Posted on 08/03/2006 12:22:06 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
"If it were, more people would believe in man-made global warming...wait a minute?
"
The topic of the day is the Theory of Evolution. Climatology is a different science. Is climate change influenced by human actions? I don't know. That's under study. Some folks believe it is. For me, it doesn't matter. It appears that the climate is changing again, as it has done in the past. I'm more concerned with figuring out how much it will change so I can plan ahead.
In any case, science does not include poll results. Rather, it is done by people with a lot of training in the specific discipline that is being studied. We call those folks scientists, in general, and have names for all the specific disciplines in science, such as geology, physics (several sub-disciplines in there), chemistry, etc.
I'm not a scientist. When I have questions about one of the sciences, I consult the journals for that science, insofar as I am able to understand them. If I cannot, I consult journals like "Science," which try to explain research for people not in a particular discipline.
I do not consult religious publications for information regarding the sciences, nor do I consult science publications for information regarding the various religions of this planet.
Specialists are the best source for information on a specialty. All others are less well informed.
"But he's right, you know. His own Google research shows that Danes, Australians, and Canadians are increasingly interested in Intelligent Design."
Maybe, just maybe, ID suffers from the same quandry that faces Darwinism. Are you aware of a testable hypothesis put forth by Darwinism that can lend proof to the concept of speciation from a single-cell through a slow process of mutation and natural selection? If Darwinists could have proven their theory, this debate would have been long over. 150 years of speculation, and the debate still rages.
George will and Dembski are certainly great biologists. You should know Dembski pretty well. Just look in the mirror.
"A mechanism that could be tested."
Somegoddidit. Prove 'em wrong. Pretty funny, huh? I'm not really sure what experiment you'd use to test that, given the supernatural nature of deities.
I use the term as one of derision.
"Honestly I don't know if I've ever met a "Darwinist". "
That's because there are no "Darwinists." Nobody identifies himself as a "Darwinist," particularly in the scientific disciplines.
Darwin was the founder of the science of evolutionary theory, certainly, but his writings are primarily of historical interest these days.
About the only people who use the word "Darwinist" are those who are attempting to discredit the Theory of Evolution. They use it in the same way people use other incorrect terminology when they try to discredit something. It's so transparent.
When I'm finished horseback riding placemarker.
How about those of us with a full brain?
LOL. Good catch. I guess evolution is a proven fact for those with half a brain.
Yeah, Biology is like that - except for biochemistry, of course. Once you get up to the organism level it just ain't the same kind of science that chemistry or physics are.
Shalom.
And those with a whole brain know better, that's why they don't buy it hook, line , and sinker.
You are not addressing my point ( calling me Dembski as a potshot isn't helping the discussion either ).
The point Dembski is making is that proponents of materialistic evolution invariably invoked as evidence for their theory experiments in which structures of biological interest evolved reproducibly. But for the results of an experiment to be reproducible, they must occur WITH HIGH PROBABLITY.
Thus, if high probability confirms evolutionary theory, shouldn’t, by parity of reasoning, low probability disconfirm evolutionary theory?
If not, the theory is insulated from empirical falsification.
Demski for instance, offers as an example the original success of the Miller-Urey experiment in origin-of-life research and the subsequent failure of that origin-of-life research to explain information-rich biomacromolecules.
These are the kinds of "testability" experiments that can be done to confirm/disconfirm Evolution ( and by implication, intelligence ).
Ping for interest. I always like your comments.
If you are not Dembski, why do you publish his work under your name?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1650646/posts
Make that Atlantians.
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.