Speculation about events of millions of years ago...
No, studying the evidence left by events from millions of years ago to see what we can learn from that evidence.
...ruling out anything but naturalism for all of reality — in what is supposed to be an objective, publicly required/established subject.
Where in the world did you ever get the notion that science rules out anything but naturalism? Science doesn't say everything is the product of naturalistic processes (although some scientists might think so as a matter of personal belief). Science simply restricts itself to the study of natural processes, because that's the only thing that we can observe repeatably.
You really don't know anything about science, do you?
Not peer reviewed you say? Why do you insist on peer review — where do you see peer review as something that the public specifies, or even seriously considers?
...
As Thomas Sowell put into words very concisely; People who are very aware that they have more knowledge than the average person are often very unaware that they do not have one-tenth of the knowledge of all the average persons put together.
That's why peer review. Any scientist can make a mistake. Usually unintentionally, but occasionally intentionally. Peer review decreases the odds that a mistake of either kind will be missed. Findings must be reviewed by other people, knowledgeable in the field, who are specifically looking for mistakes, trying to prove that something is wrong. That's why peer review.
And what the public relies on is quite irrelevant. Most of the public know very little about science and how it's conducted. A great many people may
think that they do, but much of what the public thinks about science is wrong. I'm sure you'll think that sounds elite or something, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.
"Origin Of Species" wasn't peer reviewed.
Science has come a long way in 150 years, and believe it or not,
On the Origin of Species has been effectively peer reviewed millions of times since its publication.
Peer review seems to be for science what the courts are to Democrats — the judge/jury said this, so that trumps everything that a much larger group of people thinks.
Wonderful little bit of demagoguery there, Abbot. But your insecurity notwithstanding, the fact of the matter is that those who are educated in the law and in science actually
do know more about those fields than those who aren't. It's really rather silly for you to suggest otherwise. And your apparent position that we should rely on millions of uneducated opinions over a several thousand educated ones seems staggeringly irrational to me.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a
naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for
magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
™ Version 4.2
