Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

2nd KU class denies status of science to design theory
Lawrence Journal-World ^ | Sunday, November 27, 2005 | Sophia Maines

Posted on 11/28/2005 6:54:46 AM PST by Right Wing Professor

Intelligent design — already the planned subject of a controversial Kansas University seminar this spring — will make its way into a second KU classroom in the fall, this time labeled as a “pseudoscience.”

In addition to intelligent design, the class Archaeological Myths and Realities will cover such topics as UFOs, crop circles, extrasensory perception and the ancient pyramids.

John Hoopes, associate professor of anthropology, said the course focused on critical thinking and taught how to differentiate science and “pseudoscience.” Intelligent design belongs in the second category, he said, because it cannot be tested and proven false.

“I think this is very important for students to be articulate about — they need to be able to define and recognize pseudoscience,” Hoopes said.

News of the new class provided fresh fuel to conservatives already angered that KU planned to offer a religious studies class this spring on intelligent design as “mythology.”

“The two areas that KU is trying to box this issue into are completely inappropriate,” said Brian Sandefur, a mechanical engineer in Lawrence who has been a vocal proponent of intelligent design.

Intelligent design is the idea that life is too complex to have evolved without a “designer,” presumably a god or other supernatural being. That concept is at the heart of Kansas’ new public school science standards — greatly ridiculed by the mainstream science community but lauded by religious conservatives — that critique the theory of evolution.

Hoopes said his class would be a version of another course, titled Fantastic Archaeology, which he helped develop as a graduate student at Harvard University.

The course will look at the myths people have created to explain mysterious occurrences, such as crop circles, which some speculate were caused by extraterrestrials.

The course will explore how myth can be created to negative effects, as in the case of the “myth of the moundbuilders.” In early American history, some people believed the earthen mounds found primarily in the area of the Ohio and Mississippi river valleys were the works of an ancient civilization destroyed by American Indians. The myth contributed to the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which relocated American Indians east of the Mississippi to lands in the west, Hoopes said.

“It was that popular explanation that then became a cause for genocide,” Hoopes said.

That example shows the need to identify pseudoscience, he said.

“What I’m trying to do is deal with pseudoscience regardless of where it’s coming from,” he said.

But Sandefur said intelligent design was rooted in chemistry and molecular biology, not religion, and it should be discussed in science courses.

“The way KU is addressing it I think is completely inadequate,” he said.

Hoopes said he hoped his class stirs controversy. He said students liked to discuss topics that are current and relevant to their lives.

“Controversy makes people think,” he said. “The more controversy, the stronger the course is.”


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; US: Kansas
KEYWORDS: crevolist; evofreaks; evolution; highereducation; idiocy; ignoranceisstrength; ku; pseudoscience; science; scienceeducation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 751-754 next last
Kudos to the KU faculty for fighting back against encroaching theocracy.
1 posted on 11/28/2005 6:54:47 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Now there are two ways to learn about Intelligent Design at KU: ID as mythology, and now ID as pseudoscience! But I betcha some IDers will still not be satisfied!


2 posted on 11/28/2005 6:56:11 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

ID belongs in a Comparative Religion class.


3 posted on 11/28/2005 6:59:29 AM PST by Mikey_1962
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Doctor Stochastic; js1138; Shryke; RightWhale; ...
Evolution Ping

The List-O-Links
A conservative, pro-evolution science list, now with over 320 names.
See the list's explanation, then FReepmail to be added or dropped.
To assist beginners: But it's "just a theory", Evo-Troll's Toolkit,
and How to argue against a scientific theory.

4 posted on 11/28/2005 7:02:20 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Expect no response if you're a troll, lunatic, dotard, or incurable ignoramus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Wish I could take this course and Fantastic Archaeology but it seems to me that differentiating between science and psuedoscience is better taught by a philosopher than an archaeologist.
5 posted on 11/28/2005 7:03:25 AM PST by Varda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
".......the course focused on critical thinking [teaches] how to differentiate science and “pseudoscience.” Intelligent design belongs in the second category, he said, because it cannot be tested and proven false........."

