Posted on 08/16/2004 9:40:47 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
You prove the point of this article and are intellectually dishonest.
You don;t have to agree with Behe or intelligent design or any idea in particular to understand this.
And this supports ID how, Mr. Buffoon?
Students go to school to learn what the teachers teach, not the other way around.
If this student wants to learn about Creationism, he should attend Bible School, not science class.
Puhleeze. We all know Prof has an anti-creationism bias. Not saying that is good or bad, just that it is. (I also acknowledge there is bias on the other side.)
"Creationist sites and publications routinely twist facts to fit their agendas"
And evolutionist sites and publications NEVER do this.
Riiiiiiiight.
Try to learn to read. Maybe concentrate hard.
It was in response to this comment: They had nothing whatsoever to do with ID.
Nothing at all abouting supporting it or not supporting it.
As far as the debate is played out, it definitely relates to it or has "to do with" it -- whether or not you or I feel it is a reasonable debate it does have to do with it.
You sound like dems defending Kerry or Clinton in your defensiveness fear and irrationality.
This is a paper on ID? Thats quite a stretch!
Furthermore this isnt even a paper (its a review article) cautioning against relying too much on histone genes for measuring divergence rates
If you creatinoid "buffoons" knew anything about Behe, you would realize he does NOT question common decent.
I work every day in environmental science (the monitoring and analysis side - not the wacko public policy side) and I think that it was fine to hold this lecture after school.
ID poses some extremely interesting questions and challenges some assumptions. This isn't bad by any means. Science is not a static ideology, instead, it's both a method and an ever changing body of knowledge. ID doesn't dismiss evolution or natural selection but examines those processes within a bigger framework. This framework may be wrong. Or right. Either way, it's worth discussing in this type of context.
Besides, the whole fight gave students some insight into just how "diverse" the school administration was willing to be. A nice object lesson.
It's usually pretty simple to spot deception on a site or in a publication. If you have any examples of science sites that twist facts to fit agendas, please let us know which ones, and we will endeavor to not use them to support our positions.
It's a peer reviewed article in a major journal and it does, to the mind of the debaters, have to do with ID.
Your denial is weird.
If you creatinoid "buffoons" knew anything about Behe, you would realize he does NOT question common decent.
This is quite a non-sequitar. Are there voices in your head you are responding to?
Buy a clue, Mr. Grumpy, that was my point to you.
Let me dumb it down just for you: How does the paper support the idea of Intelligent Design? How does this test come out of ID "Theory"? How does the result support ID?
The ID movement is significantly different than the Creationist movement. It is too bad that so many are ignorant about the subject. It is time the Willie Green's start reading about the subject and not post ignorance. Why dont you start out by reading Dr. Dembsky's "No Free Lunch". This will be a start.
This is a key point, but one that should be heeded on both sides of the argument. Behe is neither a 6-day creationist or a wholesale evolutionist.
The fact is that we do not yet have a theory for the origin of life on this planet (or the universe at large if one subscribes to panspermia). That evolution occurs and is a fundamental process in the biology of plant and animal development has been adequately demonstrated. But scientists do tend to extrapolate it to areas where they do not have the supporting evidence.
I think it's pretty sad that the churches in the community are apparently unwilling to make their facilities available for such afterschool meetings.
Nah, TIBS is a lightweight, newsletter-like journal for biochemists, in which they ask people to write little opinion pieces on where the field is going. Behe has done peer-reviewed research (though not recently) but this isn't an example of it.
Actually it isnt "peer reviewed". There is no data in it. Journal editors frequently ask people in the field to write review articles on areas of their expertise. These things do not go through the usual anonomous review process.
And you again fail to explain how this is relevant to "Intelligent Design". Are we supposed to just take your word for it?
This is quite a non-sequitar.
Youre apparently an expert on this.
Absolutely, in the same sense the wooden horse was significantly different from the Greek warriors concealed inside it.
How does anything support intelligent design?
As far as the argument goes this relates to it.
The original post seemed to set up a strawman.
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.