Darwinist
Out of context: Reply #377
- Started
- Last post
- 592 Responses
- ********0
JazX - I totally concur - and frankly I think that questiong methodologies and paradigms in science IS and should be part of the scientific process itself. Heck I'm reading "Investigations" by Stuart Kaufmann at the moment and a man of his stature in the scientific community is calling for a re-evaluation of certain underlying methodologies and paradigms. Heck, that's what is so refreshing - and in terms of human history - revolutionary about scientific thought.
The ID guys are playing old Socratic Sophist tricks with ;language it seems to me by sayig that "See science is inaccurate here! So therefore it casts ALL of it into doubt!"
I mean it seems to me they don't even grasp the fundamental principles that underly all of scientific enquiry to begin with. Science is all about finding better and better questions. Anything in science that doesn't lead you to another question is bad science.
ID seems all answers (and I agree that science needs to be critiqued - but then again MOST scientists would and ALL shgould agree with that). To just end up at aplace and say it is "Unreducably complex" just ain't science or reflective of the scientific method.