Posted on 01/07/2006 7:44:07 PM PST by MRMEAN
Someday biology will have to make the same quantum leap forward into the information age that physics made into the quantum mechanics age in the 1930s.
When it does, ID will be agent that midwifed the leap.
Like sudden-death overtime. It's better to be lucky than good. :-)
There are perhaps a few scientific proponents of ID that have successfully disguised their religious motivations in the issue. But I doubt there will be any school board that will ever promote ID that won't also have a religious paper trail. That will kill the ID-in-school project flat.
So you disagree with the article's statement that ID is not science?
Sounds like you're holding out hope that the "information gain" argument of IDers will someday hold water. Sorry to disappoint, but Caltech long ago demonstrated that evolution processes can gain information.
But the information age has dramatically helped evolution while being a disappointment for ID. The genome sequencing data that helped find a few thousand Endogenous Retrovirus DNA segments in common between ape and human genomes are the smoking gun proving common ancestry of both species.
It has been badly reported in the media (and posted here on FR) just how important gene sequencing has been for evolution science. Most articles claim that comparisons between chimp and human DNA are such and such percentage identical. IDers can simply claim that's a design feature. But the reality is that we've been able to discover *how* genomes evolve, and side-by-side comparisons of genomes confirm those hypothesis based on evolution theory.
Microbiology, enabled by information technology, has added yet another layer of confirmation onto evolution.
Look it up and weep.
Even if the pushers of ID manage to groom a "stealth" school board, it won't matter. The Dover decision totally demolishes the scientific credibility of ID. They brought out their big guns (Behe, etc.) and they made fools of themselves. Their big text, that Pandas book, was shown to be a warmed-over creationism tract. ID is dead, and the republican party is saved from this ghastly embarrassment. [New tagline.]
Nice Tagline. LOL.
" Death is even more important than pain. Death was invented so we could have evolution. The process of Darwinian selection does not work on things that don't die. If it weren't for death, we would all still be amoebas and would have to eat by surrounding things with their butts."
"God doesn't play dice with the Universe."-Albert Einstien
Real second-rate guy there. Oh, I know, you'll claim that's not what he meant or he was taken out of context, etc., etc., etc.... But seeing as how you didn't even get the main point of the article and just used the Behe thing as a strawman...
Well, just like Dawkins, it must be nice to sit in an ivory tower and claim infallibility. Unlike some of us who still believe that evolution has not disproved God and still are waiting for the agressive scientific pontificators to give us ALL the answers...
Natural selection isn't a matter of faith. It's just an observation. If you die before you have children, your genes will not be passed on. That's all there is to it.
I just meant that you ingest bacteria and viri every time you breath. Surface contamination (not on filet mignon, but on hamburger) is another method of transport.
Yoghurt good; live oysters bad. (Though I have consumed both.)
He might have solve the whole crevo debate right there.
Talk about your Felix peccatum Adae
Cheers!
No, it's just wrong. Einstein wasn't a very good economist either.
As some on other threads deny ever saying fact instead of theory, I will once again point out the arrogance inherent in the religious nature of Darwinist absolutism.
Nice line!
Read the definitions below with reference to your comment.
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact
Religion: (theistic): "1 the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2 the expression of this in worship. 3 a particular system of faith and worship." Non-Theistic: "The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life."
And please, dear professor, where is your data source, beyond your little experiment, for such an irrefutable statement.
You see, only Darwinsists can ever inject subjectivity in to what is supposed to be inferred as fact.
What you did is not conclusive, no matter how much you want it to be. I, along with others still believe in evolution as a theory as well as a notion of a prime mover.
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.