Super! The ID/Creationist conspiracy theory finally finds some usefulness.

6 posted on 11/28/2005 7:05:14 AM PST by DoctorMichael (The Fourth-Estate is a Fifth-Column!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Varda
differentiating between science and psuedoscience is better taught by a philosopher than an archaeologist.

What do philosophers know about either? You get a good archaeologist and you'll do just fine.

Coyoteman (an archaeologist)

7 posted on 11/28/2005 7:13:18 AM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

Now don't you think "theocracy" is somewhat of an overstatement, Professor?


8 posted on 11/28/2005 7:14:47 AM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

They already are. It has been recently reported (in the K.C. area media) that the ID proponents are more upset than ever that it is being taught as a myhtology (along with other religions' doctrines of earth/species origins).


9 posted on 11/28/2005 7:14:55 AM PST by flushed with pride
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

“Controversy makes people think,” he said. “The more controversy, the stronger the course is.”

He's teaching the "controversy". I was under the impression this is what the IDers wanted.

10 posted on 11/28/2005 7:16:43 AM PST by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
Now don't you think "theocracy" is somewhat of an overstatement, Professor?

Not at all. I think it describes the situation in Kansas accurately. The sectarian views of a particular religious group are being imposed on the whole community.

11 posted on 11/28/2005 7:21:03 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ml1954

Exactly right.

Intelligent design emerged with the work of biochemists such as Michael Behe.

But science is the one curriculum that apparently is not helped by controversy. Students must learn the absolute dogma of Darwin. Randomness is the ONLY possible explanation for the complexity of life.

Science will absolutely collapse and be destroyed if intelligent design is even mentioned as an alternative viewpoint. No amount of hyperbole is too much in defending science from these crusaders.


12 posted on 11/28/2005 7:24:50 AM PST by lonestar67
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

What religious group would that be?


13 posted on 11/28/2005 7:27:07 AM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67

LOL. Love the way you think.


14 posted on 11/28/2005 7:27:54 AM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67
"Intelligent design emerged with the work of biochemists such as Michael Behe."

It's actually over 2 thousand years old.

"Randomness is the ONLY possible explanation for the complexity of life."

Natural selection is the opposite of random.

"Science will absolutely collapse and be destroyed if intelligent design is even mentioned as an alternative viewpoint."

It will be weakened if nonphysical, supernatural explanations are taught as science.
15 posted on 11/28/2005 7:31:48 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
In addition to intelligent design, the class Archaeological Myths and Realities will cover such topics as UFOs, crop circles, extrasensory perception and the ancient pyramids.

Most of these disciplines are defended in the same way, wearing bizarre blinders. They all employ "cafeteria" science, appeal to oppression by The Vast Conspiracy To Suppress The Truth, and an implied license to lie, cheat, and steal to make a point. The association makes sense to me. A pseudoscience cult is a pseudoscience cult.

16 posted on 11/28/2005 7:33:36 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
What religious group would that be?

Fundamentalist Christianity. But you knew that.

17 posted on 11/28/2005 7:35:34 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67
Students must learn the absolute dogma of Darwin. Randomness is the ONLY possible explanation for the complexity of life.

You could learn a little about evolution yourself. Certainly, if you think it's driven by randomness, you are seriously misinformed.

18 posted on 11/28/2005 7:36:53 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

The controversy is really between Christian culture and the homosexual agenda. Choose your side!


19 posted on 11/28/2005 7:42:24 AM PST by Blake#1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blake#1
The controversy is really between Christian culture and the homosexual agenda.

BWAHAHAHA!

(That was a joke, right?)

20 posted on 11/28/2005 7:43:30 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67
Intelligent design emerged with the work of biochemists such as Michael Behe.

Actually, Behe's contribution pretty much boils down to coming up with a definition for "irreducible complexity" that doesn't really apply to the natural world and then claiming that because the Theory of Evolution didn't jibe with his arbitrary and capricious definition, it was clearly the Theory of Evolution that is wrong.

