History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Sophmoric science

September 24th, 2009 · No Comments

nce, Non-Science, and Pseudoscience

John Wilkins points to a post by Nick Smyth with the delightful title Science, Pseudoscience and Bollocks on the demarcation problem and what Smyth thinks is a flawed tactic in the war against ID/creationism. Smyth’s basic argument is that labeling ID/creationism as non-science, or as pseudoscience, fails because there is no clear demarcation between science and non-science; we do not have criteria such that we can draw a bright line between science and all other human intellectual enterprises.

More on the science issue at Panda’s Thumb.

Current science, in good Kantian fashion, cannot locate the data for much of what it imperialistically claims to be able to explain, in principle.
Science in its sophmoric mode issues a promissory note that it explains everything, and then bungles almost everything that isn’t physics, Darwinism especially.
You folks should stop being sophmoric (one year in college was enough) and experience a dose of realism.

Tags: Science

0 responses so far ↓

  • There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment