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 ...
No. Were this true, neither your computer screen nor atomic bombs would work.
LOL! How so, Dr Stochastic?
(I guess that would make sense to track individual genes. I like the trademark.)
Is there a university in Afghanistan?
Not nearly as much as being politically allied with people who are so scientifically ignorant as most of the anti-Es who post here. No, worse than ignorant, impervious to knowledge.
LOL!
Have to agree, Wolf!
Think of causal logic as a progressive, ordered path of ideas or concepts (because that’s what it is.)
And by the way, do you really not understand the significance of atheism to this discussion? I might be willing to explain it to you, that is if you really need the explanation, but it will waste time and you will appear a little dumber than you had probably hoped.
I suppose there are but you could do your own research. There are also lots of madassas there where they teach that all wisdom comes from scripture and that anything that contradicts literal interpretation of that scripture is anathema.
I really have to apologize for using a liberal-leftist tactic. It's called "guilt by association."
Just because the liberals have used evolution in their war against Christianity doesn't mean you folks are involved in it, right?
Some genes are passed on, some are not. This gives a stochastic character to offspring compared to parents.
In terms of subjectivity vs. objectivity. Yes, we do start with what we see. But you need to quantify and organize information apart from what we see. There is no way to objectively measure design. How would we even begin to go about it? That's why ID cannot succeed as science.
"Well, Russ, I can handle much more that you've dealt. I can explain it for you but I cannot understand it for you."
Let me try one more time to help *you* understand.
Evolutionists regularly assert that ID does not even qualify as a scientific theory because it is "unfalsifiable."
That claim is baloney. To illustrate that fact, I postulated the following hypothetical scenario. We're walking along the beach and we see the message, "E = MC^2" in large letters in the sand.
Now, suppose I said, "I'm pretty sure that message was put there by an intelligent being. I don't think it was the result of random winds or waters."
As an evolutionist, if you are consistent with your claim that ID is "unscientific" because it is "unfalsifiable," you would reply that my "theory of intelligent writing" is "unfalsifiable" and therefore wrong.
You then replied that this scenario is contrived because we already know the writing wasn't a random result. But HOW did we know that? We didn't see anyone write the message. The answer is that we know because we have COMMOM FRIGGIN' SENSE!
Do you get it now? You have common sense about the writing on the beach, but you apparently have none with regard to the definition of "science."
What in the world does it take to get through to you guys?
He didn't, and I didn't say he did. However, he recently made a claim disavowing ID and reinforcing his belief in evolution.
Can I answer any other questions for you?
Scientifically gathered data, such as fossils and DNA analysis, is objective in that it is tangible and real. Scientists may disagree as to what it means and how to interpret it, but it exists. ID has no means of gathering data that can be measured in the real world. Therefore, all claims of ID are subjective.
Would that include recessive genes as well?
What particular stochastic process is used to model it?
For example, Markovian would be memoryless.
I don’t assume that, and you can’t assume I do.
I'm annoyed at the dig the author took at the Holy Father. His declaration that the universe is an "intelligent project" has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the nonsense coming out of the discovery institute.
Then why bring up the totally unrelated topic of atheism in a discussion of evolution?
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.