Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
I strongly agree with everything John Clement says here with one important exception. Like John, I believe we do a grave disservice to science by saying transparently ridiculous things like "there is no evidence for Intelligent Design." Those who subscribe to ID see virtually nothing BUT evidence for their beliefs. The only relevant point is that ID is manifestly NOT science because it is inconceivable that anyone would ever find evidence AGAINST it.
The only point of disagreement I have is with John's claim that it is a "mislabeling" to call science "liberal." I could take the sarcastic, if not also defensible, position that "reality has a liberal bias," but I will note only that science requires above all intense skepticism, openness to new data, and willingness to change one's viewpoint in the face of evidence against one's cherished positions, traits that I have no trouble whatsoever characterizing as "liberal." I don't deny the existence of "religious scientists," but I would maintain that anyone who brings traditional religious habits and "ways of knowing" into the lab with them, at the very least operates under a very significant handicap.