Buzsaw writes:
If I had my druthers, science classes should have the freedom to apply all of the evidence supportive to ID, including that evidence which conventional science disallows.
As Coyote and Modulous noted, but then it wouldn't be science anymore, would it.
The
Opening Post of this thread is excellent and well worth a read. It provides three examples of theories that took time to gain acceptance within the scientific community: continental drift, dark matter, and mitochondrial origins. Acceptance was gained by doing more and more research and gathering more and more evidence and publishing that evidence in more and more scientific papers in the scientific literature.
Approaches to gaining acceptance that were notable by their absence:
- They did not lobby school boards and legislatures to teach their theories in public schools.
- They did not conspire and plan ways to change public perception of their theory.
- They did not hold seminars and debates to promote their theory to the public.
Intelligent Design is not science. If it were science you wouldn't be forced to propose changes to the definition of science so that it could squeeze in.
I could claim my cats are dogs and that it's just bias and pigheadedness that has caused the definition of
dog to exclude my cats. And I could keep saying it over and over again in thread after thread while ignoring all the patient explanations for how wrongheaded this would be, each time bringing it up as if it had never been discussed before and telling myself that there must really be something true about what I'm saying, else why would people still be discussing it after all this time.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Major misexpression corrected.
™ Version 4.2
