[caerbannog]

Speaking of flying sparks.... here's an interesting little exercise that should spark some constructive debate regarding the challenge that ID may pose for evolution...

But first, a quick backgrounder: San Diego is a global biotech powerhouse thanks in large part to the Salk Institute (www.salk.edu) and the Scripps Research Institute (www.scripps.edu). Some of the world's most distinguished scientists (including several Nobel laureates) work there. Both institutions have produced "cutting-edge" research in biology/biochemistry/molecular-biology that has led to major advances in treatments for cancer, diabetes, etc.

Anyway, let's get back to that little exercise I was talking about. If folks open browser windows pointed at www.salk.edu and www.scripps.edu, they'll find that both web-sites have convenient "search" facilities. Using the search facilities, people here should try conducting separate searches on "evolution" and "intelligent design". (Include the quotation-marks around "intelligent design" so that the search focuses on the entire phrase rather than the indivdual, separate words.) Then they should compare the results of the "evolution" vs. "intelligent design" searches for both the Salk and Scripps web-sites. This will give people a pretty good idea how well "intelligent design" stacks up against "evolution" as valid science.

[bvw]

You are familiar with the aether theory of electromagnetism, eh? That was valid science for many years, Still is, to a point.

Naturalistic (meaning designer-free) evolution is a crock. While a to some extent a nice construct for observational and modeling purposes, it insists on acceptance of a "just-so" blindness that to me, at least, parallels the old acceptance of the aether.

[andyk]

LOL, sorry, I don't have time for your pedantic exercises. Search results of either institution could merely be colored by the attitudes of the individuals who work there. I don't have an interest in the argument at this time, aside from reading the threads that are posted here.

[editor-surveyor]

" This will give people a pretty good idea how well "intelligent design" stacks up against "evolution" as valid science."

That has to be one of the most disingenuous statements I've ever seen posted on FR.

First, you have touted two coniving greedy grant-grabbing, tax dollar sucking clubs that have in reality produced very little when viewed in terms of function, rather than psycho-masturbational dreaming.

Second, if they have made such advances in cancer treatment, then why have cancer deaths gone fron one in ten at the end of WW II to one in four at present? You are propagating the Big Lie.

[Elsie]

This will give people a pretty good idea how well "intelligent design" stacks up against "evolution" as valid science. in only TWO locations!

[caffe]

Perhaps we should consult the NY or LA Times and do a search on Bush and Kerry..I believe we will see how great Kerry is as compared to Bush.

Are you really that stupid?