1,019
edits
Changes
no edit summary
:::So we are really down to "it's not science by decree". Wow. I didn't think that was the way that science was supposed to work.
:::So we are really down to "it's not science by decree". Wow. I didn't think that was the way that science was supposed to work.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::::I agree that a PhD should not be a requirement; I've known several experienced University lecturers with solid research and publication records who simply never got around to it.
::::Every proposed test of ID I've ever seen turns out to be a test of evolution, but perhaps you've seen some I haven't. As to testing evolution in the abstract; computer models would seem to be the obvious approach. Been done already, of course.
::::Evolution is not based on naturalism any more than any other scientific theory. Hence theistic evolution. Science is, of course, based in methodological naturalism, by definition. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:13, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::I just don't see how you can use the term "scientist" when creationism involves no science and cannot be tested. I would also think that, for all the venom that is slung at science by the supporters of Creationism, that they wouldn't want that label attached to their cause.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 10:58, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::I just don't see how you can use the term "scientist" when creationism involves no science and cannot be tested. I would also think that, for all the venom that is slung at science by the supporters of Creationism, that they wouldn't want that label attached to their cause.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 10:58, 26 March 2007 (EDT)