On The Limits of Human Talent

There are other ways of gaining knowledge concerning science in two ways; 1) in contributing to determinations about what science is, and 2) contributing to determinations of how society should react to scientific findings. The scientific community should have a minor contribution to both of those things, but not a major one, because it is a special interest.

The fact that I was outside for a while today and about froze my ass off, just as I have every November for the past half century. Then I combine that with the recent political events, like the fact that "global warming" is largely an outdated term. The more hip term today is "climate change", that doubles the pleasure for scientists and Democrats. They can call for political restrictions no matter if they show evidence for warming, or if new evidence is found for global cooling.

Yes, I'm still going to defend it. Not necessarily God's word as I understand it, but any (western world) god.

Well, I did a little sleuthing around the internet as you suggested, and here's the summary of the uselessness of Intelligent Design at a link that I quickly found, which goes along perfectly with what I remember seeing in discussions many times before in the past 8 or 9 years;

So concerning something like deep space "exploration", would the general public have a different opinion than the scientific community on just how useless it is?

I don't think deep space exploration tells us anything about this natural world, because it's not testable, and not falsifiable, and is not part of this world.

That's debatable, but it's also too far off topic here IMO. It can make comparable, if not better, predictions than can deep space telescope gazing.

Yes. I've seen the claim in this thread that we couldn't do all of our oil exploration etc. without the knowledge that the earth is billions of years old. I don't know why not. We don't need to be atheists to be able to dig.

I'm beginning to see a pattern form, we'll see if it continues. If those who post here in any way represent the scientific community, it seems that actual history, whether it be from 2000 years ago, or 10 years ago, means nothing to them. I could tell you more about how science predicted we'd run out of oil by [about] 1950, or how science predicted we'd have mass starvation by the year 2000 if we didn't take drastic measures to curb population growth, but it would be from memory of printed information that I've seen in the past, some of it before there was a such thing as the www. It's factual, but if I can't document it for you, you don't believe it, or think that it can be revised to suit science's needs. It is what it is, it can't be undone from history, no matter how much the scientific community tries to kid itself, or school children, that it can.

I just want to point out that just because you cannot handle hearing other opinions does not imply that no one can. My youth leader from my time in a Catholic Church has purchased and read Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens and yet she is still a practicing Catholic. The reason she purchased and read these books is because she knows what she believes and is not afraid to read other information. You, on the other hand, have made up your mind and shoved your head into the sand to avoid reading any further information that may disagree with your worldview.

When I say there are other ways of gaining knowledge besides science, I'm saying that other sources can be involved on how to best use science, to best apply it to benefit the society that funds it.

You're right, it's only somewhat on-topic here. I think it could be discussed here, but all this atheist rage has wrecked this thread. I could propose a new thread, but it would just turn into a gang-banging like this one. I could propose a one-on-one with anyone who wanted to do it, but I've proposed about 5 one-on-one's here in my few years of membership, and seen nothing but asses and elbows each time. The latest proposal for a one-on-one with to "Pressie" just a few weeks ago, and I got a PM indicating her decline, complete with a dirty word she just had to use to describe me.A one-on-one would probably be possible now, each poster here has a lot of confidence considering all the support they would undoubtedly have, and there would surely be a "peanut gallery" thread along side any one-on-one that I'm involved in, with a raging hatred towards me, and nothing but praise and love for my opponent, no matter what they were saying. I'm just not interested, it's not the best use of my time.

You italicized the word "useful", implying that I made that word up. So I showed you where is was used as a weapon against Intelligent Design, used in such a way that claimed that Intelligent Design had to prove itself useful to be science. It helps show the double standard against Intelligent Design. Then we see this dance;that Intelligent Design is useless as science, meaning that is incapable of extending our knowledge of the natural world. It's definitely not saying that ID isn't science because something has be useful (meaning of practical use) before it can be considered science.
I'm getting tired of atheist dances.I explained how you're confusing two different contexts using the word "useless", Dr Adequate explained it, Shalamabobbi explained it, PaulK explained it, yet you continue merrily along with the same confusion - what is wrong with you?
Maybe that I'm getting REALLY tired of atheist dances.

Not what I said. I said that science should avoid seeking information about testing God only when that science is acting in the public interest. If science wants to start its own private enterprise, like "The Atheist Research Institute, or "Answers in Atheism", then that privately funded organization can practice all the atheist searches it wants.

You'd have to understand what a test is. You don't test something by just doing the same thing over and over again. Something is tested when it's looked at from a different perspective, and results compared with those of the first perspective. If we subtract 71 from 99 and get 28, we don't subtract 71 from 99 again, get 28 again, and say "hey my test PROVED that my first result was correct". We ADD 28 to 71 and see if we get 99. That's a simple summary of the way testing is done in science, that type of testing was/is demanded of Intelligent Design. It's not possible to test in any meaningful way concerning deep space exploration, because we're only using on one human sense (sight) and we're only looking through telescopes, that all work the same way. Nothing is actually being tested in deep space exploration. Stronger telescopes mean little, concerning testing.

In the same way, evolution can be used to "explain anything", because there is an unknown process (the origin of life) that as of yet, isn't constrained by anything understood in science.

The time was not wasted at all. I've seen the amazing immaturity, the lack of knowledge of other subjects, the almost total link with political liberalism from scientific community leaders, and their followers. The rage, the emotion, from the atheists on this thread makes them look good, according to you? I think I've seen it all. How about if the atheists here took some high school coursework on history, past tyrannies of the world, how the U.S. government was formed, what the intent of the framers actually was?
_____________________________________It's been fun, most of the atheist rage on this thread has come from the perpetual nervousness about the clear double standards the scientific community has. It set up entrance requirements just out of the reach of Intelligent Design, then doesn't apply them to anything else it wants to study. It gets by with it to a large extent, but the questioning of it isn't going to go away, and as time goes by, it may become harder and harder for them to dance their way out of.If there's one thing this thread clearly shows, it's that science/atheism/liberalism DOES NOT CONCEDE POINTS. It is as closed minded as any religion it criticizes.