Re: >Re: >RE: What does ID mean?
Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@UNCWIL.EDU)
Thu, 07 May 1998 14:27:08 -0500 (EST)
At 01:50 PM 5/7/98 -0400, David Campbell wrote:
>>scientists who are rebellious may not be in a position to honestly search
>>for the truth.
>Although the fallen nature of humans does make us try to twist data to suit
>our views or suppres the data that won't be twisted, reality limits our
>ability to do this. Many non-Christians have realized that a moral system
>similar to that prescribed in the Bible works well, even though they do not
>realize that this is because of the way God designed us. Similarly, anyone
>interacting with the natural world quickly realizes that there are certain
>patterns that work, whether or not they acknowledge God as the source of
>them. If science is defined as limited to physically testable assertions,
>then dishonest scientific claims can be disproven by later scientists.
>Certainly, there is the issue of making claims outside of science that may
>not be honest, but this is no different from the case for non-scientists.
Unfortunately science is practiced by fallen men/women and so all sorts of
dishonesties take place. The selection of professors, publications, tenure,
grants, etc. are often tainted. Let us not forget the big shots in a given
field and how they dominate whatever goes on in the field. Talking about
making something in your own image!