21 posted on 11/28/2005 7:47:56 AM PST by RogueIsland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RogueIsland

Don't forget Behe's other contribution: Selling lots of books. His publisher loves him.


22 posted on 11/28/2005 7:50:10 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Now there are two ways to learn about Intelligent Design at KU: ID as mythology, and now ID as pseudoscience!

I admire the approach they have chosen; rather than "freezing out" ID (which then gives it's proponents more ammunition for their PR onslaught) they instead are shining a bright light of scrutiny on it, revealing its many flaws and deficiencies as it poses as "science."

The IDers are learning first hand the meaning of the adage: "Be careful what you wish for -- you might just get it!" They demanded ID be allowed into the curriculum, and now, by God, they are going to get it, good and hard!

I think more schools should follow suit; it would be like putting a stake through the heart of a vampire!

23 posted on 11/28/2005 7:58:40 AM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

Great! That's my favorite theocracy!


24 posted on 11/28/2005 7:59:10 AM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; Varda
Varda:differentiating between science and psuedoscience is better taught by a philosopher than an archaeologist.

Coyoteman What do philosophers know about either? You get a good archaeologist and you'll do just fine.

Actually, a good magician may be your best bet.

25 posted on 11/28/2005 8:00:22 AM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

I think the distinction between science and pseudoscience has do with certain axioms that are best explored in philosophical mode not to mention explaining the making of logical arguments.

"What do philosophers know about either?"

OK What did Karl Popper know about either?


26 posted on 11/28/2005 8:04:24 AM PST by Varda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RogueIsland

Irreducible complexity is a concept that is probably dominant in science rather than exceptional.

Almost all science done today demonstrates that events that appear to be accidental have causes. Forensics medicine is a simple example.

I have no personal disagreement with evolutionary biology as a study but I do reject the outrageous censorship of scientiests such as Behe. Students should be able to access the controversies of evolution rather than be dogmatically told that all questioners are practicing pseudo science.


27 posted on 11/28/2005 8:05:07 AM PST by lonestar67
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

You have chosen your side, I have my side! Let the "game" begin!


28 posted on 11/28/2005 8:06:28 AM PST by Blake#1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67

Science education will be destroyed if something that is not science is presented as science. If schoolchildren are incorrectly taught that ID is a scientific theory, it will directly contradict the whole concept of what science is. We are already falling behind other countries in the number of kids who are concentrating in math, science, engineering, etc. Corrupting the whole idea of what's science and what isn't won't help that at all.


29 posted on 11/28/2005 8:08:27 AM PST by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67
No, none of that will happen.

ID "just ain't science"

In the same manner, one could teach numerology in math class, astrology in Astronomy class or Ancient Chinese dialects in English Class. However, astrology ain't astronomy, numerology ain't math, Ancient Chinese dialects ain't English, and ID ain't science.

It's that simple - nothing to do with fear, dogma or the entire civilized world collapsing.

WAAAY to much drama from the ID'ers.

Deal with it - it's religion or philosophy at best.

30 posted on 11/28/2005 8:14:00 AM PST by KeepUSfree (WOSD = fascism pure and simple.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RonF

"Science education will be destroyed . . ."

It is this kind of ridiculous hyperbole that makes me very skeptical of the evolution community. Science is supposed to be about rigorous inquiry. Teaching competing theories of various scientists will improve science education.

Censorship will weaken science education. This thread also illustrates that the censorship is ideologically motivated. I have seen so many weird lectures on my campus integrating Buddhism and various other metaphysics into evolution, biology and other sciences. I see journals publishing articles on how UFOs dropped of life on planet Earth Billions of years ago.

In all these intances, the chicken littles do not run out and proclaim the sky is falling. Instead, they calmly appreciate the distinct viewpoint of the Dali Lama or whatever peculiar non-Christian guru is mixing science and religion.

