Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science


TomS wrote:
> "On 6 Dec 2005 22:16:17 -0800, in article
> <1133936177.157007.320830@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, topmind stated..."
> >
> >CreateThis wrote:
> >> topmind wrote:
> >>
> >> > How is mentioning and then debunking ID in a science book "religious
> >> > dogma"?
> >>
> >> Glad you asked. ID is not bad science. It's not any kind of science.
> >> It's a political campaign to insert religious indoctrination into public
> >> schools.
> >
> >Something should not be ranked more or less science based on the bias
> >of proponents. That would turn the science metric into a useless soap
> >opera. I am not budging on that point. I have no reason to. One has to
> >be clinical when they approach science, trying not to be swayed by
> >political issues and ego contests.
> [...snip...]
>
> That was a statement about the nature of ID, not about its
> proponents.
>
> ID is not science.
>
> ID is a social/political/religious movement.
>
> To point out this is not to say anything about the advocates
> of ID or their motivation, it is only an observation about what
> manner of thing ID is.
>
> ID can be seen to have very little of the characteristics of
> science - or of any other theory or substantive matter - and to
> have many of the characteristics of a campaign or a movement.


MU. How would you compare it to MU with regard to the nature of
obtaining evidence?

MU has been *treated* as a scientific hypothesis for quite a while.
Either this treatment is in error, or you need to rethink your
classification of ID.


>
> Some of the most honored people have participated in social
> movements, and some base people have been scientists. There is no
> shame attached to participating in a social movement or in not
> doing science.
>
> Of course, you are free to dispute this characterization of
> ID. One way of doing that would be to tell us what the theory of
> ID is, or how ID has prospects of developing as an investigation,
> or something which has been found out beyond the original claim
> of "intelligent design";

> or some characters that ID has in common
> with sciences or which it does not share with social/political/religious
> movements.
>


MU = Multi-universe hypoth. using the Anthropic Principle.


> ---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>

-T-

.

Relevant Pages
Loading