Simple Questions For Those Who Believe That Evolution Is The Answer For Everything

a reply to: WarminIndy

But the problem is not that religious people don't understand science, the problem is that religious people can't weed through the many contradictions within science and not come to the conclusion that the scientific industry is religious itself in believing certain things are true.

science employs the scientific method. religion does not. as a matter of fact, religious methodology, by its very doctrine, flies in the face of science. science says, we have found a mystery, let us poke it and see what happens. religion says, thou shalt not poke for thou art not worthy of mine knowledge. let me instead tell you what would happen and you must henceforth take my word for it.

Not only do people believe something is true because of dogmatic a priori, they allow it to be published as evidence of truth, which even they themselves know it can't possibly be true. And that's the heart of the debate.

not sure what your refering to here.

One says "I don't believe in Genesis because it can't be proven", but that is exactly what many scientists are trying to do, prove something that is fundamental and it is not God they are trying to prove, but Genesis or In the Beginning. As one does not want to think God could ever be as Christians describe, it is the Christian account of God they are trying to disprove. No one says "I'm going to prove the Jewish God wrong" or "I want evidence for Krishna or Lakshmi".

i believe the term is "intelligent design". they are not looking for a specific example of it because they havent found IT yet.

When certain famous scientists started saying they demand proof and the burden of proof is on us, the same applies to the scientific community that is trying to prove something themselves. Everyone is trying to prove, but it can't disproved so it falls into the realm of "no evidence means it doesn't exist" which we know that those truly interested in science will never say that because "lack of evidence is not evidence of lack".

in most instances where i encounter this argument, it is not a failing to provide evidence on the scientists' part. its a failure to interpret the evidence on the part of a challenger.

People quote Isaac Asimov all the time and yet Isaac Asimov himself inserted the ideas of God in his writings, by taking the ideas of morality of godlikeness and putting that into his characters. Carl Sagan does the same thing. Even the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey contained elements of religious thought. Dave was the hapless victim of the machine, one that man invented and yet still had control over Dave. "I can't do that, Dave". Implying that intelligence becomes no longer artificial but takes on moral imprecations.

I, Robot also asks the same moral questions found in religion. No one can escape moral conundrums, which religion, no matter which, addresses the conundrums. But those are works of fiction, still in the realm of science though. But science does ask of itself, what are the moral implications?

We debated a long time over worldviews, which used to be called paradigms, and everyone enters any study with some dogmatic a priori. But let's ask this, why was in on Air Force bases when those radar controllers were seeing anomalies, they were told to not talk about them and not report them? Why? Dogmatic a priori from their superiors. If the one in authority refuses to allow all evidence, then the authority is wrong, especially in the scientific community.

national security. stability is more important than being informed. the important people know, and thats enough. quite possibly the reason Jesus is still a thing.

People aren't really defending science, they are defending only the system of evidences and interpretations that their camp holds. For instance, ask any scientist on here who they tend to follow when it comes to literature. I will give you another example, Todd Standing. He is the famous geneticist from New York University that is a Sasquatch skeptic. He maintains that Sasquatch does not exist, but then admits that he has stored in his lab thousands of samples that he himself calls Sasquatch samples. Then his lab ran the experiments for Melba Ketchum and when he got to an anomaly in the DNA that couldn't be explained by him, he threw the samples away. He admitted this. See the problem?

when people defend science they are defending a methodology of investigation and interpretation. they are not defending the LEO of science. they are not defending the supreme court of science. they are defending a list of techniques by which one may reliably arrive at the truth if practiced diligently. of course, there is always room for error when the human element is involved. but science has even progressed so far as to limit our role in the process. unlike other systems, whose operations take place almost entirely in the skulls of their adherents and depend heavily on the human element.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Yes, I agree, don't call people fools or stupid or superstitious or ignorant or any of the names and implications and accusations bandied around. We need constructive dialogue.

But the problem is not that religious people don't understand science, the problem is that religious people can't weed through the many contradictions within science and not come to the conclusion that the scientific industry is religious itself in believing certain things are true.

What contradictions? The only contradictions I see are when a conclusion that science presents contradicts some religious teaching or dogma that a religion teaches; but since science is backed by evidence, it wins out in that contradiction and every calls the religious dogma a myth. There also may be some contradictions in cutting edge science, but since most of that is hypothetical and not fully fleshed out, it is to be expected, but you are SORELY mistaken if you believe that there are widespread contradictions in established science. I challenge you to present just one of them (yes I want links, not a block of text written by you).

There are plenty of religious people who accept the findings of science as true and see no contradictions where you see them, yes even Christians. The Catholic church has publicly stated that they accept evolution as true for one.

Not only do people believe something is true because of dogmatic a priori, they allow it to be published as evidence of truth, which even they themselves know it can't possibly be true. And that's the heart of the debate.

That isn't science, that is religion. Science doesn't work that way. If evidence appears and paints a picture that says something that scientists didn't believe as true, they change their world view to allow it to be true since that is what the evidence says. What you just described above is literally EVERY religion in the world.

One says "I don't believe in Genesis because it can't be proven", but that is exactly what many scientists are trying to do, prove something that is fundamental and it is not God they are trying to prove, but Genesis or In the Beginning. As one does not want to think God could ever be as Christians describe, it is the Christian account of God they are trying to disprove. No one says "I'm going to prove the Jewish God wrong" or "I want evidence for Krishna or Lakshmi".

No that's not true. For one, you are mixing up atheists/agnostics with scientists. You don't have to be atheist of agnostic to be a scientist (though it helps). And for true, if the scientist IS atheist or agnostic, he disbelieves in the Jewish God (same as Christian one anyways...) or Hindu gods or Mayan gods, or any gods. Christians get the most flak because they are the ones standing in the way of science with their stubborness.

When certain famous scientists started saying they demand proof and the burden of proof is on us, the same applies to the scientific community that is trying to prove something themselves. Everyone is trying to prove, but it can't disproved so it falls into the realm of "no evidence means it doesn't exist" which we know that those truly interested in science will never say that because "lack of evidence is not evidence of lack".

WRONG! No evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There is a BIG difference between saying "I don't know" and saying "it doesn't exist."

People quote Isaac Asimov all the time and yet Isaac Asimov himself inserted the ideas of God in his writings, by taking the ideas of morality of godlikeness and putting that into his characters. Carl Sagan does the same thing. Even the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey contained elements of religious thought. Dave was the hapless victim of the machine, one that man invented and yet still had control over Dave. "I can't do that, Dave". Implying that intelligence becomes no longer artificial but takes on moral imprecations.

I, Robot also asks the same moral questions found in religion. No one can escape moral conundrums, which religion, no matter which, addresses the conundrums. But those are works of fiction, still in the realm of science though. But science does ask of itself, what are the moral implications?

The religious beliefs of past geniuses and literary works aren't evidence of a diety existing. These are just a fluff paragraphs.

We debated a long time over worldviews, which used to be called paradigms, and everyone enters any study with some dogmatic a priori. But let's ask this, why was in on Air Force bases when those radar controllers were seeing anomalies, they were told to not talk about them and not report them? Why? Dogmatic a priori from their superiors. If the one in authority refuses to allow all evidence, then the authority is wrong, especially in the scientific community.

Squelching information from military superiors isn't evidence that the scientific community is doing the same thing.

That's why thousands of scientific experiments will never be published, only the ones the authority allows. But this places the moral condrum onto the authority, in order to get money to conduct experiments they have to allow only certain ones, and then the regular scientists under the authority of that person, must agree, going against their own moral conscience.

This is all assumption, you have no proof of this and if you do, present it.

The science industry is huge financially, because the government is doling out massive amounts of money. That is true for as long as governments have been interested in science. People are being told what to believe because authority will only allow you to know some things, and academia pushes certain things but denies other things. They don't deny because of the lack of experiments, they deny on the basis of hypothesis and when certain evidence is found, it is dismissed.

More assumptions. Just because YOUR opinions are looked down as not academically sound, doesn't mean there is some global conspiracy to suppress true science. You are just making things up to support your faulty world view.

originally posted by: WarminIndy cont.
But you can find this everywhere. Even religious people use doctrines against each other. You can see how many times on religious threads the varying explanations for our understanding of God and things within the texts. We have different interpretation, but we aren't getting money for it.

We allow each other the right to propose theories, we only correct each other if they did not present the text as it is written. And we see the same thing going on in the scientific community, because all evidence is interpreted in certain ways, and maybe vast differently from lab to lab. But the only ones that are published are not the proof of evidence, just that interpretation of the evidence.