Behe is not religious! But because his research could support Christians, we must take great alarm and protect the sacred domain of science which has always worked best when protected from inquiry?!


31 posted on 11/28/2005 8:14:38 AM PST by lonestar67
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
The sectarian views of a particular religious group are being imposed on the whole community.

In the first place, what is that to you, assuming it were true? In the second place, to what "particular religious group" and to what "whole community" do you refer?

Cordially,

32 posted on 11/28/2005 8:14:43 AM PST by Diamond (Qui liberatio scelestus trucido inculpatus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Blake#1; Right Wing Professor

What in the heck are you talking about??? We're stil hoping you're TRYING to be funny......


33 posted on 11/28/2005 8:16:34 AM PST by KeepUSfree (WOSD = fascism pure and simple.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67
Irreducible complexity is a concept that is probably dominant in science rather than exceptional.

Almost all science done today demonstrates that events that appear to be accidental have causes. Forensics medicine is a simple example.

I have no personal disagreement with evolutionary biology as a study but I do reject the outrageous censorship of scientiests such as Behe. Students should be able to access the controversies of evolution rather than be dogmatically told that all questioners are practicing pseudo science.

You forgot to mention a couple of examples of irreducible complexity throughout the ages that could only be attributed to the presence of a God. Let me help you out...

* Lightning
* Rain
* Fire
* Eclipses
* Earthquakes
* Disease
* Tidal Waves
* Volcanoes
* 'Shooting Stars'

I'm sure I missed a few, but hopefully this helps make your point that Goddidit has been with us throughout history.

34 posted on 11/28/2005 8:17:14 AM PST by Antonello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: RonF
Science education will be destroyed

You say that as if it's a bad thing.

35 posted on 11/28/2005 8:20:22 AM PST by Oztrich Boy (Paging Nehemiah Scudder:the Crazy Years are peaking. America is ready for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Varda
He says, "“What I’m trying to do is deal with pseudoscience regardless of where it’s coming from.” Good luck. Establishing demaraction criteria for science is something philosophers of science have been unable to agree upon, notwithstanding the plethora of reflexive assurances to the contrary of Darwinians here.

Cordially,

36 posted on 11/28/2005 8:21:17 AM PST by Diamond (Qui liberatio scelestus trucido inculpatus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

Guess you got tired of yelling at the dead turkey, so now you have to come here to beat your dead horse?


37 posted on 11/28/2005 8:21:44 AM PST by Mamzelle (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67
Students should be able to access the controversies of evolution rather than be dogmatically told that all questioners are practicing pseudo science.

Actually I had a couple of courses way back in grad school which dealt directly with the controversies of evolution; I suspect this kind of course is taught all the time.

And no, there was no mention of CS (ID not having been dreamed up yet). The courses stuck to science.

38 posted on 11/28/2005 8:22:58 AM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67
Science is supposed to be about rigorous inquiry.

See, this is where ID falls down immediately; because it tries to redefine stuff as science that isn't. Lots of things can be described as rigorous inquiry. Law uses rigorous inquiry. Philosophy uses rigorous inquiry. Science uses a particular type of rigorous inquiry though the use of testable hypotheses. If something, such as ID, is not based on testable hypotheses, then it's not science. It may still be worth teaching, but not as science. The recognition of this, that something may be worth teaching, but not as science, is what's going on in what's described in the posted article and is a great idea.

Teaching competing theories of various scientists will improve science education.

Once again, you corrupt the ideas of science to serve a non-scientific aim. Teaching ID has nothing to do with teaching a scientific theory. ID is not a theory. A theory is the result of a successfully tested hypothesis. ID has no ideas that have been successfully tested and is thus not a theory.

And as far as teaching ideas of competing scientists; Linus Pauling thought that Vitamin C would cure the common cold. He pushed it hard, but it didn't stand up to testing. Just because a scientist comes up with an idea doesn't mean that it should be taught as science.

39 posted on 11/28/2005 8:27:23 AM PST by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67

Exactly right.

