Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker

The New York Times ^ | December 4, 2005 | LAURIE GOODSTEIN

[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.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Not curious at all. At least not after ten lustra experience with creationists.

[reasonisfaith]

"So your point is that we can't be rational unless we assume, without evidence, that there is a source of rationality in the universe. I don't quite see the logic that goes behind it. Maybe if you supported your claim with evidence rather than just asserted it you might make more sense."

I think he might be saying that causality must have a beginning. It couldn’t have started in man because man is finite, or because man did not come before all else.

[Louis Foxwell]

I figured as much - you haven't read her stuff. Sorry, kid - come back when you have something to contribute on the subject.

ROTFLMAO

But enough about me. Let's talk about you. I have noticed that you are categorically incapable of civil discourse.

[RussP]

"You're making my point for me. The example cited isn't an experiment, it's an observation wherein you already know the answer."

The original scenario was that we were walking along the beach and saw the message, "E = MC^2" in large letters in the sand. How would we determine if it had been written by an intelligent agent or was simply an effect of random winds?

You replied that, "it's an observation wherein you already know the answer." How did we know the answer? We didn't see anyone actually write the message.

"That can't be the best you can do, it's embarrassingly silly."

Well, it's clearly more than you can handle.

[muir_redwoods]

"In fact, atheism is a wish. I truly feel sorry saying this to atheists because it makes visible their greatest weakness. But the pain is potentially short lived."

I'll have to trust your personal experience with atheism since I would never embrace a null hypothesis like atheism. I would also never speak in such a way as to limit the creative options of the Almighty. The Creator certainly isn't bound by any limits I might propose nor any proposed by people who would feel that the Creator could not use evolution to further His ends.

[Doctor Stochastic]

The commonest appeals to "common sense" are generally nonsensical.

[Senator Bedfellow]

Nah, let's talk about Anne Dambricourt. Since you challenge my categorization of her as a crackpot, why don't you give us a synopsis of her theories, and explain how you feel they're solid science?

Take as much time as you need, but don't bother googling it unless your French is up to snuff.

[muir_redwoods]

"Checkmate."

So, you concede?

[Dimensio]

I think he might be saying that causality must have a beginning.

What has that to do with rationality? Or is this another non-sequitur like you bringing up atheism in a discussion about evolution?

[Liberty Wins]

I would like to say something about the pro-evolution debaters on this thread.

Some of you are obviously sincere, having posted on FR for years, and also having left some traces of your real selves on your profile pages for us to read about.

I feel sorry for you. Not because your beliefs sometimes include non-belief in God or the Bible (that is your business, not mine).

However, does it ever bother you that you're sharing a philosophical bed with the likes of Alfred Kinsey, Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, Ted Kennedy and every other freako liberal in this country?

[muir_redwoods]

Well, Russ, I can handle much more that you've dealt. I can explain it for you but I cannot understand it for you.

[muir_redwoods]

"However, does it ever bother you that you're sharing a philosophical bed with the likes of Alfred Kinsey, Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, Ted Kennedy and every other freako liberal in this country?"

Does it bother you that you share the beliefs and approach to science embraced by the taliban?

[Doctor Stochastic]

You can, however, apply Stochastic™ methods to tracking individual genes.

[185JHP]

BTTT

[RunningWolf]

I think some, maybe you are sincere also. But that taliban connection is just plain nuts.

Wolf

[Doctor Stochastic]

"Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 1050 has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence...

No, were that true, it would falsify the Battle of Hastings.

[Oztrich Boy]

I would say proven fact would qualify as a higher level...

1. Facts: the data points - the lowestr level
2. Law: and expession, sonetimes mathematical, that maps those data points and predicts where other data points are expected to.
3. Hypothethsis: Speculation why the Law works the way it does.
4. Theory: As 3, but making testable predictions in areas not covered by 2. - the highest level

[Liberty Wins]

"Does it bother you that you share the beliefs and approach to science embraced by the taliban?"

The Taliban has scientists? Ya think?

[muir_redwoods]

"But that taliban connection is just plain nuts"

It might pain you to see it made plain but it's accurate. Point out the error in my post and I'll accept it if accurate.

[185JHP]

Excellence In Posting