Whenever you hear the complaint, "Creation or intelligent
design (ID) is not science," a subtle sleight of hand is
in play. The ruse capitalizes on an ambiguity between two
completely different definitions of science.
The first definition is the most well known. Science is
a methodology - observation, experimentation, testing, etc. -
that allows researchers to discover facts about the world. Any
view that does not follow the right methodology is not science.
Presumably, this is why evolution succeeds and ID fails.
The second definition of science involves the philosophy
of naturalistic materialism. All phenomena must be explained
in terms of matter and energy governed by natural law. Any
view that does not conform to this second definition is also
not science.
There are two requirements, then, for an investigation of
the natural world to qualify as "scientific." First, one must use
the right methods. Second, one must come up with the right
kind of answers, those consistent with materialism. Usually,
these two elements are not in conflict. Good methods produce
answers completely consistent with matter in motion governed
by natural law. But sometimes they are not compatible.
Evolution, arguably, is a case in point. At first blush, it
seems like Darwinism is about scientific facts. But when facts
suggest intelligent design, the second definition of science
is surreptitiously invoked to label design as "unscientific"
regardless of the integrity of the methods used to infer design.
Take careful note here: When there is a conflict between methodology
and materialism, the philosophy always trumps the facts.
Modern science does not conclude from the evidence
that design is not tenable. It assumes it prior to the evidence.
Any scientific methodology (first definition of science) that
points to a designer of any aspect of the universe is summarily
disqualified by scientific philosophy (second definition of
science) as "religion disguised as science."
American car companies are going down the crapper because unpatriotic people like you demand quality in the things you buy, and you have no concern for the thousands of American auto workers to whom we all owe a living.
> The access to MySpace was unauthorized because > using a fake name violated the terms of service.
WTF?
Since when is violating the TOS of an online service a criminal offense? At most, it's a civil litigation case between the online service and the user who violated the TOS.
Disclaimer: I didn't RTFA because it's slashdotted.
> School's purpose is to teach kids the skills they need
> in order to be successful in their adult life.
That's the naive version of the purpose of school.
From elsewhere on the net:
Schools are never just about education. For that matter, education is never just about education. The school as an institution is founded and supported as a means to some end.
[...]
The 1960s and later decades saw the public schools driven to take therapeutic concerns as a prime "educational" goal, with concepts such as self-esteem and "authenticity" coming to the fore. In addition, those with aggressive agendas concerning sex and sexuality education, "values clarification," and a host of other ideological fads and fashions pushed those agendas into the public schools.
[...]
There is no neutrality in education. The education is designed to produce some kind of result, some kind of citizen. There is no way that this can be separated from character, morality, and worldview.
Slashdot Mirror
They'll be encumbered with ad- and mal- ware.
No, I meant the "where-did-it---ALL---come-from" question.
Why does the universe exist instead of nothing?
It seems to me that the answer to that question is beyond the scope of science.
That's a question for philosophy.
Science is no position to answer the where-did-it-all-come-from question any more than religion, and maybe even less so.
Good point.
No matter what bills pass or don't pass, public education remains the biggest enemy of objective thought and reason these days.
Are you saying that if we introduce ID to our school children, it will result in people getting killed in engineering disasters?
That line of reasoning goes kinda far, dontcha think?
It's headline English.
You know, like "English Left Waffles On Falkland Islands" and such.
> This bill ... simply promotes objective thinking about all scientific topics.
> Now that is scientific right?
No!
It would allow the Scientific Orthodoxy to be challenged!
We can't have that in a science class!
Your post is as acrimonious as it is cowardly anonymous.
But I'm not complaining.
This is Slashdot, after all, where a good sneer is almost always as good an argument as any.
Belief in Imaginary Property isn't religion?
.. "estoppel?"
I knew you could.
Read the Constitution.
Nothing in there says that a vote of the people is even required to select a President.
It's up to the states to select their electors to go to the electoral convention in whatever manner they choose.
The electoral college selects the president, not the people.
Not to worry, it's listed at Wikipedia; who needs a dictionary?
`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'
Well, there you go.
American car companies are going down the crapper because unpatriotic people like you demand quality in the things you buy, and you have no concern for the thousands of American auto workers to whom we all owe a living.
How Selfish!
Quick! Let us nationalize teh intarwebs.
That'll remove the fascism from the system!
> Free image hosting does not equal a right to free speech.
What?
You're telling me that "free image hosting" is free as in free beer, not free as in free speech?
.. lay some more "internet cables" under my street?
And probably comes in a green colored case, too!
Healthy for me and the environment!
I can hardly wait to buy one.
Morse code input.
Every laptop needs a port to hook up an iambic paddle.
> The access to MySpace was unauthorized because
> using a fake name violated the terms of service.
WTF?
Since when is violating the TOS of an online service a criminal offense?
At most, it's a civil litigation case between the online service and the user who violated the TOS.
Disclaimer: I didn't RTFA because it's slashdotted.
... ou la Mort!
> That's why I threw out my obsolete copy of Strunk and White...
You think you're being facetious don't you?