[extropy-chat] against ID

[Samantha Atkins]

On Nov 21, 2005, at 11:08 AM, gts wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 13:12:20 -0500, Brent Allsop  
> <allsop at extropy.org> wrote:
>
>
>> I completely agree with this:
>>
>> "Scientists have to get off this kick that science and religion are
>> completely distinct magisteria that have nothing to do with each  
>> other.
>> Quite the contrary; religion (at least in its common Western  
>> forms) goes
>> around making claims about how the world works, and it's perfectly
>> appropriate to judge such claims by the same standards that we  
>> judge any
>> other suggested hypotheses about nature."
>>
>
> The real question here is "What should we teach in science class?"
>

Why, we should teach science.  That excludes pretentious nonsense  
that explains nothing and denies an entire major body of scientific  
knowledge.

> As Behe himself was forced to admit in court in Pa a couple of  
> weeks ago, by his definition of science (which removes the  
> requirement that science be about natural explanations), the theory  
> of astrology qualifies as science.
>

Oh my.  After all we had a former president who consulted with  
astrologers so it must be true.

- samantha