James A. Donald wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 00:33:48 GMT, Alex Russell
>> ID is not science. It has no place in a science class room. Teach it in
>> philosophy.
>
> Probably not, but it has done a more thorough job in decorating itself
> in the appearance of science than Anthropogenic Global Warming has.
>
> That does not mean that we should tolerate any stupidity that pretends
> to be science, but the disfavor given to Intelligent Design, and the
> favor given to Anthropogenic Global Warming, has more to do with the
> political power of interest groups, than the inherent merits of their
> particular cases.
>
> "Intelligent design" much resembles the even stupider "Gaia
> hypothesis", yet the "Gaia hypothesis" gets favor, while "intelligent
> design" gets repression, for reasons that are clearly political.
>
> By and large, science is being overrun with dumb pseudo science - see
> the satire "Space aliens cause global warming"
> <http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html>
> However, "Intelligent design" is among the least silly and least in
> need of suppression, rather than the worst.
>
>
> --
> ----------------------
> We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
> of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
> right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
>
> http://www.jim.com/
James A. Donald
ID is not science. It is religious dogma poorly covered in scientific
catch phrases. ID does not make single testable claim. The evidence for
evolution is so overwhelming that you might as well argue the world is
flat as argue that ID could be true.
The Gia idea is also not science, but it isn't being opposed for being
taught in schools because no one is trying to get it taught in schools.
Global warming is a fact. The evidence that human activity is
contributing to global warming, mainly by CO2 emissions, has a large
body of sup****ting evidence.
A funny parody is not evidence.
Alex Russell
|
