Quote:
Originally posted by AKA_Monet
So why is it that the folks that are making sense about this argument either are science geeks, like myself and got good grades in math and all the science courses...
|
I may be risking a little too much presumption -- I'd like to think I'm one of the people making sense in this argument -- but I'm hardly a science geek. I pretty much endured science in school and, while I did make decent grades, any one could have told you that science and math just weren't my things. I took what was required and avoided the rest. History, English, Foreign Languages, Social Studies, Arts -- those were my strong suits. But I do think it is of prime value to be well-rounded in one's education.
I'm a musician and a lawyer. And perhaps it's my training as the latter that forms my approach here. We don't live in Wonderland, where a Mad Hatter can say "Words mean what I say they mean." Words in specific disciplines have meanings specific to those disciplines.
Much of the problem in the ID/creationism/evolution, as I hear the discussion drag on, is that too many people either do not know or refuse to recognize that "theory" has a specific meaning in science. Because in everyday discourse, "theory" can mean "conjecture" or "opinion," too many people try to make the "theory of evolution" mean the "opinion of evolution."
So it is quite possible for many of us non-scientist types to "get it."
Threaded Mode