I have read many things from scientists themselves who talk about the opposition to their work, not from religious people, but the very academic institutions that are getting money from the government to reach certain conclusions. I've read that from one person who posted on this thread, because his work was against the dogmatic a priori of the day. That opposition came from other scientists, not the religious people.

Did you consider that maybe his work was flawed? Did you even thoroughly review his work to see if the above was true? Nah, it's just easier to jump to the conclusion that he is being suppressed because he said something you agreed with.

Here is a nice article about logic from Harvard Philosophy about a priori.

But then there's Leonard Susskind, who people claim to have proven Stephen Hawking wrong. Well, there are fans of Susskind and there are fans of Hawking, each side reaching apriorism in defense of their guy. But do people reject Susskind's theoretical evidence in favor of Hawking? Absolutely they do. And that goes against the very nature of scientific inquiry.

People aren't really defending science, they are defending only the system of evidences and interpretations that their camp holds. For instance, ask any scientist on here who they tend to follow when it comes to literature. I will give you another example, Todd Standing. He is the famous geneticist from New York University that is a Sasquatch skeptic. He maintains that Sasquatch does not exist, but then admits that he has stored in his lab thousands of samples that he himself calls Sasquatch samples. Then his lab ran the experiments for Melba Ketchum and when he got to an anomaly in the DNA that couldn't be explained by him, he threw the samples away. He admitted this. See the problem?

No one is defending scientists. Scientists are human. They make mistakes and are prone to corruption and various other human failings just like anyone else. WE are defending the scientific method which you are trampling upon with your post here.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

there is that one harvard dude who freely admitted that if evidence pointed to an old earth, he would still be a young earth creationist because thats what his holy book tells him.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So you agree with me that "lack of evidence is not evidence of lack"?

Let's see, contradictions in science..

But here you go, always from your side...
1:
2:
3:

We don't have time to go through all of them, because there are too many.

And here is about funding...
1:
2:
3:

Now those are just a few. So who is giving the money? I said that labs get money from the government. No lie in what I said. However, what must one do to fit the criteria for getting money? It must be separation of church and state. Therefore, all science that receives money from the government or by a government-endorsed agency must never submit for an experiment or publish an experiment that hypothesizes any religious statement.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Turns out the dude was right, and now scientists say it is.

How funny is that, to say his work was flawed and yet I didn't say his name on here, only his work mentioned on another thread.

But see, opposition comes in many forms, however, what has happened is that even the flaws are presented as true and believed by people, until someone else comes along and shows the flaws, and yet people still hold to the original belief before the flaw was discovered.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So you agree with me that "lack of evidence is not evidence of lack"?

Of course I agree. It's true. That's why I call myself an agnostic and not an atheist.

Let's see, contradictions in science..

But here you go, always from your side...
1:

Just a list of contradictions without where they came from. It shows who submitted them, but many are repeats. And I'd still like to see where these arguments are derived from. Which studies show one thing but also show something else.

2:

Those are fair enough. Though granted many of those contradictions are probably explained by lack of evidence to clear them up (such as the inability to currently link quantum mechanics to regular mechanics)

3:

Article was written in 1982. It's outdated and old and not relevant to modern day science.

We don't have time to go through all of them, because there are too many.

And here is about funding...
1:
2:
3:

Look I never claimed that scientists weren't receiving funding from the government. That is common knowledge. I was asking for sources for your claims that this is causing scientists to squelch information or push erroneous theories. I still don't see a conflict of interest which is what YOU were originally suggesting.

Now those are just a few. So who is giving the money? I said that labs get money from the government. No lie in what I said. However, what must one do to fit the criteria for getting money? It must be separation of church and state. Therefore, all science that receives money from the government or by a government-endorsed agency must never submit for an experiment or publish an experiment that hypothesizes any religious statement.

Um... This is a REALLY dumb conclusion. Religion (especially Christianity) likes to use the explanation of "god" for everything. It is impossible for science to postulate in ANY field without stepping on the toes of religions.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Turns out the dude was right, and now scientists say it is.

How funny is that, to say his work was flawed and yet I didn't say his name on here, only his work mentioned on another thread.

But see, opposition comes in many forms, however, what has happened is that even the flaws are presented as true and believed by people, until someone else comes along and shows the flaws, and yet people still hold to the original belief before the flaw was discovered.

Who was it? Post information, his study, and what scientists are saying. Let's stop talking in abstracts and put up some evidence. And no I'm not rooting through this 21 page long thread to find it. I'm not saying that it can't happen, and if the science is sound eventually science will come around to believing it. Skepticism is part of science and all hypotheses and theories need to be thoroughly vetted through skepticism before everyone blindly believes it. I just grow tired of you talking about this one dude that does such and such. All I have is your word and I don't trust you at all. So give me some evidence.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No, I am not against the scientific method, rather, those with dogmatic a priori will do that very thing. I don't know why you think I think the scientific method is wrong, I am saying that people interpret the evidence differently yet at the same time promote the interpreted evidence above scientific method.

It is not the scientific method, it is the interpretation, because you claim that scientists who don't follow the prescribed interpretation as pseudoscientists, and yet followed the exact same scientific method.

I challenge the notion of claiming pseudoscience without even reading the experiment. I am claiming that because the claim of pseudoscience is so prevalent, the general public believes every ID scientist is working outside of scientific method, but they are not.

Have you read any of the experiments from people who you call pseudoscientists?

I also challenge the idea that there is no detrimental effects of this name-calling and mudslinging, and yet the scientists who your side claim are pseudoscientists, are very well respected and well degreed in their fields. There are many abandoning evolution without design, based on their own scientific methods.

Again, show me where I am against scientific method? Nope, I am against using the scientific method argument to keep people believing that scientific method itself shows absence of a designer. It does not in any way dismiss a designer. It's like the scientific method has become a hammer to bash over the heads of....those people who do use the scientific method.

So when you make your charge, please understand that I do not dismiss scientific methods, only that the interpretation of the evidence is what is being forced, and only one side is allowed to force something that remains solely within the interpretation, not the evidence.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Nope, if you want, you can go through the different threads on the forums, because it was written on a forum thread and is now public information. I am not going to do your homework for you.

If he wants to be known for that on this thread, he can say so himself. I am not asking him to do that, he and I both remember the conversation.

I was bumping his statement from the other thread, because he faced the very thing we are talking about, but never once did I dismiss his work as a scientist and never called him names.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No, I am not against the scientific method, rather, those with dogmatic a priori will do that very thing. I don't know why you think I think the scientific method is wrong, I am saying that people interpret the evidence differently yet at the same time promote the interpreted evidence above scientific method.

It is not the scientific method, it is the interpretation, because you claim that scientists who don't follow the prescribed interpretation as pseudoscientists, and yet followed the exact same scientific method.

I challenge the notion of claiming pseudoscience without even reading the experiment. I am claiming that because the claim of pseudoscience is so prevalent, the general public believes every ID scientist is working outside of scientific method, but they are not.

Yes they are. ID starts with the assumption that God or some ultimate designer exists. Before ANY experimentation or evidence collection is done, they have already violated the scientific method by making an assumption. Same goes for any other pseudoscience. Paranormal investigators, ufologists, conspiracy theorists, zoologists (the ones looking for bigfoot and other odd monsters) ALL violate the scientific method by making an assumption then searching for evidence to confirm their assumption.

Have you read any of the experiments from people who you call pseudoscientists?

I don't have to, as I outlined above, they are working outside the scientific method. Show me a neutral study that confirms the existence of aliens or shows the existence of god or ghosts or esp or any other pseudo scientific field and then I'll talk. Until then, THAT is why they are called pseudoscientists.

I also challenge the idea that there is no detrimental effects of this name-calling and mudslinging, and yet the scientists who your side claim are pseudoscientists, are very well respected and well degreed in their fields. There are many abandoning evolution without design, based on their own scientific methods.

Evolutionary theory is going in a direction to say that it is algorithmically based. This means that it works outside of an intelligent designer. An intelligent designer MAY have created the algorithm that evolution works by, but logically, an intelligent designer isn't guiding evolution. If there was an IDer guiding evolution, evolution should be a lot more streamlined.

Again, show me where I am against scientific method? Nope, I am against using the scientific method argument to keep people believing that scientific method itself shows absence of a designer. It does not in any way dismiss a designer. It's like the scientific method has become a hammer to bash over the heads of....those people who do use the scientific method.

The scientific method doesn't dismiss a designer, but it doesn't promote one either. So to claim one exists without evidence is also misusing the scientific method.

