The Great Beyond

It seems that "tolerance", "multiculturalism" and "freedom of speech", once the banners of the Enlightenment in overthrowing feudal nonsense and dogma, are now being wielded by those wishing to overturn the Enlightenment and drag us back to the Dark Ages.

"..a spokeswoman for Middlesex spluttered, “It is difficult to see how anyone could consider the healthcare system of Ayurveda as ‘non-scientific’. People from India and Sri Lanka have considered it science for thousands of years.”"

It is difficult to see how people from India and Sri Lanka could have considered it as science for "thousands of years". The term Science was coined around 1300 AD in the west.

Again considering something to be science doesnt make it science. Creationists consider creationism and intelligent design to be science and many people from India and Sri Lanka consider Astrology to be a science too.

There seems to be a colossal ignorance of the difference between science and pseudo-science and it can be confusing to the layman. Wikipedia has a good definition of Pseudoscience: ".. a body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status."

From somewhere else "The fundamental feature that separates the process of science from pseudoscience.. is that science is a genuine search for what is true, regardless of what that might be, whereas pseudoscience begins with a desired conclusion and then works backward to verify only that conclusion."

The spokeswoman suffers from incoherence. No wonder she was spluttering.

We have a criteria to judge what is science and what is non-science[nonsense]and that is 'methodology of science' -any such issue/subject as has been indicated here could be assessed on it without any prejudice and then could be accepted or discarded accordingly.

dear sir,
science is nothing but a verified fact which is unchangeable for time.This is what homoeopathy, it is a fact build on unchangeable natural laws and undefeatable facts which survives more that 200years for serving the humanity in a scientific way. You a are not suppose to say the system as an unscientific, before verifying the facts. Homoeopathy will stand undefeatable for ever .

V. Charuvahan seems to be blissfully unaware of the complete rout and annihilation of homeopathy as having any scientific credibility whatsoever. The only thing that remains undefeated is human ignorance and stupidity, which seems to march triumphantly onwards.
He might also do well to brush up on what science is (and what it is not).

It seems that those who supposedly champion Enlightenment ideals are now wielding the tools of censorship and bullying. The review of ICR in Texas had been going smoothly, but when the accolytes of evolutionism heard about it, they turned up the heat and Paredes twisted the system and repeated the usual slogans rather than giving the school a fair hearing. There are a lot of problems with American higher education, but doing science in a framework that allows for the mindset of Newton, Boyle, Pasteur, and G. W. Carver would not be a problem, let alone "drag us back to the Dark Ages."

Evolution is more impossible than the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and the Headless Horseman. See
http://www.lifescienceprize.org/ for a list of bluffing evolutionists.

It seems strange for evolutionists to be accusing ICR and others like ICR of pseudoscience because they work within the framework of belief in a supernatural Creator. Evolutionary scientists have admitted they work within a framework which has determined in advance that there is no supernatural Creator, and they will deny the supernatural no matter what the evidence.

I cant speak for all "Evolutionary scientists" but it is not true that the science of evolution itself "works within a framework which has determined in advance that there is no supernatural Creator".

It merely explains, quite nicely, the evolution of the species from simpler beginnings. The evidence is overwhelming. The origin of the first living cell remains a mystery so far, but will it remain so for all time? – probably not. Even if it does the rest of the theory doesn’t fall down.

"The fundamental feature that separates the process of science from pseudoscience.. is that science is a genuine search for what is true, regardless of what that might be, whereas pseudoscience begins with a desired conclusion and then works backward to verify only that conclusion."

Darwin was quite disturbed by what the evidence led him to conclude and withheld publishing for many years. All creationists are trying to do, so far as I can make out, is trying to throw doubt on evolution by showing how improbable certain aspects of evolution seem to be, without producing any evidence of their own.

"All creationists are trying to do, so far as I can make out, is trying to throw doubt on evolution by showing how improbable certain aspects of evolution seem to be, without producing any evidence of their own."
Actually, that's more the focus of Intelligent Design... Meanwhile, did you ever wonder if you might see any 'evidence' if free inquiry were allowed to continue in an academic setting, instead of being censored like this Texas board is trying to do? I say continue, because this small school has been operating, and growing, for over 20 years in California. Rather than expounding in ignorance, you might check out the ongoing research at this Institute for... Research, at their web site, or at the Creation Research Society's web site, with a quarterly Journal for over 40 years, Creation Ministries International, with their Journal of Creation for about 30 years, or at the International Conference on Creation every 4 years, the 6th of which will be held this year in Pittsburg, Pa.
Significantly, specialization groups have begun focusing on various disciplines across the last decade, including the 'Radiometric Dating and the Age of the Earth'(RATE)group, the Baraminology(now Biology) Study group, and a Geology Study group, these last two independent entities also holding their own conferences.

Actually I have never wondered if Creationists could produce any evidence. There are infinitely better things to wonder about. I am not waiting on the edge of my seat in nervous anticipation for them to prove that the Earth is 6,000 years old and flat.

Can you tell me exactly what you believe in and why? (Regarding the age of the Earth and how the species evolved? – lets not get too involved).

There is no censorship in the sense that you are not prevented from saying what you want to say. But you will be shot down on the basis of evidence and logic for making wrong or absurd claims.

You cannot claim something to be science when it is not. You start with a belief and try to prove that - unlike science, which examines the evidence and then sees where the evidence leads. If the arguments are persuasive they are accepted, till a better explanation comes along.