Posted on 12/25/2005 1:41:41 PM PST by RussP
I am old enough to remember when there was a distiction between a scientific model and a scientific theory.
Does you sreeen name espouse a belief that you have the right to be stupid?
You must be really old since there never was such a thing.
Does you sreeen name espouse a belief that you have the right to be stupid?
Talk about stupid -- in one post you have: Straw Man, Begging The Question and Ad Hominum.
Please, go get some education and then we will let you at the big table where the grown ups are. In the meantime, please keep your tantrums at the card table with the rest of the children.
I retract the first part of my previous post. You are correct a scientific model is not a scientific theory. However that disctintion is not at play here.
The rest of my statement stands.
That's exactly where ID crosses into Creationism. The answer to that can be found in Genesis, if you choose to believe it.
No such thing as a scientific model? Google it and you will get 162,000 hits; jackass. Read the first hit. It makes a reference to evolution.
So, just how stupid are you?
Suppose the message contained the first 100,000 binary digits of pi, repeated indefinitely, with each repetition separated by a "spacer" of 1000 zeros.
Evolutionists could not get off easy to support their position even if this message were one day received.
One of the more banal arguments from evolutionists is that "a billion monkeys on a billion typewriters in a billion years could type the works of Shakespeare just by chance".
The evolutionists would have to be one of the first to admit that this signal could just as easily be explained by a radio pattern generated by random noise.
slow down.
Breathe.
Take big relaxing breaths.
Cleansing breaths.
So you go from claiming that there is no such thing as a scientif model to admitting that a scientific model is not a scientific theory. not only am I old enough to remember the difference. Don't assume you are smarter than me, because you aren't.
The distinction is not only in play her, the idea that evolution in any way is actually a theory is absurd. It is nothing more than a model until it can be subject to duplication. BTW, I have never claimed that ID is a theory; it is also a model.
I am reacting only to the caustic comments made by this judge toward the ID folks. I have not reviewed the particulars of the case, I have not read the 139 page decision. But my gut instinct, only from some of his comments in the decision, was 'ACLU'. Perhaps I'm wrong, but this judge was totally off the chain in his rejection of the curriculum, the defendants' behavior in his court notwithstanding. ID makes plenty of sense to the casual observer, so if Darwinism is so logically strong, let's throw it a little competition. Free market!
No, I don't bow and scrape at the altar of science. I have little respect for the desperate attempts by scientists to justify their atheism with this stuff, and I fail to see the threat that ID poses. Overall, this whole stupid case looks like an insecure retreat to the courts, a liberal tactic if ever there was one.
And I don't care who appointed him, I don't trust lawyers either.
"The search of entire universe is possible, at least in theory."
It certainly isn't in practice. Actually, it isn't even in theory -- the universe is infinite. It would take an infinite number of searchers, an infinite amount of time to search the universe. That's even assuming that they know what to look for -- we cannot say that we know all the forms that "life" can take. Perhaps there are an infinite number of possible life forms. If we don't know what we're looking for; how would we even know what sensors to use.
Both [ID and Evo] are beliefs and both are models. Neither is really a theory because neither are duplicable.
The theory of evolution is just that. There is no requirement that it be testable (although it has been tested in part). ID is not a model, a theory or anything else. It is just a belief.
To equate the 2 under that premise by recasting the terms of the discussion is disingenuous and is done either on purpose by a prevaricator or on accident by an idiot.
Like I said, when you get a little bit more education, we will let you talk with the grown ups.
In the meantime, I think you might be more comfortable at the this site with your intellectual equals.
Oh. And Arlen Specter was backed by Bush last year, also very respected in the PA GOP.
Yeah, I'm convinced.
"The distinction is not only in play her, the idea that evolution in any way is actually a theory is absurd. It is nothing more than a model until it can be subject to duplication. BTW, I have never claimed that ID is a theory; it is also a model."
That's an interesting point. I hadn't thought about the distinction between a "theory" and a "model."
I am always amused (and amazed) when evolutionists compare the theory of evolution with our understanding of gravity -- as if the two are on equal footing. Apparently they must think we can demonstrate MACROevolution in the lab as easily was we can drop a ball and watch it fall!
Especially when you consider that ID-ers and Creationists are basically pushing affirmative action. I don't see very much difference between having ID taught as though it were science, and having Afrocentrism (eg Socrates was black and got all his wisdom from Africa) taught as history, or Ebonics as standard English.
More precisely, I'd call ID-in-the-schools a form of PC: to prevent certain identity groups from feeling dissed, change the curriculum to flatter them.
This isn't my idea of conservatism.
I and many other Es here have read them (well, I haven't read Spetner). The arguments are very weak. Behe's argument ignores the fact that evolution may involve loss of function and that much evolution is neutral. Dembski's Explanatory Filter, among other weaknesses, never explains how unknown (i.e. future) naturalistic explanations can be ruled out.
I endured 12 long years of governemnt education, before I started my own re-education. (still underway, hehe)
I was never taught another alternative to evolution. It was technically called a theory, but when it's presented as the only serious method for our origin, it becomes the de-facto truth in the student's minds.
Affirmative Action? No, Free market competition.
Paley might better have used the Potter than the Watchmaker in his 1800 demonstration since the older story of Creation, the second version in Genesis--the forming of Man from Clay--a play on the words Adam and adama, used that analogy. Some translations of Ge 1,1-2 leave the impression that creation began with the formless and empty earth already in place.
There is a difference between being trained and being indoctrinated. Many scientists are incapable of original thought and spend their teaching what has been already established. The history of science is full of theories every bit as silly in retrospect as you claim ID to be, yet they were belligerently defended by the establishment at the time. I saw the mainstream in geology dismiss continental drift for decades. Now it is taught in grade school. I also saw preposterous ideas like "gravity tectonics" widely accepted as alternatives. Anyone familiar with the history of science should also know that beautiful and "firmly established" theories like Newtonian mechanics are eventually found lacking in some respect. So why the dogmatic, fierce, irrational adherence to Darwinism as the only theory which can be entertained?
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.