Bryan

Your response is incoherent. The poster would still deal with the age of the earth if only the "God's Word" side of the poster existed. Would you therefore conclude that the "God's Word" portion was science because it addresses a scientific question? Again, your response is incoherent. Perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying. I was pointing out that the museum includes a "human wisdom" account of origins. Do you think that presentation is fair or not? I ask you to put evidence before my eyes and instead of providing it you attack me for refusing to acknowledge what you have not provided. Are you for real? Ad hominem always makes a great substitute for addressing the issue, doesn't it? Heh. You can't tell me the difference because I wouldn't understand it. I don't think I've heard that one since grade school. I think I explained myself adequately, even if you apparently had trouble following along. It's amusing that you're back to talking about "the method" of science even though it is dead easy to find every Popperian criterion for science dropped in one or another example of so-called "science." If you don't know philosophy of science you might want to keep avoiding that issue while pretending that there is a scientific method that is well and properly defined. Yes, but I'm hoping for a version lacking fatally flawed content or, as in your case, examples where the content is entirely lacking. 'Cause I wouldn't understand or some lame excuse like that.

Don't tell Paul LaClair that the scientists traveled to the museum on school buses. His blood pressure can use a break.

It won an Arab ally for the U.S. in the Middle East, if Obama doesn't find a way to blow it. And whether you admit it or not, huge strides were made in the War on Terror (now OVERCOP under Obama); top Al Qaeda operatives were captured and killed in Iraq. And, if you need more, Iraq provided a testing ground for some of the strategies that President Obama is now employing in Afghanistan.

Sure. But shall we just assume that it refers to "science" or shall we base that conclusion on evidence? Am I wrong for wanting evidence? Of course. But the museum presents more than just supposed facts. It presents what you might well call a scientific account of origins as part of its exhibits. That's why I asked if the presentation was thought fair. Your mode of response will perhaps aid you in dodging that question. Perhaps you should come up with concrete examples in support of your claims. I thought we had already agreed on that. But perhaps you reiterated it to help reinforce the impression that you were right and I was not. Great. Then that means that you can address them. I look forward to it. Instead of just telling us that there is a "big difference" why don't you tell us exactly what the difference is? That would address my argument. What you're doing is avoiding the argument with a hand wave. Perhaps you think that once you have labeled my arguments "child's play" it is then appropriate to simply wave them away? Mine, too. I don't want you folks distorting or lying about those aspects of the creation museum with which you disagree. You can help both of us by offering up specific examples when you talk about the "big difference" between the museum and Albert Einstein. Or other criticisms you might offer. We're touching on a variety of issues, and I've already mentioned mine specifically more than once. It was asserted that the creation museum is "anti-science" and I want to see the support of that claim. Perhaps you weren't observing carefully when I wrote that, however.

I did. So what's the "no-show job"? Or are you not going to explain that after all? Incorrect. IG's are not political appointments, though they are appointed by the president. And "loss of confidence" is supposed to be an adequate reason? Why have a notification law if any reason is good enough? Asking someone to either resign or be terminated constitutes the application of pressure to resign. That is what "intimidation" is, by definition. If Walpin had resigned then the Obama administration would not have had to proceed with the formality of firing him. He had the permission of his supervisors to telecommute, as I understand it. Should they be terminated? And feel free to provide evidence in support of your claim that Walpin's arrangement was illegal. You're a Republican appointee? Prove it.

In other words, you've got nothing. Can't say I'm surprised.

Really? In what way? I have no problem admitting that "the general principles of the scientific method" are recognized world over. I simply said that there is no "the" scientific method. Your side has attempted to take that comment of context--in the name of Science, no doubt. So of course it is a noble act. Don't really need the links, thanks. Once we find a straw man we can cooperatively trample him and then get back to the real issue. Does it? I have yet to see evidence of that from the slides. You? One of the key principles of science is "observation." The museum poster contrasted "God's Word" with "human reason" and did not mention science. You apparently invented the contrast. Perhaps you simply did not observe carefully enough. http://web.mit.edu/gjordan/www/creation/slides/_DSC2332.html http://web.mit.edu/gjordan/www/creation/slides/_DSC2336.html Again, you appear to be making things up. Take a look at the second slide I linked above. "Same rocks" it says. The rocks are an evidence, and it seems to be allowed that the evidence is interpreted according to present processes according to the "human reason" of old-earth cosmologists. Do you think that is an unfair characterization by the museum exhibit? That may be the case in specific instances. On the other hand, am I to suppose that a YEC would not be able to utilize science to discover the principles of flight? Recall that it was asserted that the museum was not merely wrong about certain things, but that the museum is "anti-science." Would you say that Einstein was anti-science given that he fudged the cosmological constant at first while working the his theory of relativity?

You stated your position, which is not the same thing as pointing out a fact. Fact is, there is a scientific method. Scientists may not agree on every detail but there is enough agreement that the scientific method is easily distinguished from what goes on in the Creationist Ignorance Emporium. Excellent! Do it, then. You just said it was "easily" done. So do it. It's easy. We know that is false from the linked photographs. How can you claim that evidence is "ignored" when the evolutionary account is presented side-by-side with the creation account? And if you charge the museum with an anti-science attitude for not including certain specifics that you think count in evolution's favor, then how can you consistently object to "balanced treatment" laws that seek to include evidence that poses difficult questions for evolutionary theory in science classrooms? The museum may well be an insult to science, but unless you equate that with "anti-science" then I don't consider it relevant. And I don't take Collins' opinion on the matter as authoritative minus the justification. Disingenuousness occurs when you present my statement that there is no "the" scientific method as the claim that there is no scientific method. Your reply implicitly supports me in my statement, yet you try to spin it as a contradiction. That is something you must wear, brave "Guest."

No credit for reflecting contemporary scientific knowledge of dinosaurs in a pretty picture? Are you incredibly biased or what? I just did that, but you ignored it. Tail aloft for balance. Remember? Or did your bias blot that out? That's fine, though I don't recall saying anything about Fred Flintstone. Any credit at all for the scientifically current pretty dinosaur picture?

Why wouldn't a fatalist supposedly bother? That seems missing from your excellent Wikipedia citation. Perhaps the petard you thought you detected behind me was a reflection of your, uh, past. But I'm delighted to see that you uphold the fine "Guest" tradition of reliance on ad hominem. Keep up the fine work.

And you are able to specifically identify what I supposed missed, O Brave Anonymous "Guest"?

From what I can see from the photographic evidence, the Creation Museum presents more than one view and does not make any claim to absolute accuracy. Though this is off-topic from my point, which has been to defend the museum from the ambiguous charge that it is "anti-science." It should be obvious that the museum need not meet scientific criteria in order to avoid being termed "anti-science." Most atheists should be able to ably explain the distinction, since many of them are not anti-theists at the same time that they are atheists.

Sure I am. The whole point of the Socratic method is to get the other person to put things in their own words and then use the questions to obtain clarification. It is those who try to refer to my questions as "statements" who provide the better evidence of not making the effort to understand. Hold on, there. I don't know what was meant. I have your account, and you may or not be the same "Guest." And you could be lying to CYA. My point has been twofold. First, it doesn't much matter what was meant since backing away from absolutes reinforces my point that accusing the museum of being "anti-science" isn't so easy based on reason. The secondary point concerned the (absolute?) charge that I had leaped to assumptions. Again, I simply asked a question as to that issue, and the other side takes it as a statement of fact or something. The end result is the "Guest" contingent appears inconsistent. I don't necessarily understand what the other person is saying even up through this point, since the other person stays anonymous with a common username ("Guest"), and because you/they could be a liar. And in any event, I have already offered the appropriate response that would result if I took your account as absolutely accurate. It just weakens the case for calling the museum anti-science and leaves us to examine whatever probabilistic evidences are offered, hopefully better than I know anti-science when I see it. What argument do you think I ought to be supporting? Am I not merely criticizing the case of those who claim the museum is "anti-science"? What claims do I need to support that have not been adequately supported? Well, now you're just lying. But on the bright side, at least you're staying anonymous. Where have I insisted that I am right, please? And if you can come up with an honest question somebody has asked me, I'd appreciate an exact quotation. Like what? Let's pretend for a moment that you have used that question as your example of an "honest" question. Since I have kept it my point to address charges that the museum is "anti-science" how am I to interpret the point of someone questioning me to explain how the creation museum meets the criteria of science? From where I sit, the question looks like an attempt to change the subject. Is a question intended to change the subject at the same time an "honest" question? *Whew* That's a relief. For a moment I thought you were going to end your post without resorting to an overt personal attack.

Explain what you mean. Explain what you mean and I'll explain the absence of Republican outrage.

Perhaps they should consider health care reform. That's easy. So that they can leave out the facts mentioned earlier in this thread. You know, the stuff you've been ignoring.

Sure they would. It just depends on what criteria they were expected to defend. Trust you to come up with the "stupid lawyer trick" of immediately tossing out the specific criterion that I have mentioned. But you're not speaking in absolute terms or anything. Right? Hmmm. And here I thought we'd been over the fact that there is no "the" scientific method. Some might say that ignoring the fact that there is no "the" scientific method is an insult to anyone with even a little intelligence (though no doubt not in absolute terms!). Is it? Do you know what "modernism" is? And would you therefore deny that any scientific inquiry took place prior to the advent of "modernism"? If not, then your statement would appear to serve little purpose. You appear to now be conflating science and modernism. Science makes no value judgments. The museum exhibit you linked mentions neither science nor modernism, though it does talk about "the modern world"--but "modern world" is not necessarily talking about modernism. It most often simply means the contemporary world. And, when it comes to that, it seems fair to blame modernism, at least in part, for cultural changes such as changes in the traditional form of marriage and the popularization of euthanasia. The slides you linked do not appear to have anything at all in them representing "God's word" as the unquestionable and absolute truth in every instance. It looks like you're just making that part up out of thin air. If you can refer us to a slide that would actually support that assertion then I recommend that you link it without delay. That doesn't follow, since philosophy encompasses anti-reason positions. Anyhow, I've already explained that "Human reason" is Christianese for wrong thinking. Major branches of Christian theology teach that the mind of man is fallen and will therefore fail to use reason properly. So your argument is a non-starter. Is that a fact? Or is it your claim? If you expect charitable interpretation of your words, then get in the habit of offering it to others. The shameful thing is your attempt to separate my narrow defense of the museum from its broader teachings. Though your pathetic follow-up arguments do come in a close second.

Good analogy, wrong conclusion. Pulling philosophical ideas randomly out of a hat could be a reasonable expression of the philosophy of fatalism. Enjoy the feeling of hoist with your own petard. So, unlike the apparently absolute statements of the supporters of science the statements of the museum advocates are absolute? What is your evidence for that, other than by drawing from your own prejudice? There is plenty of "real science" in evidence at the museum. The photos show many accurately derived "scientific" facts about the creatures featured in the various exhibits, such as the posture of the dinosaurs (tails aloft for balance instead of dragged on the ground). Oh--but you were not speaking in absolutes when you said "There's no science ..."--you actually meant that there is some science. Right? Wow. That could have come from Paul LaClair himself. I wouldn't be surprised if it did. What you've written could pass for doubletalk. Explain why adherence to the Bible could not pass for a creative balance of theory and empiricism. If I seem to want a neat little robotic model, you can ascribe that feeling to your own subjective impression unless you wish to actually take the trouble to show evidence that the impression comes from what I write. I'm using a form of the Socratic method to illustrate to the LaClabots that their judgments about the museum may run afoul of their own supposed principles. I don't really care what justifications they try to use. Whatever they come up with, I'll deal with it in its own terms. OK, so you should agree with me that "anti-science" won't be easy to pin down given that science itself is difficult to pin down. Or am I missing something?

It will be easier for you to obtain replies from me when you reply to my posts.

The same way people have always acquired knowledge. Your statement makes no sense. It was a question, not a statement. Nope. Just asking a question. Apparently you're not the one from whom I will obtain a real answer. Hmmm. And it has absolutely nothing to do with their choice of words? Regardless, as I have pointed out more than once, conceding that the claim was not absolute only makes the claim weaker and continues to leave us waiting for the evidence in support. The claim was that the creation museum is "anti-science." I don't blame you too much for trying to change the subject, given that your side is having so much trouble supporting its assertions.

I understand science just fine. I simply don't assume that you understand science, and if you communicate in terms that resemble absolutes without any attempt to make clear that you are not speaking in absolutes then I have little reason to give you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you should list those claims to absolute truth, so that we can assess whether or not you have read their work approximately as charitably as you wish your own to be read. If you wish to concede doubt as to whether the museum is anti-science then please be my guest. And from that point we can discuss whatever evidence you wish that provides whatever degree of certainly you would attach to your claim. You know it when you see it will not be accepted as a reasonable response.

As excuses for changing the subject go, that's rather weak. This again! I do know that, and as I have already pointed out, the admission of the non-absolute meaning is that you set aside absolute proof that the creation museum is anti-science. Not that anyone has remotely approached that on an evidential basis in the first place. Admit that the charge is less than absolute and you largely lose the force of the charge in the first place. And the deeper we dig into the philsophy of science surrounding the issue, the more difficult it will be to sustain the charge. That's why we're now at the point where your side is down to We know anti-science when we see it combined with baseless personal attacks. Everything works after a fashion. "Best" is a values judgment that cannot come from science. Your side can hardly take a step without stepping in it, as we see yet again.

I must have said there was one school of philosophy or something. Except I didn't, and it doesn't matter one whit to my point. So here's another "Guest" making no real point and coupling it with ad hominem. Maybe one of them would even claim that it is "anti-science." And I'd do the same follow up and ask the scientist on what basis the judgment is made. And if he tells me that if we take 1,000 scientists and they would tell me what is wrong with the museum then I may suspect that he is stalling because he doesn't really know the answer. It's not too late for you to admit that you have no evidence that I don't already know basic science and beyond, either. But ad hominem is so much easier for you, isn't it?

Ah. So if you ignore the problem then it will go away. And you figure that will work. Good luck with that.

Drop the "loose" and you've got it; though of course you'd be contradicting yourself. lol What does that have to do with anything? Red herring=stupid lawyer trick. Straw man=stupid lawyer trick. I'm defending the museum from the charge that it is anti-science. Suggest otherwise and you've strayed from the truth. Saying that you (or that person, assuming more than one "Guest") had trouble grasping the point is not an attack on the person. It does deal with one particular instance of behavior (your behavior is separate from your person, as one may act stupidly without being a stupid person). One may infer that a pattern of behavior reflects on the person exhibiting that behavior, but I made no attempt at all to suggest a pattern. And, finally, this is not a case of ignoring the argument in favor of attacking the person. It is a case of clarifying the actual topic as against the claims of another. There's nothing fallacious or childish about my post. Your final statement, in conjunction with your failure to deal with my point apart from red herrings and straw men, would seem far more difficult to defend. It does appear to qualify as a fallacious ad hominem.

Hey! Great idea! Let's make this about the Republican Party instead of about the New York Times! That will show how desperate the Republicans are! Yeah. Good luck with that one.