?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Eroticdreambattle [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Tony Grist

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Futile [Dec. 13th, 2006|01:49 pm]
Tony Grist
I've been on a message board where Darwinists and Creationists were slugging it out. Ouch, ouch, ouch!

Such dogmatism- on both sides.  But, as one of the posters pointed out, Darwinism is a scientific theory and Intelligent Design is a philosophical theory. They belong in different disciplines. 

It's as if one team turned up for the match in football strip and the other team in cricket whites.
linkReply

Comments:
From: frsimon
2006-12-13 08:24 pm (UTC)
You will get into some very muddy water with theoretical physics if you claim that all 'science' has to be (directly?) testable.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2006-12-14 11:05 am (UTC)
I'm out of my depth here. But presumably even the most far-fetched of theories in physics has to be backed-up with testable mathematics.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: frsimon
2006-12-14 12:07 pm (UTC)
Ah, but mathematics needn't be *empirically* testable need it?

My basic point here is that ID is, as its proponents claim, a scientific theory. It is, however, a crap one. And unless children are to be taught fringe theories about everything in science classes, it seems arbitrary to insist they should be taught this one.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2006-12-14 09:34 pm (UTC)
I'm inclined to think that "crap science" is a contradiction in terms.

But we're in basic agreement on the most important thing. ID- however you want to classify it- has no place in the science class.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)