Originally Posted by baron greenback

I feel an important distinction needs to be made.
Computers, Video Phones, DVD players, Gamecubes, Cellphones, Cars, Trains, Planes, Levers, Pulleys, and yes, even wheels are technologies. A formula describing the motion of a wheel, the collision of two trains and/or cellphones, or the time-to-live in relation to the ping of a signal generated by your video phone, is mathematics. A schematic of your computer or gamecube or cellphone is electronics. A schematic of a complex mechanical device such as a car or train is an engineering or technical drawing application.

Now, running two trains into eachother to determine the stability of the extant structures while letting a third train run unobstructed, or throwing every game into your machine to see which ones will run and which ones won't after running a game you already know runs once to make sure the machine works, or throwing a video phone and a computer out a window to see which one hits the ground first after throwing your boss out the window since you've already recorded how long it takes him to hit the ground, is science.

The problem I have with most "esoteric sciences" is that they aren't, well, sciences. In point of fact, most of them aren't really research disciplines, as there are literally no agreed upon rules among the "scientific communities" they compose. That is to say, that I could ask two holistic doctors how best to remove a failing kidney and expect two different answers, and have no text to turn to when their answers do not coincide.

This is especially true of evolution science. New "theories" are developed and adopted by a select few evolution scientists (without going into *cough* hovind *cough* specifics or examples at this moment). These theories are not tested in any manner whatsoever, no investigation is done, and instead surrounding data that may or may not coincide with what is being claimed is simply put forth as "evidence". Finally, when one of these "theories" comes in the face of A.)contradictory evidence, B.)any questioning on methods used to obtain data, or C.)sadly, another creation science theory, it is usually abandonded by all but a fringe, who purport it's factuality to a degree of near insanity. Now, I'm not claiming this is unilaterally true. It is, however, something I have personally witnessed multiple hundreds of times, and is something that occurs in creation science's greatest and most lauded individuals. I strongly encourage a visit to www.drdino.com.

To me, it's not a favoritism issue. It's a quality control issue.

Originally Posted by BioBeing

Lane - I didn't read the Baron's posts as criticizing bone fide evolution research, but rather the tag-alongs in the field (such as Dr Dino) who try to act like scientists.

Did you read it differently?