So when you make your charge, please understand that I do not dismiss scientific methods, only that the interpretation of the evidence is what is being forced, and only one side is allowed to force something that remains solely within the interpretation, not the evidence.

So philosophy aside, are you ever going to get back on topic and start giving SOLID evidence of why evolution is flawed? For the last so many pages we haven't even mentioned evolution. Your previous post to me encompassed ALL of science (asking someone to debate all of science just isn't fair and is frankly close to impossible given the intricacies of each field).

So where are the contradictions in evolutionary theory that make it not valid? You claim to like the scientific method, so use it and present me some evidence that evolution isn't true, since this is why we are having this conversation in the first place.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Nope, if you want, you can go through the different threads on the forums, because it was written on a forum thread and is now public information. I am not going to do your homework for you.

If he wants to be known for that on this thread, he can say so himself. I am not asking him to do that, he and I both remember the conversation.

I was bumping his statement from the other thread, because he faced the very thing we are talking about, but never once did I dismiss his work as a scientist and never called him names.

Ok then. In my view it didn't happen. Again I don't trust you. You presented the claim, you present the evidence. I'm just content to sit back and call you a liar. As far as I'm concerned it helps my case to believe you are a liar so I will do that. If you want any credibility, you need to back up what you are saying. I don't care about the person's anonymity (which he wouldn't have had anyways if he published his results). If you can't be arsed to present evidence to back up this claim, then stop talking about it.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Post information, his study, and what scientists are saying.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Nope

Pretty much sums up the level of "debate" here.

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Post information, his study, and what scientists are saying.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Nope

Pretty much sums up the level of "debate" here.

Pretty much squashes any claims of using the scientific method doesn't it?

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Post information, his study, and what scientists are saying.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Nope

Pretty much sums up the level of "debate" here.

Except that it isn't a debate, just Argumentum ad hominem- the debate was tossed out the window from the first moment that it was first flung at "Creationists are all the same, they don't believe in science".

Please reread my OP, I merely asked questions, got a few answers, then asked more questions, until the whole ad hominem started because of the logical fallacies.

The logical fallacies shown in this whole thread are nothing new, but let's go through logical fallacies...

Premises - it is assumed that all Christians are against science.

Faulty premise because there are scientists who are Christians.

Inference - it is inferred that Christians are not educated, therefore stupid.

Faulty inference - many Christians are highly intellectual and educated.

Argumentum ad baculum / Appeal to force - as it is claimed on this thread, it is detrimental to society for religious people to say anything, it leads to destruction of society.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam - of course Christianity is false because God does not exist

faulty argumentum - The premise for Christianity is that God does exist. Which takes us back to the original logical fallacy. What makes this faulty is that not every Christian doctrine is understood. Christians also teach Christian charity because the founder of the religion who was historical made historical claims to be nice to your neighbors and yet all religions teach a Golden Rule. Even non-religious people accept the Golden Rule. So the ad ignoratum is that all Christians must be wrong about all of premise, even though part of the premise is shared among all people groups.

Argumentum ad misericordiam - fallacy here because I don't think this one has been presented by either side.

Argumentum ad populum - this logical fallacy is that on this thread the claims have been made that religion is detrimental

Faulty ad populum - Religions have offered good things to society.

See, we could go on. If there is to be true debate, then the faulty logic must be removed in order to discuss anything. I never said religious people were against science, that was a charge made against religious people.

The particular person on this thread would point out to me what he thought was faulty logic in my statements, but I countered it with why it could not be. But since the original questions were made on the faulty premise of Darwinism, that is what prompted the ad hominems.

See the circular reasoning?

Darwinism is not true -> we have discovered more since Darwinism -> evolution is true because Darwin told us about it -> Darwinism is not true

If the whole premise of Darwinism was faulty, then anything built on it is faulty, yet somehow Darwinism is defended. Circular reasoning.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Turns out the dude was right, and now scientists say it is.

How funny is that, to say his work was flawed and yet I didn't say his name on here, only his work mentioned on another thread.

But see, opposition comes in many forms, however, what has happened is that even the flaws are presented as true and believed by people, until someone else comes along and shows the flaws, and yet people still hold to the original belief before the flaw was discovered.

Who was it? Post information, his study, and what scientists are saying. Let's stop talking in abstracts and put up some evidence. And no I'm not rooting through this 21 page long thread to find it. I'm not saying that it can't happen, and if the science is sound eventually science will come around to believing it. Skepticism is part of science and all hypotheses and theories need to be thoroughly vetted through skepticism before everyone blindly believes it. I just grow tired of you talking about this one dude that does such and such. All I have is your word and I don't trust you at all. So give me some evidence.

