Two types of science

Ooh look, the fundies have made something else evil! That's a new one, isn't it? Pretty soon everything will be "morally troublesome" except tithing and voting Republican.

Percy is a conspiracy all by himself? Cool. Can we all be collective nouns? I'll be a cabal, RAZD can be an association of like-minded individuals, and you can be an angry mob.

We can see what actually happened, and that it has nothing to do with your dishonest ravings. In particular we can see that AZPaul's post clearly referred to "the rest of the site". And everyone reading this thread can see that. You're not going to deceive anyone, marc.Why do you lie when you know that you're going to get caught? Perhaps your peculiar religion has deprived you of all moral scruples about lying, but doesn't the absolute certainty of being caught trouble you?

Why do you say he's not a YEC? It seems unlikely.

No, no. Get it right. They actually conflict with the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. Didn't they teach you anything at clown school?

Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be

Why is it wrong to draw conclusions based on the evidence? If we could see evidence for ID through a telescope --- or by any other means, for that matter --- would you be demanding that we not draw any conclusions from it on the grounds that we can't smell the evidence?One standard is good enough for me and the scientific community. Humans are capable of smugly making assertions about a whole lot of stuff, it's one of the specialties of our species. Astronomers are especially good at it, 'cos of having evidence and being right. That paragraph needs a bit of work doing on it. Such as setting fire to it, burying its ashes in an unmarked grave at midnight, and writing something else entirely.

I see. Scientists look at ID, say it's crap. Therefore, you reason, "corruption" must be involved, or they'd have thought it was superwonderful with extra fantastic on top.You know every crank thinks that about his pet hypothesis, right? But in fact it usually turns out that it is crap. In this particular case, when even Behe himself can see flaws in his arguments, there's no need to invoke corruption to explain why everyone else with a functioning brain can see 'em too.---Here, take a look at this guy. See how dumb those scientists are, telling him how his perpetual motion machine won't work? Tut, such ignorant, arrogant, self-deluded, inadequate scientists we have. Tsk tsk. Either that he's an idiot, an idea which apparently has yet to cross his mind.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This is exactly why atheism should be, and is, treated as though it were a religion for all purposes of interpreting the First Amendment. However, it has nothing to do with your previous bizarre claims. Science allows all sorts of people to join all sorts of pressure groups. It allows Presbyterians to join the NRA, Zen Buddhists to join the Sierra Club, and Shi'ite Muslims to join PETA. Being an abstraction, science could hardly prevent it. What does that have to do with anything?

So there you have it. Cosmology violates the First Amendment because science does not prevent Barbara Forrest, an atheist, from sitting on the board of a non-profit organisation.Possibly at some point marc will tie this in to how we can't smell distant galaxies, but I'm already feeling way enlightened by the luminosity of his intellect, how 'bout you?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

To the Smell-O-Scope!

Marc is responding to an imaginary statement made by a fictional person in The Onion. It hardly seems worth engaging him on this point.

The fact that he was in favor of freedom of conscience doesn't mean that he was especially religious. So am I, and I'm especially irreligious. In fact atheists often seem keener on freedom of conscience than religious people.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

We did this, remember.