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

To: SirLinksalot

Intelligent design is repeatedly attempting to play chess using checkers rules. If you want to play chess, you play by the rules of chess, or you aren’t playing chess, no matter how much you want others to think you are playing chess.

Science is the same way. It has very exact rules, and if you perform scientific experiments by those rules, you have performed a scientific experiment. Nothing more. It is a closed system. The problem comes when you either interpolate or extrapolate something else from a scientific experiment that is outside of the parameters of the experiment.

The only distinction science has over other studies is that if you follow the recipe of an experiment, anyone should be able to duplicate that same result, anywhere, if they follow the recipe, exactly. Adding nothing extra and taking nothing away.

And that is science. It intentionally ignores variables that might incidentally change the outcome of the experiment. This is because the vast majority of times, that strange variable won’t happen, so is not part of the recipe. If it does happen, then it is ignored, and the experiment is tried again until it makes the same predicted result that it is supposed to.

So why try to subvert the rules of chess, or science, except that you resent the clarity that both have. If you are a novice, you cannot beat a chess master if you play by the rules, so you try to change the rules. You cannot defy a scientifically conducted experiment, unless you try and alter or interfere with the recipe.

And this is why that professor was denied tenure. Because he was hired to teach and practice the very exacting rules of science. By advocating intelligent design, he as much as said that he does not follow the rules, or believe that in following the rules a scientific result will follow from a scientific experiment.

In a way, that is like a master chess player who tries to play by different rules against other chess players, because he believes in other rules. How can that be seen as other than cheating? If he does it so much as once in a formal setting, I could imagine him being stripped of his title.

Even if he is a master, he is not playing chess.


37 posted on 05/28/2007 6:31:14 PM PDT by Popocatapetl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Popocatapetl
So intelligent design can't be science (and can't be true), because science must explain everything, and the only God that's allowed is a God is One Who isn't involved in anything, because that would "break the rules."

That's how it works, folks. That's why evolutionists regard believers in Intelligent Design as "unscientific." They've jiggered the rules.

191 posted on 05/29/2007 10:08:38 PM PDT by TenthAmendmentChampion (Pray for our President and for our heroes in Iraq and Afghanistan, and around the world!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

To: Popocatapetl

It was my impression that science was attempting to make statements regarding reality. If science is merely about rules then you are correct, we have no argument.

You can sit with the rules committee making pronouncements about who can and cannot play your game while we will attempt to understand the universe and reality using mathematics, game theory, information theory, computer science or whatever else we can get our minds around.

You stand by your peer-reviewed journals and your accredited institutions chasing off anyone too ignorant to realize they are nilkultoorni and should remain silent in front of their betters.


489 posted on 06/09/2007 1:11:42 PM PDT by Aloysius88 (An oak desk makes a fine percussion instrument in an emergency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

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