Since it's obvious you don't agree with me, and your response doesn't address my point, your response indicates that either you have a deficiency in your reading comprehension skills or you are a troll.

40 posted on 11/28/2005 8:29:10 AM PST by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Blake#1
Blake#1 wrote: The controversy is really between Christian culture and the homosexual agenda. Choose your side! the controversy is really between scientists and radical christians...
41 posted on 11/28/2005 8:29:39 AM PST by thejokker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy

It is a bad thing. The United States is the leader in technological innovation in the world, but it's lead is shrinking. Somewhere around half of the scientific and engineering grad students in American schools are foreign-born. Sure, some stay and become American, but more and more are going back home and doing their work there. Too many American kids think their future is in marketing or entertainment or the social sciences.


42 posted on 11/28/2005 8:30:50 AM PST by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67

What I just don't understand is why proponents of ID think that the concepts of natural selection and the origin of species are not consistent with the existence of God?


43 posted on 11/28/2005 8:32:24 AM PST by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

"John Hoopes, associate professor of anthropology, said the course focused on critical thinking and taught how to differentiate science and “pseudoscience.” Intelligent design belongs in the second category, he said, because it cannot be tested and proven false."

The same test if it were objectively applied to the 'THEORY' of Evolution would also produce a label of “pseudoscience" since the 'THEORY' of Evolution cannot be reproduced or proven (true or false) scientifically.

The 'THEORY' of Evolution is just as dependent upon the researcher's belief system as is Intelligent Design and requires a great deal more faith considering the prerequisite assumptions and ignored facts in conflict.


44 posted on 11/28/2005 8:37:19 AM PST by WmCraven_Wk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67

bump


45 posted on 11/28/2005 8:37:58 AM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: WmCraven_Wk
"John Hoopes, associate professor of anthropology, said the course focused on critical thinking and taught how to differentiate science and “pseudoscience.” Intelligent design belongs in the second category, he said, because it cannot be tested and proven false."

The same test if it were objectively applied to the 'THEORY' of Evolution would also produce a label of “pseudoscience" since the 'THEORY' of Evolution cannot be reproduced or proven (true or false) scientifically.

The 'THEORY' of Evolution is just as dependent upon the researcher's belief system as is Intelligent Design and requires a great deal more faith considering the prerequisite assumptions and ignored facts in conflict.

Seems like I have to post these definitions on almost every thread. Study these for a while and then try again (from a google search):

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"

Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information

Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics"

Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"

Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence)

Observation: any information collected with the senses

Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions

Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact

Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith

Faith the belief in something for which there is no evidence or logical proof

Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof

Impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"

Based on this, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.

46 posted on 11/28/2005 8:39:24 AM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: KeepUSfree

Your apparent hostility to anything Christian (?)is duly noted. Realize Christians are fighting back! I repeat, choose your side, it is a free country.


47 posted on 11/28/2005 8:41:35 AM PST by Blake#1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: WmCraven_Wk
The same test if it were objectively applied to the 'THEORY' of Evolution would also produce a label of “pseudoscience" since the 'THEORY' of Evolution cannot be reproduced or proven (true or false) scientifically

How many times must we see this false statement repeated?

Evolution can be reproduced in the laboratory. No scientific theory can be proven; but any scientific theory is testable. Evolution has been tested many, many times, and has held up.

48 posted on 11/28/2005 8:42:38 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Diamond

"Establishing demaraction criteria for science is something philosophers of science have been unable to agree upon"

I agree but not all those philosophical battles are in play among practicing scientists. For instance I haven't met a scientist that doesn't believe in objective reality or that the object of inquiry in modern science is material existence, or that science doesn't seek proof but rather evidence, etc. I'd like to see how and why these ideas have been formulated before looking at how they've come to be applied.


49 posted on 11/28/2005 8:43:22 AM PST by Varda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle

Just so you know, you've been added to my ignore list.


50 posted on 11/28/2005 8:43:37 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 751-754 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson