One small step for science...maybe?

So, I read an article today concerning Obama over
turning the Bush stem cell policy.I'm not so much interested in the fact that stem cell research is getting some government funding, finally! - Or that Obama overturned it. My interest is with Obamas support for science, and his direct mention of the removal of ideologies from science. The Article; "Obama overturns Bush policy on Stem CellThis particular quote is of interest:

quote:

---

"Promoting science isn't just about providing resources, it is also about protecting free and open inquiry," Obama said. "It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient especially when it's inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology."

---

Does anyone feel that ID, during this administration, will not be as influential or boisterous, at the very least in the publics eye, but at the most in our educational system?*PS. I miss Buz Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Which media outlets do you feel will support them? I agree, but I don't even think they'll get the forum to do so. Not much sympathy for those guys(ID) outside of the far conservative right.Maybe Fox News?

I would classify Cicero as a person of great intelligence during a time of great ignorance. Yes, and eventually Newton and Einstein did just that. No "nature destined of intellect and reason" required, just plane ole, non-intelligent gravitational forces.I understand Ciceros' argument from incredulity, but yours, in this day and age, seems a bit outdated.- Oni

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

No.What do you think science presupposes...? Science isn't a "thing" that thinks for itself. You may be right that you can't remove certain ideologies from people working in science, this is precisely the point with IDers, but science as an institution holds to no world view or ideology. The point was that they WON'T change if the stay closed minded.- Oni

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Science is an institution built on the study of nature, there are no "presupposed" conditions to it. Within it, the methods are tried and tested, those that give results are kept, those that prove to be ineffective are discarded. The results speak for themselves. No it does not. This is your take on it. There are NO "thuths" in science, there are only tentative explanations to natural phenomena. The method checks for the errors, again, those that prove to be ineffective in explaining the phenomenon are replaced by those theories that better explain it - like Einsteinian physics replaced Newtonian physics.The results speak for themselves. Absolutly. However, if they are wrong they are wrong. No matter what their ideologies are. No. IDist stick to their individual ideologies in direct contradiction of the evidence. If they actually had a point to make they would have already made it. But they haven't, and they won't, for the simply reason that they cannot apply their ideologies to science and judge the evidence on that basis. They are wrong an continue to lack the evidence to prove otherwise. Wrong. He, like every other physicist - with some exeptions - believed the universe was static, not "eternal".The universe may very well still be eternal. No he didn't. He was simply working his equations under the impression that space was static.You are adding these additional opinions on your own. No. This "blunder" was due to the fact that Einstein was working under the impression that space was static.HOWEVER, as was pointed out to you by Perdition, it was the very same scientific method that expossed his mistakes, the method you stated doesn't prove itself right. Yet it did in this very case.So here you have an example of one of the greatest scientist making a mistake and, by applying the scientific method to his work, he was shown to be wrong. Did we continue on with the belief that the universe was not expanding? No. The theory was changed to incorporate the new evidence. The method works. Of course it makes a difference. Einstein was wrong, right? No physicist thinks the universe is not expanding, right? Did anyone stick to their guns and say "screw what you guys think, I'm going with a non-expanding universe 'cause Einstein has a specific ideology"...? No. It was changed, period.It makes a difference because his ideologies have no impact on where the evidence points to, as shown by the current cosmological model in which we have an expanding universe. The evidence shows that their "world view" is wrong, they don't go where the evidence points to because they'd rather believe in their particular ideological opinions rather than admit to their mistakes - like Einstein did. There are plenty of threads on this site for you to debate whether or not the evidence points to design, as of now though you remain silent in those threads. If you have evidence show it, or admit that you have none. Either way, this is not the thread for it.This thread is about the removal of ideological opinions from science as the basis for proper science.- Oni

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky