Ping.
An ambiguous statement is not a theory, nor even a statement. It is a diversion. (Likely willful or incredibly self-deluded...)
Oh wait, it's been done, but never seems to make it out of the review committee for publication...'cuz it doesn't qualify as science or a theory.
Lynn Barton is a graduate of Wellesley College and a former stockbroker. She is married and the mother of two children, whom she homeschools on a small farm
Very good article.
What a steaming pile!
ID has absolutely nothing to do with science, it's not a theory (it's an opinion) and this article does nothing but reinforce the position that creationists and IDers (as if there's a difference) understand nothing of evolutionary theory.
Ahh, well. That's as collegial and polite as I can be in the face of such utter lunacy.
It seems to me that before we can study intelligent design we should first have a scientific definition of "intelligent." What is the definition?
Nothing like a lion recently satiated with a big pile of tofu.
Before reading further I will make a prediction. The author will not do the one thing necessary to show that ID is a scientific theory, namely he will not deduce a testable prediction from it.
Curiously, that makes my theory about ID (that ID is not a scientific theory) scientific while ID itself is not (if my theory is correct that is).
"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory,"
[inTouchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue 4 July/August, 1999]
Showing some sense, the author seems to omit Dembski's contributions.
bump
With regard to Dover PA, and the notion that ID will "change everything" or whatever, it's worth noting that, even more important than the judge striking down the teaching of ID, a conservative school district rejected the ID advocates en masse at the voting booth. Even if the judge had not struck down the policy, the new duly elected school board would've reversed it, exactly as the voters wanted.
Either the author doesn't understand evolutionary theory, or she doesn't understand I.D. Whichever it is, this statement alone is enough to discredit the entire article.
Although it's encouraging to see the debate progress as it is, we need to be much smarter in how we develop and present our arguments. Fundamental errors such as this, simply, is unacceptable.
Unsurprisingly I was right - no testable predictions are deduced from an assumption of ID. Thanks for posting even more evidence for my theory that ID isn't scientific.
An excellent and well-reasoned article.
"let me be the first to say that I'm sure that everyone will be absolutely objective, collegial, and downright polite."
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
whooooo.... catching my breath.... good one.
Intelligent design? Why was Jesus crucified(not my will but thy will be done)? Ans : GOD was crucified in much the same way by the 24 "elders"(prior idea-entities like pharisee-academics), imagine HIS darkness before he, through an act of self sacrifice and pure faith, said : let there be LIGHT. If you repeat this 6000 years ago creation nonsense(actually from a half-***ed scientific study of the bible by an irish bishop named Usher, murphy was his middle name)you'll be quickly forgotten. No, it was 13.7 BILLION years ago from many different discoveries; but the truth of Intelligent Design remains : the 25th in the series of concept-iterations was/is GOD, the supreme, self sacrificing entity who made the big bang from which all else developed....Take the biblical phrase : "and the morning stars sang together" : astronomers are just now discovering that early epoch of the first generation's massive stars-supernovae whose shock waves created the "soap bubble" texture of galaxies strung thruout the universe. Point : science and theology are boh searches for TRUTH, disparage neither...
This is but one of many nonsensical assertions contained in this essay.
Every fertilized egg has a few transcription errors and mutations amongst its many thousands of genes. If this claim were correct, every last embryo would die before it got past the blob-of-cells stage.