And we are discussing science on this thread. I have yet to see you give any type of scientific argument against evolution. I hope you didn't impress yourself too much with this great *point*.
***You picked up on that very well, congratulations. I am trying to stay away from the scientific end of this argument for the same reason that I stayed away for 7 years: It's too acrimonious, requires too much time/knowledge/digging/etc, and I see very little ROI for myself. If you folks are discussing science on this thread, please ask me to leave. But I see "shoulds" and social policy opinions expressed here, so we'll need to ask those people, in all fairness, to leave. And, yikes, isn't this a political discussion forum? If you guys want to discuss science, go have a science party at a science discssion website and then you can rip guys like me to shreds if we wander over there.
Because if you are going to attack a theory, it makes sense to actually talk about the theories specifics?
***I'm leaving that to others for the time being. They seem to be doing an admirable job. I trust that GWB consulted some pretty high falutin sources when he made up his mind on this social policy issue, and when it came down to brass tacks with those scientists & he asked them about what they really do know & don't know and whether this is a supposition/guess/philosophical position, they couldn't just give him the brushoff that I see has happened on these threads in the past.
Are you going to actually attempt to address evolution or are you content to blow smoke out your butt?
***I guess you're stuck with smoke, sorry about that. I would love to discuss social policy and politics in this here, ahem, POLITICAL forum, but if all you can come up with is basic ridicule that proves you're a true holy warrior for your chosen belief system, you lose all those sincere lurkers that have so much say in our social policies. So, keep 'em coming, eventually you'll realize that, they do your side more harm than you really intended in the beginning.
"And it is those people who vote in guys who determine social policy." Which is why we want to stop that trend and support science over creationism.
***Oh, cool, some social policy to discuss. Let me get this straight, you want to "stop that trend" which is that those people who don't ostensibly know a molecule have started? Is that not an open admission that you are trying to indoctrinate the next generation?
So because most people are ignorant we need to follow them?
***Wow, you folks really are slow on the uptake, aren't you? Don't you see a HUGE opportunity here? The opportunity to have a big scientific, open and honest discussion with the public about origins? To answer your question, the simple fact is, yes, you need to follow what the ignorant masses dictate because scientists depend on these folks for their tax-based funding and the ignorant happen to be in charge for the time being. But maybe these ignorant people aren't so ignorant after all, just maybe the fine structure constant isn't a constant and there is evidence for what they believe.
Do YOU want people who don't know what a molecule is deciding what the science curriculum is?
***Answering a question with a question, interesting. So, should I do the thing where I say, "I'll answer your question if you'll answer mine?" Or should I just try to move the discussion forward? hmmmmm... Ok, I'll answer your question, feel free for the sake of those honest and genuine lurkers, to IGNORE my question. The answer is, no, I don't WANT such people deciding what the science curriculum is, but I ACCEPT that such people are, I AGREE with them on a philosophical level, I SEE some of the same problems with this theory that they see, and I THINK that there could be some good science that results from all of this discussion and exercise. The social policy implications are fascinating. SHOULD we let Astrologers into Astronomy classes? At what point is a fun pursuit a pseudoscience? From all the evidence I've looked at on both sides, I do not think that ID rises to the same level of pseudoscience that Astrology does. So, what should be the critera for establishing that something is a pseudoscience? I happen to think that when one of my professors bloviated about haps-based evolution, she was crossing the same kind of line.
Science doesn't deal with the spiritual....
It's not a cop-out, its a fact.
***Baloney. There are OBVIOUS implications to the TOE/Abio stuff. Head in the sand doesn't work here. The science folks either pony up to the bar and admit what their theory has such implications and deal with it or the rest of those lurkers will continue to pass social policy positions that make no sense to you.
Name ONE scientific theory that uses supernatural, non-material causes. Just one.
***I don't know what you're saying here. Is it even necessary for purposes of social policy discussion? I doubt it.
And as I said, theories don't rise or fall on polls from people who don't know what a molecule is.
***Of course, the THEORIES don't rise or fall, but when it comes to giving professors money so that they can teach my kids a soulless philosophy, I and 2/3 of the public draw the line and say, "No More." We need to see more benefit to this society from this philosophical pursuit that you're engaged in. I'd rather have an ignorant child who has the ability to make excellent moral progress than a brilliant amoral scientist.