Thanks. The article you posted is a good find. And there is nothing complex in ID'ers, although their bibling might be irreducible.
Gould (the Marxist elitist Professor) states it is fact.
What a convincing argument.
And what is he arguing and who is he arguing with?
It's platitudinous polemic, pretty much bereft of any intellectual substance or rational thought (or rather, more likely, disingenuousness)..
If you think this sums it up it is indicative of saying, yes, this upholds well my world view presented in a manner well within my comfort zone of thought and belief.
I'm confused on the "rigors" of science. My science book is written in Korean.
Evolutionists are like a blind person touching an elephant. They limit themselves to only life and use science at their viewer. Creationists view the whole aminal, vegetable and mineral universe and regard the evolutionist's views as incomplete.
An alarming number of scientists also believe in the superiority of Marxism, despite historical facts to the contrary.
"Rigors" of science? If we're talking darwinism, it's more like rigor mortis of science.
Being a member of an editorial board of a local paper does not make him an authority.
I stopped reading right there.
Biased and uninformed articles usually aren't worth the time reading...
Nor can science yet ascertain a Creation which imparted not just reproduction, unevolved,
but the eye of every phylum, perfectly formed, also without fossil record predecessor.
A well-written expose of ID. But I'd like to point out that every one of Glenn Reynolds' paragraphs are virtually identical to the Evos' posts on these threads.
Nice post. :-)
If such investigations result in unexpectedly new knowledge, all bets on both sides of the ID debate are off.
This is an excellent summary.
What a phony straw-man. The ultimate scarecrow non-argument.
Everyone including IDers and even 6-day YECers, believes that evolution explains some, most, or all biological diversity. The difference is that "Big E" evolutionists are convinced that evolution alone can explain all biological diversity, and are consequently the dogmatists. They are the ones who regard dissent as heresy, and are fearful that people may have doubts.
".....nor do they seek publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals......"
For the most part, "Yes", however, they would LOVE to slip their dribble into a reputable journal.
The theory of creation calls into question the theory of science...of course it(creation) can't 'stand up to the rigors' of the very system it questions...
And vice versa....
Unless God pays us a visit, or science creates a time machine...
This argument will go on forever.....
You are correct. The article does sum up the intellectual incompetence of those who ignore the fundamentals of creation.
YEC INTREP
Propaganda piece. We're all supposed to be convinced by an logical fallacy - an appeal to popularity of the idea within the scientific community. Mercy me. Didn't know a dumb idea could be popular. Let me just drop all my concerns and hop on the bandwagon - not. How pathetic.