Posted on 12/03/2005 5:28:45 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
TO read the headlines, intelligent design as a challenge to evolution seems to be building momentum.
...
Behind the headlines, however, intelligent design as a field of inquiry is failing to gain the traction its supporters had hoped for. It has gained little support among the academics who should have been its natural allies. And if the intelligent design proponents lose the case in Dover, there could be serious consequences for the movement's credibility.
On college campuses, the movement's theorists are academic pariahs, publicly denounced by their own colleagues. Design proponents have published few papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Sorry. That's a lot of bull... All you keep doing is providing circular links to chaos theory, which is quite interesting.
But you are still not making your point. How is stochastic processes related to evolution?
And by the way, what is your point?
I would argue that there's nothing sophisticated about charlatan pseudo science.
This country is full of people with degrees who can barely read. In 1986 a raging forest fire was set off in Washington state when two campers mis-read the Forest Service brochure. They thought it said "Burn your garbage," when it actually read: BURY your garbage.
They were both recent graduates of Harvard medical school.
"Describe for me, with clinical precision, an experiment in ID. Describe an experiment wherein the outcome of "G-d did it" is not known before the results are in."
"ID isn't science, it is a wish."
What I find interesting about this assertion is that it could be turned around to say exactly the opposite and still be every bit as valid:
"Describe for me, with clinical precision, an experiment in evolution. Describe an experiment wherein the outcome of "G-d didn't do it" is not known before the results are in."
"ID isn't science, it is a wish." (in this case, that God *doesn't* exist)
Funny - All these self proclaimed science purists know is ad hominem. This is not science. It is comedy.
It's too late; the schools are already graduating kids who can't read, write, or do basic math, and it isn't ID or creation that's being taught in the schools.
That's going to make it all better.
correction:
"evolution isn't science, it is a wish." (in this case, that God *doesn't* exist)
How is stochastic processes related to evolution?
And by the way, what is your point?
What exactly is your point?
In that case, there are several hundred million seriously confused Christians. Including the Pope.
The principle of objectivity is a subjective assumption. It can only be determinative if ID is valid. That is, unless ID is assumed, objectivity has no meaning.
To which the proper response is, Describe for me, with clinical precision, an experiment in Darwinian evolution. I don't mean small-scale intraspecies evolution, with which I have no problems, but general evolution of species.
Well, of course general evolution is not subject to "experiment." It's not something you can do on a lab table. Like Intelligent Design theory, it's a hypothesis built up out of millions of details and assorted facts. You can put these facts together in one way or in another. You can argue that they can all be explained by survival of the fittest, or that the statistical odds against such an explanation are simply too high to be possible.
Indeed, as a great deal of recent work has shown, much of it by scientists with no particular interest in ID, they rely on our universe being particularly human-friendly, because if some of the basic constants were a little different, life would not have been possible. One way of dealing with that problem is to hypothesize an infinite number of parallel universes, with differing constants. But frankly I find that implausible.
You Darwinists are irrelevant in your tangeants on deciding public education funding. Discuss your cult, but not the funding.
Yet you keep discussing the funding which threatens your cult.
Yet the funding for gay classes, fisting, harryPotter fantasy and Islmamofascism seem to be the REAL RELEVANT reason and conflict of interest you have with them, since you NEVER discuss their irrelevancy in public education.
DARWINISTS ARE ENRAGED THAT THE RELIGIOUS APPLY DISCUSSION, THE SCIENCE OF SCIENCES, INCLUDING THAT OF DARWIN.
Darwin is but one theory, and since they have to be submited to the science of sciences, and that Marxists are out, but the religious still there to moderate, they cannot stand it.
"In that case, there are several hundred million seriously confused Christians. Including the Pope."
No argument there.
You know, your discussion makes no sense at all...
No, Sir. That is not the way scientists talk. That is the way left-wing ideologue professors talk when reason fails them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.