Philosophy is interpretation, not fact -- and the "truth" of one philosphy as compared to any other is solely within the mind of the philosopher, and those who are persuaded by his arguments.
You would do well to read some history, Jacob. In it you will find how each of the modern sciences (chemistry, physics, astronomy, geology, medicine, biology, etc.) emerged from the morass of competing philosophical rationalizations.
I find it interesting that you invoke Descartes in your so-called rebuttal to R.L. -- which, in itself, is a fine example of visceral reaction over rational discourse. Of course, we have Descartes to thank for the coordinate plane that still bears his name, and therefore geometric analysis... but you will also find (in that historical reading I urge you to pursue), that Descarte's rationalization of the movement of planetary bodies by way of vortices in the aether was supplanted by Newton's theory of gravity -- from which, by the way, Kepler's geometrical descriptions of planetary motion can be derived directly, through the calculus.
You also presume far too much about the private religious leanings of scientists. Yes, I have seen those same polls, and I have read Einstein and Hawking -- both of whom are careful to separate philosophical musings from discussions of scientific theory. Your statement in that post comes dangerously close to implying that professing a religious affiliation is equivalent to a literal reading of Genesis. And you are still left with the salient idea that no scientist would invoke "special pleading", with reference to his or her personal religious beliefs, in the course of his or her professional pursuits. Take care to note how opposed that is to the demands of ID advocates, who seek to turn special pleading into "science".
Finally, though no less important, as a practicing Jew I request that you reconsider the use of the the epithet "Judaeo-" in describing the philosophical underpinning of the ID movement. It is exclusively driven by the arrogance of a certain vocal minority of fundamentalist Protestant Christians...
... and, as such, belongs in church Sunday School, not public secondary school.
Space/Science » in reply to So what? Science doesnh't have a monopoly on deciding truth and fact.
If it is "philosophy", it does not belong in a public school science classroom
The whole thread (48 posts)
- ID Is Scientifically Testable
- What does ID Predict?
- So what? Science doesnh't have a monopoly on deciding truth and fact.
- re: Lavoisier said...
- Common sense
- Their idea to find things in biology that could not have arisen from prior states is interesting...
- re: ID Is Scientifically Testable
- Quotes of note from the MSNBC article
