Skip to comments.
Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker
The New York Times ^
| December 4, 2005
| LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Posted on 12/03/2005 5:28:45 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440, 441-460, 461-480 ... 1,041-1,060 next last
To: PatrickHenry
Isn't is about time for the Dover verdict?
441
posted on
12/04/2005 4:30:02 AM PST
by
js1138
(Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
To: Liberty Wins
"The Taliban has scientists? Ya think?"Read my reply carefully, one need not be a scientist to have an approach to science. For example, look at the nonsense spouted by the ID proponents on this post.
442
posted on
12/04/2005 4:32:13 AM PST
by
muir_redwoods
(Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
To: Senator Bedfellow
443
posted on
12/04/2005 4:33:17 AM PST
by
js1138
(Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
To: RunningWolf
"No in fact it probably has much more to do with your posting history. You know, all that stuff you bring to the table in the name of science and the cause of evo-cultism."
Ah, another deep post from Wolfie. lol
444
posted on
12/04/2005 4:34:39 AM PST
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
To: RunningWolf
"Since character nor integrity is apparent here, Wolf will do it for you."
Yes, we have all noticed your lack of character and integrity Wolfie. :)
445
posted on
12/04/2005 4:35:55 AM PST
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
To: Agdistis
These theories must be proved
Theories in science are never proven.
Then they want to whine about teaching Intelligent Design? An idea that this universe, this world, along with humans were designed by an Intelligent being?
The "whine" is that Intelligent Design is not science, which it is not.
These g-d haters
Why do ID-pushers dishonestly claim that everyone who opposes pushing ID as science is a "God-hater"?
446
posted on
12/04/2005 4:39:52 AM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Agdistis
Intelligent Design has absolutely nothing to do with God or religion. The people who started the movement and promote it say so and have testified to this effect under oath.
The rejection of ID has nothing to do with re rejection of religion. It is just of an unproductive idea. If someone can make ID scientifically productive, that will be fine.
The Templeton Foundation has offered to fund ID research, but no proposals have been made.
So drop the God Hater ruse. ID is not religion.
447
posted on
12/04/2005 4:49:44 AM PST
by
js1138
(Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
To: js1138
The people who started the movement and promote it say so and have testified to this effect under oath.
And yet others claiming to champion the cause of ID say otherwise. It seems that it's religious when they want to claim "religious persecution!" and not religious when someone rightly points out that science cannot address matters of the supernatural (though ID still ends up failing as science for other reasons).
448
posted on
12/04/2005 4:59:03 AM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Dimensio
I am just pointing out what Templeton and Discovery Institute admit. Even when offered money for research, ID is unproductive. The ID movement cannot even suggest avenues of research.
This distinguished ID from such conjectures as string theory, which has managed, despite enormous obstacles, to produce research.
Or consider the problem quantum theory faced proving entanglement -- possibly the most counterintuitive idea ever faced by science.
When the ideas are real, the research follows.
449
posted on
12/04/2005 5:07:26 AM PST
by
js1138
(Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
To: shuckmaster
not without proof it doesn't
450
posted on
12/04/2005 5:37:58 AM PST
by
whispering out loud
(the bible is either 100% true, or in it's very nature it is 100% a lie)
To: muir_redwoods
"Okay, I'll tell you why your exampe is silly. If we saw the expression "E=MC^2" written on the sand we would recognize it as an expression written it the language common to about 50% of humanity and would know instantly that it was put there by an intelligent force. If, instead we saw the image of a line stretching into the distance resembling this pattern,~~~~~~~ on the sand you might think it was put there by an intelligent force and I might conclude it was simply the actions of waves."
Nice try, but not quite. Replace the message "E = MC^2" with a complicated figure of any kind, and we would still "know instantly that it was put there by an intelligent force." And no, "~~~~~~~~" is *not* a complicated figure. Your claim that the message is "written in a common language" is completely incidental to the main point. Sorry, but my argument stands, despite your fervent wishes to the contrary.
451
posted on
12/04/2005 5:45:30 AM PST
by
RussP
To: Liberty Wins
"The monkeys also recently typed out a Norman Mailer novel, but that doesn't count."
Priceless!
452
posted on
12/04/2005 5:56:32 AM PST
by
Pietro
To: RussP
"Nice try, but not quite. Replace the message "E = MC^2" with a complicated figure of any kind, and we would still "know instantly that it was put there by an intelligent force." And no, "~~~~~~~~" is *not* a complicated figure. Your claim that the message is "written in a common language" is completely incidental to the main point. Sorry, but my argument stands, despite your fervent wishes to the contrary."Sorry Russ, but you've failed again. Are you aware that the muslims in Europe have successfully gotten Burger King to pull promotional displays for their smoothee drinks because the picture of the smoothee show a whipped topping that resembles the arabic word for their pig-dog idol, allah? It seems some of your philosiophical allies found what they believed to be an intelligent script for their god in a random display of creamy topping. How is your example any different?
453
posted on
12/04/2005 6:11:54 AM PST
by
muir_redwoods
(Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
To: phantomworker
Dominant and recessive (and partially dominant, etc.) are all passed on by the same mechanism. Of course, having such a gene may change the survival probabilities. There're several books about the subject, but I don't remember the names. GOOGLE may be of help. The subject is "population genetics."
454
posted on
12/04/2005 6:13:08 AM PST
by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
To: RussP
The statement would still be false.
455
posted on
12/04/2005 6:17:27 AM PST
by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
To: phantomworker
That's one possibility. However, one could do things like take the percentage of a certain gene and see how this percentage may grow or shrink over generations; based on things like fitness, luck, etc. Genetic algorithms simulate specific outcomes (strong solutions to the problem) but one can also track averages (weak solutions to the problem) or other collective properties.
456
posted on
12/04/2005 6:28:02 AM PST
by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
To: Dimensio
Not to mention Mustafa Akyol, hired by the Kansas Conseravtive, member of BAV and writer for Harun Yahyn as well as National Review.
457
posted on
12/04/2005 6:29:05 AM PST
by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
To: Dimensio
Again, atheism apparently excludes any being higher than man.
You offer no argument. An argument would be a statement.
Instead you ask a question.
I dont mind answering more than twice.
Hello?
458
posted on
12/04/2005 6:46:02 AM PST
by
reasonisfaith
(Atheists don’t believe in God because they think they can’t see God. The content of their argument)
To: Dimensio
How do we enhance student learning by lying to them? We could make a game of it. Call it "Spot the Bullsh*t," a game in which students evaluate different presenters on scientific validity of presentation.
The first thoughts on a cheat sheet for such a test:
- If he's telling you you'll go to hell for disbelieving, it isn't science.
- If he's appealing to the world-wide conspiracy to suppress the truth, it isn't science.
- If the evidence is just sort of everywhere around you but not in any specific series of studies or experiments, it isn't science.
- If it's a drive-by shooting of one unsupported statement after another after another, it probably isn't science. (Or, if it is, it's too poorly presented to tell.)
- If the presenter can't seem to understand your questions or objections, that's a bad sign.
- If the presentation is "all arithmetic and no model," that's a bad sign.
459
posted on
12/04/2005 6:47:26 AM PST
by
VadeRetro
(Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
To: js1138
Google Knows All. All Hail Google! :)
I suspect a lot of posters know too, having googled it, but oddly, nobody seems to want to touch it.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440, 441-460, 461-480 ... 1,041-1,060 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson