Do you think any of these guys (also free thinkers) might have more scientific education than we do?
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1103AP_Czech_Intelligent_Design.html
Monday, October 24, 2005
'Intelligent design' supporters gather
By ONDREJ HEJMA
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
PRAGUE, Czech Republic -- Hundreds of supporters of "intelligent design" theory gathered in Prague in the first such conference in eastern Europe, but Czech scholars boycotted the event insisting it had no scientific credence.
About 700 scientists from Africa, Europe and the United States attended Saturday's "Darwin and Design" conference to press their contention that evolution cannot fully explain the origins of life or the emergence of highly complex species.
"It is a step beyond Darwin," said Carole Thaxton of Atlanta, a biologist who lived with her husband, Charles, in Prague in the 1990s and was one of the organizers of the event.
"The point is to show that there in fact is intelligence in the universe," she said. The participants, who included experts in mathematics, molecular biology and biochemistry, "are all people who independently came to the same conclusion," she said.
Among the panelists was Stephen C. Meyer, a fellow at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank that represents many scholars who support intelligent design.
He said intelligent design was "based upon scientific evidence and discoveries in fields such as biochemistry, molecular biology, paleontology and astrophysics."
PRAGUE, Czech Republic -- Hundreds of supporters of "intelligent design" theory gathered in Prague in the first such conference in eastern Europe, but Czech scholars boycotted the event insisting it had no scientific credence.
--snip--
Pavel Kabrt, a Czech who served on the committee that organized the event, said the capital of the ex-communist country _ now a highly secular republic _ was a fitting backdrop for the debate.
"Communism is gone, but its main pillar, Darwin's theory, is still here ... the evolution theory is taught as dogma here starting in nursery school," said Kabrt, an electrician who lectures on intelligent design at Czech high schools.
http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/34122.html
Next science:
The Science Behind Intelligent Design Theory
Read all about it: http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/idscience.htm
Last but not least: Now you seem to want me to define science by your criteria, Gumlegs. Here's my criteria, using my own common sense as a free thinker:
A) There is no proof that an ape can become a human.
B) Darwin convinced scientists to believe his theory based on antiquated information, at that time, like we only have one cell, when we really have trillions, and when there are new discoveries, evo scientists just change the theories.
The human body is made up trillions of cells.
http://websekolah.bharian.com.my/F1Sci/june15.html
Again, this is a recent discovery.
Scientists as a group are more rational and skeptical than the general population, but that doesn't mean there won't be outliers who have pet ideas, succumb to religious fanaticism, or are outright nuts.
Some may even give in to the lure of money and become charlatans who've discovered that promoting crazy ideas is a good way to make a lot of money without doing a lot of work by fleecing the ignorant and gullible.
Some do, some don’t. I notice, by the way, that the article states that the “hundreds of supporters” who gathered were ignored by Czech scholars … but we’ll ignore that. It’s hilarious, though, that we’d read, "’Communism is gone, but its main pillar, Darwin's theory, is still here ... the evolution theory is taught as dogma here starting in nursery school,’ said Kabrt, an electrician who lectures on intelligent design at Czech high schools.”
Communism, as practiced in the Soviet Union, explicitly rejected the Theory of Evolution, and demanded the theories of Lysenko be accepted.
But again, I digress. None of this answers any of the requests or questions I asked in my last post to you. Here they are again:
1. I’d like to see the name of just one who would accept your position, which I quoted before, " that if the pro-ID people got THEIR own dictionary, would that make it correct, or does this separate dictionary only apply for the evo THEORY?"
2. The article does not address this: “The pro-ID people are presently engaged in attempting to change the definition of science in an effort to claim ID is scientific. This in and of itself should be a convincing demonstration that ID isn't science.” Please comment.
3. The article doesn’t address this: Here are three questions every scientific theory must be able to answer in order to be considered scientific. Thus far, no ID proponent has offered answers to any of these:
What predictions does it make?Regarding the article, “The Science Behind Intelligent Design Theory,” the author relies quite a bit on Dembski. It should be pointed out that Dembski’s examples fail to meet his own mathematical criteria, that his mathematical critera have never been explained (he's never stated a basis for the numbers he uses), and that Dembski’s most important criterion (never stated, but apparently the one that governs his theory), is “I know it when I see it.”
What new lines of inquiry will result from it?
How can it be falsified?
Last but not least: Now you seem to want me to define science by your criteria, Gumlegs.
Not my criteria, the criteria used by science. All of science, not just the Theory of Evolution.
Here's[sic] my criteria, using my own common sense as a free thinker:
A) There is no proof that an ape can become a human.
B) Darwin convinced scientists to believe his theory based on antiquated information, at that time, like we only have one cell, when we really have trillions, and when there are new discoveries, evo scientists just change the theories.
The human body is made up trillions of cells.
Your criteria have nothing whatever to do with science. How would “A,” for instance, address gravitational theory? Please note that the criteria I posted (again, I didn’t make them up), apply to every scientific theory. “There’s no proof that an ape can become human” is again merely an attempted attack on the Theory of Evolution, and is in no way support for any other theory. Incidentally, if it could be shown that an ape became a human, it would be considered disproof of the Theory of Evolution.
In my last post to you, I stated,
If, on the other hand, you start complaining about what you believe other theories do or don’t do, or pretend not to understand what “falsifiable” means in a scientific sense, then all you’ve done is demonstrate that you don’t know what you’re talking about.All you’ve done is complain about the Theory of Evolution. You’ve just supplied an example of not knowing what you’re talking about.
Each and every statement in “B” is just silly. Let’s take them in order: “Darwin convinced scientists to believe his theory based on antiquated information.” I’m not sure what you mean by this, but Darwin’s theory was new when he proposed it. What “antiquated” information was he using? I don’t know where the “one cell” notion you’ve stated comes from but I’d like to see a citation – one from Darwin, and not Jack Chick. In any case, the Theory of Evolution doesn’t stand or fall on the number of cells in the human body – or any other body, for that matter.
Your objection to the Theory of Evolution being modified to account for new discoveries is more support for my contention that you don’t know anything about science. In fact, this objection is an objection not to the Theory of Evolution, but to science itself!
1720 alert.
Yes. Back around 1965, I can remember my High School Biology teacher intoning, "The human body contains hundreds of cells, class! Perhaps over a thousand!"
Are you really this stupid? Do you actually believe that there was a time when anyone, anywhere, ever believed that the human body "only has one cell"? Much less in 1859, centuries after the first discovery of the cell?
Clue for the clueless: From the very first moment cells were first discovered, thousands of them were visible in the tiny bit of tissue under that primitive microscope, and their microscopic size was clearly understood. So what kind of moron today would be able to swallow the idiotic notion that anyone back then would ever have been dense enough to say, "hey, I'll bet the human body is only made of one of these microscopic things"...
Oh, wait, you're an anti-evolutionist -- so you're able to believe three transparently idiotic and illogical things before breakfast. Forget I asked.
And to make it clear that Darwin was well aware that bodies are made up of multiple cells:
"We need not here consider how the bodies of some animals first became divided into a series of segments, or how they became divided into right and left sides, with corresponding organs, for such questions are almost beyond investigation. It is, however, probable that some serial structures are the result of cells multiplying by division, entailing the multiplication of the parts developed from such cells."Is being grossly ignorant of science, scientific knowledge, and its history, a *requirement* for being an anti-evolutionist? It sure seems to be.
Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species", 1859