Ugh. I already said I'm sick to death of seeing "theory" misunderstood and abused, as a word.
1. The judge's ruling is not proof, it is evidence because of what he says, and what he bases the proof upon, as a neutral arbiter. In fact, he was probably predisposed to believing in the ID/IC ideas because he is a Christian and one of the most conservative members of that federal district's judiciary.
2. Science (and all theories it contains) will always be open to testing, and never proved, because that's what science is.
That's what keeps science honest and lets us reasonably believe in it at all. It does not mean "this is a guess", it means that is an explanation that fits what we see, whose details survive all current abilities to test it for falsehood.
It's a method of honesty.
Taking the radical ideas of a tiny, tiny number of people, ideas which either have been tested and proven false or which are phrased in a way that is not testable and thus not science, and calling them "a theory too" is to spit in the face of every scientist who has labored lifetimes to unify and test every part of the scientific body of knowledge.
Theory is the highest praise we can heap upon an idea.
Calling somebody's random hunch a theory is to spit on the entire community of science. Just because some (a lot of) people find comfort in the way the woo-woo of those radical ideas sounds, like mystics and their Yoga-Buddhism/Hinduism woo-woo, doesn't mean they are real ideas, which is why they must be subjected to the scientific method, open for reproducible and falsifiable testing. Until that happens, it is not okay to call it "another theory".
1. The judge's ruling is not proof, it is evidence because of what he says, and what he bases the proof upon, as a neutral arbiter. In fact, he was probably predisposed to believing in the ID/IC ideas because he is a Christian and one of the most conservative members of that federal district's judiciary.
2. Science (and all theories it contains) will always be open to testing, and never proved, because that's what science is.
That's what keeps science honest and lets us reasonably believe in it at all. It does not mean "this is a guess", it means that is an explanation that fits what we see, whose details survive all current abilities to test it for falsehood.
It's a method of honesty.
Taking the radical ideas of a tiny, tiny number of people, ideas which either have been tested and proven false or which are phrased in a way that is not testable and thus not science, and calling them "a theory too" is to spit in the face of every scientist who has labored lifetimes to unify and test every part of the scientific body of knowledge.
Theory is the highest praise we can heap upon an idea.
Calling somebody's random hunch a theory is to spit on the entire community of science. Just because some (a lot of) people find comfort in the way the woo-woo of those radical ideas sounds, like mystics and their Yoga-Buddhism/Hinduism woo-woo, doesn't mean they are real ideas, which is why they must be subjected to the scientific method, open for reproducible and falsifiable testing. Until that happens, it is not okay to call it "another theory".
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
