Quote:
Originally posted by IROC
You must have a vivid imagination to derive this meaning from my many posts on this subject.
Thinking for yourself is a virtue. Censorship of ideas is not acceptable. I simply pointed out that creationism and ID are not scientific theories and as a result do not belong in a science classroom. That is in no way censorship. They are not there because they have no merit, not because someone is trying to censor thought. There are lots of things that do not belong in a science classroom - alchemy, astrology, etc. Am I squelching the freedom of ideas and thoughts of astologists by not allowing them to teach astrology as a valid scientific theory to school children? I don't think so.
|
The fundamental question is the origin of life. Once you get past he serious science of evolution, it makes fanciful Hypothesis, of course untested and unproven, of life's origins, all by chance and from nothing. It begins to delve into something science cannot answer. It poorly attempts what philosophy was designed to do, asking the questions that go beyond science.
Noting a teleological argument that fits the data is no less scientific than the fanciful parts of evolution that even disturbed it's creator Charles Darwin.
Presupposing ID is not scientific isn't a crime it's intellectual bankruptcy.