1,019
edits
Changes
→Creationist Scientists - Oxymoron
:::::::::::::I did see the page, but I haven't digested it yet.
:::::::::::::I did see the page, but I haven't digested it yet.
:::::::::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:08, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:08, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::::No, we can't directly observe what's happening in a cloud chamber. The best we can do is construct a hypothesis which makes predictions about things we ''can'' observe, and apply a coherent model of inference to derive conclusions. That method is equally valid for anything and everything, so long as predictions can be made.
::::::::::::::And that's where human design and 'intelligent design' part company, too. We can use what we know about human capabilities, needs and motivations to generate predictions. According to ID, we're not allowed to speculate about the designer itself.
::::::::::::::Incidentally, the indent is getting slightly absurd; if you don't have any objection, I'll move this discussion to its own section. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:29, 29 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)