Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
"They wanted to tell high school students once a year that evolution is only a theory."
And gravity is only a "theory" too.
How many times does the distinction between a scientific theory and the word "theory" as used in general conversation have to be explained to these idiots.
As for Dover, Behe made a fool of himself, even if (typically) he's spinning it as some kind of victory.
The only thing that "Darwinism" tells us is that the frequency with which genetic traits are expressed is constantly in flux. That, and only that, is the idea behind evolution. And it's a damned good idea, backed by sound science, common sense, and a very good knowledge of the mechanism involved.
Really?
Anyone have a list of the discoveries made at the Discovery Institute? I mean besides how to maximize fund-raising.
So we'll be seeing some papers any day now, will we?
The proplem with ID is it may take an above IQ to understand it.
Video’s are always the best way to resolve ideological disputes. I’ll put that on my viewing list next to “Fahrenheit 9-11”
Where is evidence of ID? Stating that current theories of evolution cannot explain a particular phenomenom does not constitute evidence FOR intelligent design. For example, astronomers knew that Newton's theory of gravity could not explain the precession of Mercury's orbit around the sun. This was an argument against Newton, but it was not in favor of anything else. When General Relativity predicted the precessin of Mercury's orbit, it was strong confirmation of that theory's correctness.
Scientific theories are usually incomplete or inaccurate. The fact that we have unexplained phenomonom is what drives science forward to better theories and more complete explanations. This is a key component of the scientific method. However ID makes the claim that no such theory can ever possibly exist and thus we shouldn't bother and should rather rely on an intelligent designer to handle those things that we can't currently explain.
ID is not a new idea, but a very old one. It was used by ancient civilizations to explain why planets zig-zag across the starry heavens - they were Gods you see, and Gods can go hither and yon as they wish; so why bother predicting their movements? You can't. It's not possible. It's too hard. It was the scientists who sought a scientific theory that did not rely on ID that ultimately gave us the theories of Galileo, Newton, and Einstein.
The way a cardiologist is an expert on a special kind of person called a "heart." The author has made a howler.
the spin begins
Then he no doubt knows what these "special kind of bacteria called flagella" do to little children, and he no doubt admires and loves the designer for thinking this one up.
The problem here is that intelligent design is not a theory. It's only a hypothesis.
Has he something other than his opinion to support this claim?
Darwin's gradual theory has no good explanation for that -- ID does.
And that explanation is what?
In order for this to be science, Behe needs to PROVE all the pieces need to be in place first. Maybe he can find something similiar and apply that knowledge to flagellum.
How about an elephant?
When the Intelligent Designer decided to shake things up a little he said, "Hmmmm I think the world is ready for a huge animal with a big long tube nose thing sticking off it's face.
Of course ID requires this to happen in one generation because if the grand designer made this change. It could not be made over time. That would be evolution. Or under Behe's thoughts did the whole trunk grow off the elephant's face slowly with no function and magically animate itself one day? "All the pieces need to be there before it can function, Behe."
I can only imagine the lament of Elephant mothers everywhere saying, "Put that thing down. It's only for show." Or the whining of elephant older brothers, "Mom, Bobby can move that big long thing on his face, but I can't".
BTW: There is very good documentation about the evolution of elephants along with how long their trunks were at what time in the geological past. It's curious how it's trunk gets longer with time and seems to be used for first pushing food towards it's mouth until it gets so long it can grab food and pull it into it's mouth.
Another IDer who got his degree from a mail order house.
The best measure of the scientific "contribution" of ID would be the number of published papers since its inception, some 10 years ago. In that time span, there have been over a hundred thousand published papers on aspects of evolution. Not quite the "theory in crisis" that this imbecile believes. How many published, peer-reviewed papers on ID??? Answer: ZERO I love that: ZERO.
By further contrast, the subject of "horse feces" has 97 citations. Maybe when ID has the number of scientific citations as "horse feces", it might attain some of the scientific credibility that its proponents are so pathetically desperate to attain. LOL.
Horse feces vs ID and horse feces wins!!!!!
Exactly! Both theories are based in science. Students have a right to learn both theories and decide for themselves.
People are overreacting to ID as if it is proposing a return to the belief the world is flat.
Oh goody another ID / EVO thread, this time my money is on the ID ers winning this one but later in the afternoon the EVO's will win the next thread.
Even though I'm a big critic of the ID movement I am now leaning towards the ID argument. It has been decisively proven time and time in these threads that a believer in ID can never evolve into a supporter of Darwin.
Personally that settles it for me.