hooah writes:
Given the influx of IDists/creationists touting a separate form of science and differentiating between "secular" science and "ID/creation science", I propose they provide us with some experiments that would be in accordance with said "ID/creation science".
All that is required would be something that any one of us could do at home with household materials, as there are hundreds of thousands of "secular" experiments we can do.
Given the influx of IDists/creationists touting a separate form of science and differentiating between "secular" science and "ID/creation science", I propose they provide us with some experiments that would be in accordance with said "ID/creation science".
All that is required would be something that any one of us could do at home with household materials, as there are hundreds of thousands of "secular" experiments we can do.
Here is a site that is full of simple experiments that anyone can do: science is FUN DAMMIT!
My main goal for this is to get the anti-science crowd to appreciate what science is and for them to stop thinking that it is something out to get them.
BarackZero responds:
I scarcely know where to begin to respond, since you have packed so much disinformation and spin into so compact a space.
There is no "separate form of science," as you claim.
The origin of the word "science" is the Latin word, scientia, meaning "knowledge." In this context, "knowledge" means an appreciation, an understanding of reality, of truth. What passes in one era for "knowledge" or science has been overturned countless times in the past. So we see that scientia, or science, has long been transitory.
Lord Kelvin, then president of the Royal Society, famously declared in about 1899 that "heavier than air flight is impossible for humans."
This was science's absolute best. Dissenters would of course have been ridiculed there as they are here on EvC.
A scant eight years later, Lord Kelvin's "science" was overturned by two bicycle mechanics, whose credentials would have been cause for mocking and scorn and laughter by, oh Omnivorous, to name but one.
Then there is your remark directed at the "anti-science crowd."
Yes, and aren't THEY/WE "ignorant." Why would a group so profoundly scientific and intellectual as this even allow dullards to enter, if not for the jolly sport they offered all of you as you skewer them relentlessly, if only by putting your words in THEIR/OUR mouths, as you did with "anti-science".
I propose these experiments for Darwinists:
1. Try to read and think about what others say here at EvC, for a change. It's scientific. It's courteous. It demonstrates a tolerance that is exceedingly rare for groups such as this.
2. Don't be condescending, and hateful, here or elsewhere. I doubt that even half of you can live up to such a standard. It would take your help and support, and that would require courage. You would have to stand up to all your Darwinist pals, and I have yet to see such an event, anywhere.
3. Since Darwinists trivialize statistics solely in order to defend the indefensible position demanded by The Theory, please shuffle a deck of cards thoroughly, at least 8 times. You can even do this in your mind if you wish, it's so very simple. Now lay out the entire deck sequentially on the table and count the number of tries it takes you to get ace through king of clubs, followed by ace through king of diamonds, followed by ace through king of hearts, followed by ace through king of spades. Note that these are ordered from lowest to highest (in the style of lowball poker) and alphabetical order.
It is said to be oh so simple, because, after all, this sequence is "just as probable as any other." Only it ISN'T any other. Let that sole, unique card sequence be representative of an amino acid sequence in a polypeptide. Nothing else will work. Nothing.
Assume that some polypeptide of 200 components in length would require a similar number of shuffled attempts to achieve, i.e. randomly. Oh but they're not "random" except to the extent of random mutations. I know, I know.
Now for each stage where a precursor is "selected" through the sieve you all know so very well, please provide some plausible use for that intermediary. What does it do to help the organism survive better? Each step requires this function - this survival mechanism.
So name them, however many thousands that will be.
Those are your experiments. Won't that be fun science!
™ Version 4.2
