Steve Peterson wrote:
Fletis,

You have continued to argue that science should expand to include
creationism, oops, I mean intelligent design. I think you need to review
the meaning of the word "science" which you can look at he
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science. Again, I cite Wikipedia only because
it is easy to give a link, and it isn't very long and uses simple words.
Here is one paragraph on the goals of science:

" Despite popular impressions of science, it is not the goal of science to
answer all questions. The goal of the physical sciences is to answer only
those that pertain to physical reality. Also, science cannot possibly
address all possible questions, so the choice of which questions to answer
becomes important. Science does not and can not produce absolute and
unquestionable truth. Rather, physical science often tests hypotheses about
some aspect of the physical world, and when necessary revises or replaces it
in light of new observations or data. "

You repeatedly demand the inclusion of pseudoscience, but it doesn't fit.

Steve


Steve, it's obvious that you can't follow our conversations. I
have addressed issue many times. To recap to any reader:

Pseudo-science is being taught now, I've posted errors
in modern textbooks that exist because it fits an agenda
and isn't science.

You and several others continue to blur the word "science"
with the teaching of science. Science classrooms are not
research centers and a mature scientist may know when he's
being hoodwinked. I say "may", but kids are more vulnerable.

I've said many, many times that ID should only be mentioned
when the subject of origins comes up as a possible alternative
to leaving students with the false assumption that the cause
is natural, we just don't have proof yet. What we do know, like
the Cambrian Explosion, puts it in at least some doubt, otherwise
there would be no controversy within science.

So, no. I have no problem drawing the line between science
and philosophy, I can do both, but young impressionable
minds may have trouble drawing the line between the two
when presented with them as one. ID brings some balance to
the equation. Dismissing it as non-science, misses the point.




"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
...


... I've even said what the approach
should be to be fair to science and the students. You seem to be
evading
reading it. No one suggested that science stop so your assertion is
quite false.


No, you've replied in generalities about there being "obvious" design

That isn't quite right either. I said many scientists see evidence
for design.

but neglected to answer the questions of how this is to be demonstrated
(other than by faith and assertion)

I've answered that as well. I even posted links as to what led them
to their conclusions. In the case of the Cambrian Explosion the
evidence doesn't fit the long running assertions of natural outcome.
You want to embrace those assertions because it appeals to you but
ignore the fossil record. That's a demonstration that requires no faith
and no assertion. If you can demonstrate that the Cambrian Explosion
records supports Darwinian Evolution, I'd like to see it. I'm not on
trial
here, the ball is in your court. If you keep saying I'm not answering
we will know who is really ducking the issue.


You keep invoking the Cambrian Explosion as an example of some unnatural
event. However, there is no reason that evolution could not, or did not,
develop a wide variety of organisms, making up more classes than we now have
after winnowing through competition and selective reproductive success.


Then you haven't even bothered to look into it.