melon said:
I don't care if fanatics believe it or otherwise reasonable people believe it. Scientific theory is not determined by how "popular" a hypothesis is. Imagine the chaos if we started determining mathematical formulas on popular consensus, rather than on factual data?
Who said anything about talking about it, even as a 'theory?'
I said DISCUSSING it in school. Even THAT is not allowed.
(Again, high school v. college/university)
It doesn't matter anyway, because fundamentalist Christians would object to the secular manner in which religion is treated in university settings.
Again, with the "fundamentalists."
I am a Christian and I believe the Bible, yes. Decide for yourself if that makes me 'a fundamentalist' or not, but it seems to be a very narrow (and prejudicial) pigeonhole of supporters of the idea of ID/Creationism's place in school . . . but anyway, I took philosophy and religion courses at university. I didn't object to them or the way ideas and alternate ideas were presented or discussed.
I would think that anyone interested in believing in something would know not only why they believe it but also why they don't believe everything else that opposes it. That's the intellectual way of going about it.
Science is determined by FACT and OBSERVATION over long periods of time and by multiple, highly educated professionals.
Let's not confuse 'education' with 'intelligence.'
And, so, the earliest scientists were not really scientists, because they had no predecessors or no long periods of time with which to have theorized and analyzed and hypothesized?
I think that's an unfair judgment.
To say what you did is to say that Science is almost not a living thing . . . or at least that scientists are not really scientists until a determinable period of time has passed.
So, anyone tesing out a new theory or idea is just a well-educated plebian?
All right, friends, I am outta here for now.
Have a good night . . . or morning, depending on where you are.