JFK_Lib(quoted) - "Can you sense the shift in the public debate?"
Alacarte - Over 40% of the 'public' in the US thinks the earth is 5000 years old, hardly a task to convince them of anything...
JFK_Lib - Ahhh, nothing like opening your argument by insulting the intelligence of nearly 150 million people - right out of the Shout-down Handbook.
You must be proud of having such fine analytical skill.
JFK_Lib(quoted) - "And I see nothing about ID..."
Alacarte - I agree with you here, I see nothing about ID either! In that I mean ID is not an alternative to evolution since ID /has/ no theory. Id is a collection of attacks against evolution, this in no way constitutes a scientific theory!
JFK_Lib - And then you procede to deliberately misquote me to set up a broad disavowal of there being any possible evidence behind ID. Juding from your ability to correctly understand your opponents claims and respond fairly and open mindedly, I am forced to suspect that your evaluation of ID is similarly incomplete, distorted and twisted to suit your predispoistions rather than oriented to exploring the facts for any Truth in the subject.
Surely the fact that some evolutionists find ID to be worthy of concideration must mean that they are similarly as gullible as those who think the Earth 5000 years old?
Oh, I guess they must be Christian fundamentalist evolutionists?
Alacarte - If god made all this, then why does ID not explain anything. How long ago did he make everything? How do you explain the fossil record? How old is man? Essentially, what is the ID answer for all the questions evolution answers? There are none! Why?
JFK_Lib - ID is a search for evidence of design. Why does it warrant dismissal simply because it doesn't answer the questions that you prefer it to? You might as well reject Quantum Mechanics because it doesnt explain the origin of gravity, LOL!
Again, there is no necesary conflict between ID and biological evolution as it addresses the question of design vrs nondesign, which is irrelevant to the question of whether we have had evolution or not.
Alacarte - Because providing data and doing actual science means creating hypotheses that are falsifiable and reproducible. This is something ID'ers cannot do. ID is not considered science by anyone who actually does real science.
JFK_Lib - Oh, bosh! Behe and others have made solid argumetns with evidence. Go read it if you want to know it; your claim is preposterous bombast.
Alacarte - ID is defined by it's opposition to evolution. Without evolution, ID has no scientific merit. Essentially distorting the work of legitimate scientists and using it against science. 'Magic' is not an acceptable alternative to the huge explanatory model of evolution. Cite a couple of hypotheses from the ID model of natural diversity for us? But do it independently of evolution. That means no mention of evolution. You cannot, because ID is not science!
JFK_Lib - You dont even understand ID. It is not opposed to evolution, but to Darwins notion that evolution is necesarily random and unguided. There is too much evidence for the evolution of species for any serious biologist to challenge it. FYI, Darwinism <> evolution.
Alacarte - Of course there are gaps in evolution. There are gaps in the theory of gravity too, I find it interesting that uneducated christians don't seem to have a problem with gravity... History has shown that gaps in theories get filled in with time (as is expected in science as research continues), so pointing at gaps in evolution and saying 'it must be magic!' is the height of intellectual dishonesty.
JFK_Lib - LOL, they are not making an argument based on gaps in knowlege but on the nature of design and how random mutation simply cannot account for an increase in the order, information and organization found in various biological systems. Read Behe.
Alacarte - Even this ridiculous article is a good example. This paper published, was it a paper on ID? NO! It was a paper attacking evolution!!! Do you see the difference? I realize that to people who have no idea how science works, this is easy to miss.
JFK_Lib - You must have read a different article. IT did explain ID and breifly mentions some of its stronger points. I cannot, nor can ID, account for your inability to read comprehensivley.
Alacarte - ID relies on the false premise that if evolution is proven wrong, then god musta gone dunnit. Well, sorry folks, even if tomorrow an archaeologist finds a cat skeleton beside a t-rex skeleton and evolution is falsified, that does not mean the answer is MAGIC!!!
JFK_Lib - ID does not at all address who/what gave nature its design as that is in other realms of knowlege, and not for scientific investigation. But your dismissive equation of God with mere magic is simply more evidence of your closed minded bigotry and irrationalism. You label something without addressing its claims and then dismiss your opposition because they are what you label them as. There is no finer example of hysterical closed mindedness even in the anals of the Inquisition, the Stalin Trials or the Cultural Revolution. You must be proud of that.
Alacarte - Time to change the lead plumbing.
JFK_Lib - Maybe you shouldnt have lead plumbing in your home at all?
Nice naturalist evangelist talking points, but that's all that they are. When you write things like "ID relies on the false premise that if evolution is proven wrong then god musta gone dunnit" it is obvious you haven't studied the subject. Of course you porbably have no porblems with naturlists who say "yeah, the fossil record is against us, but someday it will prove us right because we are right." Good luck with that.