(If you want on or off this list please freepmail me.)
Hank
And the philosophers I read on these threads seem always to be whining about science, and how it has passed them by:
"Please pay attention to us! We were here first! Please, oh pretty please, pay some attention to us."And science keeps on doing what it is best at, which is figuring out how things work.
You go ahead and unscrew the inscrutable, or gaze at your naval or whatever. I'll stick to science.
It is the idea that all viewpoints are equally valid.
Neither Coyoteman (AFAIK) or I embrace that viewpoint.
Your “medical professional” (i.e. a nurse) who is a “degreed geneticist” (what pray tell is her degree? And what is her degree in?) is nothing better than an ILL educated layman. Her essay was full of basic and fundamental errors right from the beginning.
It is Post-modernism to suggest that her viewpoint is just as valid as the view of actual experts in the field (you know people who arn’t afraid to actually state their qualifications).
And everything in Science is only provisionally true, awaiting further data. It is one of the fundamental underpinnings of Science; we like to call it “falsification”. Without it Science would be dogma and there could be no Scientific advancement.
Your argument, as with most Creationists/”cdesign proponentists”, is with Science; Not with either Coyoteman or I. And it is YOUR view that is a liberal postmodern ‘a layman's ill educated view (without any supporting evidence that was not fundamentally incorrect) is just as valid as the evidence supported view of actual experts in the field.”
So what qualifications does this nurse have? Or is their view “just as valid” - without actually stating any qualifications other than “degreed” and “medical provisional”? How very postmodern of you to suggest that it is so.
And my condescension was based entirely upon the writers shoddy understanding of the subject, not their supposed (and unstated in specifics) “qualifications”.
Keep me on...