Let me clear this up for you before this gets any farther out of hand. She is referring to research I did in grad school regarding my abandoned thesis. As I stated in this very thread, I was an arrogant kid who thought he was hot #. I put the cart before the horse and ran my mouth regarding several hypothesis I had about Neanderthal and their eventual demise. I didn't have enough data to support a lot of what i proposed. It was mostly due to limited funds and what I wanted to do at the time being ahead of technological capabilities for genetic testing. My methodology wasn't flawed, I just lacked complete enough data to prove anything to the point I could defend the thesis if I included the information. Some of what I Hypothesized at the time, the late 90's, has been shown to be correct by other peoples work. Some of it has yet to be tested still. The moral of the story is I was an overly arrogant kid who got put in his place for not being able to back my mouth up. The paper was never completed Let alone published so it's nowhere near as dark and ominous as she makes the situation out to be. Sure, I hypothesized things that got me mocked by some peers and I've in the end been vindicated by other people focusing on one aspect or another of things very close to what I worked on but I don't really see it as a poster boy episode for how science refuses to accept out Of the box thinking. My advisor was really into what I was doing or else I wouldn't have been allowed to start the work in the first place. In my experience, the vast majority of people working in research are looking way outside the box and being rewarded for it with careers every day.

a reply to: peter vlar

Hm so the story ISN'T like warminindy has claimed and it wasn't being suppressed because of the establishment? Good to know. I guess I was right in not trusting warminindy.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
See the circular reasoning?

Darwinism is not true -> we have discovered more since Darwinism -> evolution is true because Darwin told us about it -> Darwinism is not true

If the whole premise of Darwinism was faulty, then anything built on it is faulty, yet somehow Darwinism is defended. Circular reasoning.

How many times does it have to be explained to you that modern evolutionary theory is built on Darwinian evolution? Darwinian evolution isn't 100% wrong, Darwin got the basic gist of how it works, he just didn't have all the available evidence that we do today and detailed an incomplete picture. The reason Darwinian evolution doesn't enter into modern evolutionary debates is because of this reason. That is like trying to say that because a Model T car cannot reach the speed of 120 miles per hour, a modern day race car is unable to do it. It is absurd and a VERY poor example of a circular reasoning. You want a GOOD example of circular reasoning?

How do we know the bible is true? It is the divine inspired word of god
How do we know that the bible is the divine inspired word of god? The bible says so.

As for the rest of your fallacies. Who cares? They don't pertain to evolution being true or not. I mean they are certainly valid fallacies, but they are irrelevant to the discussion because they neither prove nor disprove evolution. Though going by your tendency to embellish or conflate details, as can be seen from your example about peter vlar's work, I'd wager that these fallacies didn't work out the way you are describing them in this thread.

a reply to: peter vlar

And never did I say that you did right or wrong. At least you remember that I am a woman.

I was actually supporting you, so that's why I gave you a bump. And it was your Homo Australo work that I had referred to. But sometimes thinking outside the box does get people in trouble.

Just this year from Indianapolis Ball State

Can a professor be fired for this? Yes. Does it violate the law? Yes.

A “Boundaries of Science” class taught by Eric Hedin, an assistant professor of physics, allegedly promoted the idea that nature displays evidence of intelligent design, as opposed to an undirected process like evolution.

And

The letter gives Gora until the end of business on March 24 to answer the following question: “Does the policy forbid science professors from explaining either their support or rejection of intelligent design in answer to student questions about intelligent design in class?”

The letter concludes, “In order to determine if legislative action is required, we feel obligated to investigate whether BSU has acted in accord with state educational policy, legal requirements, and BSU’s own published standards.”

If a student asks and the professor responds, then what violation is there except for insubordination of the policy and yet university professors are allowed to answer questions.

a reply to: WarminIndy

I challenge the notion of claiming pseudoscience without even reading the experiment. I am claiming that because the claim of pseudoscience is so prevalent, the general public believes every ID scientist is working outside of scientific method, but they are not.

id like to know the name of whatever scientist tested this intelligent designer and obtained conclusive evidence confirming its existence. surely he or she is a billionaire by now in terms of profit and funding.