Two types of science

quote:

---

It was only an opening post, intended to be brief and readable. Your questions allow me to go into more detail about my position. I'm not saying that anything that is only observable by one human sense cannot be scientific, I'm saying that if something is observable by only one human sense, and ALSO involves millions of years in the past, hundreds of light-years away, or conflicts with the basics of Christianity or U.S. foundings, then it may become too vague to be thoroughly enough analyzed by the scientific method.

---

Marc, you're really making your agenda obvious. There's nothing about conflicting with "Christian" beliefs or the "Christian" Right's version of American origins that would make any conclusion "vague".

quote:

---

Testability and falsifiability are the two key words. They were established only to shout down the concept of Intelligent Design, so they should apply to other forms of science as well.

---

Of course, testability goes back to the origins of modern science, and falsifiability was given prominence by Karl Popper who published it in 1934. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. English publication of that work was in 1959, and even that date is well before the Intelligent Design movement gained any sort of prominence.

quote:

---

I just went to the Intelligent Design forum here, and randomly picked out three topics, and before getting very far, (6 or 7 posts) the term "Wedge Document" came up in two of them. It's seldom possible to discuss Intelligent Design without the Wedge Document becoming front and center to the whole discussion. What Weinberg said about "weakening the hold of religion" is very comparable to the wedge document, actually even more of an issue with science than the wedge document is to Intelligent Design, or any non-naturalistic worldview. I'll briefly compare them, to make that clear.

---

That would be a pretty difficult thing to show.

quote:

---

There seem to be slightly different wordings of what Steven Weinberg said, but they all pretty much say the same thing; (he probably said it several times)

​

quote:

---

I think one of the great historical contributions of science is to weaken the hold of religion. That's a good thing.

---

​

Steven Weinberg - I think one of the great historical...

---

So, an individual says that science has weakened the hold of religion and describes that as a good thing. He does not suggest that weakening the hold of religion is or even should be a goal of science. He has no more than his prestige to support him - and there are many religious scientists who would oppose him. So your evidence of any "problem" in science is pretty damn weak.

quote:

---

The Wedge Document was written by one man, Phillip Johnson, a lawyer, not a scientist. Weinberg is, of course, an award winning scientist.

---

Johnson's scientific credentials are hardly relevant His position as the leader of the Intelligent Design movement at that time would seem rather more important. Also the fact that the Wedge Document was written as an official document of the branch of the Discovery Institute that is the ore of the ID movement, describing it's aims.

quote:

---

here's no indication that Intelligent Design, has, or possibly could, succeed with its "wedge strategy" as it described.

---

That the ID movement would likely fail in its strategy hardly indicates that they were lying about their objectives. And indeed the fact that when the strategy failed, they settled for what the Wedge Document calls "indoctrination" rather than following the path of genuine science only indicates that they were MORE dedicated to their objectives than they were honesty.

quote:

---

Yet there's every indication that weakening the hold of religion really is a priority of much of the scientific community. The evidence is in the fact that there is so much metaphysical science going on in universities and even high school textbooks today.

---

I guess that - just like the last time a creationist raised the idea of "metaphysical science" here - it really is just a code for "science creationists refuse to accept."

quote:

---

Here is some more detail for you. William Dembski is a mathematician. While he doesn't directly apply the following to anything in particular, it shows anyone with an open mind that increased complexity can increase astronomically the improbability that something can happen without purpose, without any planning for future function;

---

Dembski is a creationist, and a leading light in the Intelligent Design movement. Odd how you forgot to mention that.Dembski's argument deals only with purely random assembly. We know that evolution does much better than that - and so does Dembski. So your whole point is a a strawman when talking about any supposed product of evolution.

quote:

---

As I said, he probably said it several times, turns out he did. Here's what he said at another time, in its complete context;

---

Even so, it still doesn't add up to an official document, Weinberg is not in a leadership position, and there are still very many religious scientists.

quote:

---

As we can clearly see, he intends for it to be an on-going process. There's evidence that it is. Do you have evidence of any mainstream scientists who have taken any notable action to oppose his position on this?

---

In fact we still haven't seen any evidence of anything untoward going on within science. Of course if you're referring to books written for the general public, you know perfectly well that religious scientists are writing popular level books to put their beliefs forward.

quote:

---

If anyone interested in Intelligent Design has to be tied to the Wedge Document and the Discovery Institute, does it not logically follow that anyone interested in evolution must also be tied to Darwin, Huxley, and Herbert Spencer? If not, why not? Because ID is not as old as Darwin’s following? Evolution has moved on from much of Darwin's ideas (about the simplest forms of life for example) why is ID not permitted to equally move on from the Wedge Document?

---

Of course it does not. The Discivery Institute is and always has been the centre of the ID movement. Behe, Dembski, Wells, Axe etc. are all associated with the Discovery Institute. If ID has moved on from the Discovery Institute, who are the major promoters today who are NOT associated with the Discovery Institute?

quote:

---

No, it's a code for "a political establishment of atheism", something forbidden by U.S. foundings every bit as much, if not more, than "separation of church and state".

---

By which you mean it is science you hate and lie about and wish to suppress.

quote:

---

I think everyone who has ever posted at these forums knows that. I was more focused on what he said, not who he is. There are a few things that William Provine and Richard Dawkins say that I fully agree with. It's best to concentrate on what is actually said, not poisoning wells.

---

If you want to use someone as an authority, then it is rather important to note their biases.

quote:

---

"Evolution does much better", with no purpose, and no planning? That's no different than someone trying to open a combination lock with no knowledge of the proper numbers to use.

---

Of course it isn't. And if you understood evolution at all you would know that. Dawkins explains it rather well in The Blind Watchmaker. I really suggest that you read it.

quote:

---

No, I just BUSTED a lying atheist. Sometimes it does come natural, and it's always fun. Watching you dance is fun too, but it's also rather sad.

---

Your utter contempt for the truth is one of the things that gives you away.

quote:

---

No one particular religion is permitted to be established in the U.S. Atheism has ALL the characteristics of religion. I know the standard talking point is that it's just a lack of belief, so it's not a religion.

---

But we're not talking about any establishment of atheism.I guess that someone as ignorant of ID as you wouldn't realise that one of the ID party lines is - or used to be - that it doesn't matter if scientific conclusions happen to favour their religious belief. And they're right. All they have to do is to actually follow the scientific process like everyone else. So in this instance the ID movement agrees with us, not you - the religious implications of science are irrelevant to the question of whether teaching science establishes any religion.And, of course, their is sound legal reasoning to support such a view. Indeed, all it takes is a basic understanding of the law and the facts.Then, there is also the fact that disagreeing with YOUR religious views is hardly atheism. Do you want to call Hugh Ross an atheist because he supports an old Universe and Earth ? Or William Lane Craig who tries to argue that cosmology is evidence of God ? Or Michael Behe because his views have moved so close to mainstream evolutionary science ?Can American education point out the Piltdown Man is a fraud, even though it embarrasses Scientiology ? Or to say that mountains mountains don't prevent earthquakes although it contradicts the Quran ? Or to point out that the Book or Mormon is a 19th Century fiction (when it isn't copying sections of the Bible almost verbatim) ? Or would you forbid ALL of these as an "establishment of atheism" ?And one more point:

quote:

---

"Constrained"? When it allows atheist activists like Barbara Forrest to be a board member of a group that influences public science education?

---

What an amazing non-sequitur. The fact that science is constrained in the conclusions it can reach has nothing to do with appointments to an organisation intended to support science education. If you can't address the topic at least you can avoid bringing up red herrings and trying to confuse the issue. That would be the honest thing to do.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.