You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Scientific Dogma
- Thread starter OPTIONAL777
- Start date
If you want to be specific, then science doesn't dismiss ID.
Scientists and their followers do.
...and therein lies the problem. Not just about ID, but about many of the opinions of scientists and their blind followers.
It is a bit like knowing the difference between Christians, and Christianity.
Americans may claim America is a Christian nation, but looking to the levels of corruption, crime, etc. in America, you would not conclude Americas Christians were unilaterally following the teachings of Christianity.
Scientists and their followers do.
...and therein lies the problem. Not just about ID, but about many of the opinions of scientists and their blind followers.
It is a bit like knowing the difference between Christians, and Christianity.
Americans may claim America is a Christian nation, but looking to the levels of corruption, crime, etc. in America, you would not conclude Americas Christians were unilaterally following the teachings of Christianity.
Quote from Gabfly1:
You make some valid points. But I don't think that any observations you make about Big Oil, Big Tobacco and Big Pharma necessarily translate to the generally accepted scientific thought regarding evolution by the world's most prominent scientists. I don't think there's big money in denying ID. And my initial impression, based on the pattern of your prior posts and threads rather than the specific wording of your initial post in this thread, was that this thread was motivated by your antipathy towards science becauses it dismisses ID.
It essentially disregards it for the simple reason that a theory presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. An unfalsifiable theory is to that extent a weak theory. There are stonger theories with all manner of evidence to occupy scientists. Your thread about "scientific dogma" is nothing more than your displeasure with the scientific community's dismissal of that which you hold dear. The dogma of which you speak is your own.Quote from OPTIONAL777:
If you want to be specific, then science doesn't dismiss ID...
You are confusing scientists with science again.
There is no science of a random chance cause, there is no math for it, but scientists propose it is the underlying cause for the changes we see in biological organisms. A link is created by scientists, not science, which is generated by the assumption of some mysterious force that creates random chance mutations.
That is not science, it is science fiction.
There is no science of a random chance cause, there is no math for it, but scientists propose it is the underlying cause for the changes we see in biological organisms. A link is created by scientists, not science, which is generated by the assumption of some mysterious force that creates random chance mutations.
That is not science, it is science fiction.
Quote from Gabfly1:
It essentially disregards it for the simple reason that a theory presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. An unfalsifiable theory is to that extent a weak theory. There are stonger theories with all manner of evidence to occupy scientists. Your thread about "scientific dogma" is nothing more than your displeasure with the scientific community's dismissal of that which you hold dear. The dogma of which you speak is your own.