a possibility when discussing origins as
an alternative to a naturalist answer. The reason being science cannot
declare a naturalist answer.



Which ones and how to determine which
are and aren't, you haven't addressed.


I did many times. It didn't get past your filters.


I'm understanding what you want is something other than a
"scientific-only" education that can be achieved by a church or
parochial school (poorly if it's done as part of the science curriculum
imo) or in a philosophy or comparative religion class, for example.
But, as I understand what would satisfy you, is out of the realm of
science, therefore I cannot accept it as a part of the science
curriculum, per se.

And, w/ that, finally recognizing the insurmountable impasse, I do
withdraw, Steve.

You blocked yourself from understanding the other side, which sadly
is all too common.