[bvw]

In this "science" article scribe Gefter boldly claims that there are no reasons for Patents.

[Coyoteman]

fyi and ===> Placemarker <===

[Chiapet]

In this "science" article scribe Gefter boldly claims that there are no reasons for Patents.

I'm not getting the connection you're making there. Please explain?

[ovrtaxt]

In the Dover courtroom, proponents of intelligent design could be heard repeating their mantra: "Evolution is just a theory. It's not a fact." Scientists would then point out the categorical error: A theory is a framework to explain the facts. A theory is one level up from fact, so the mantra ought to go, "Evolution is not just a fact. It's a theory."

The theory of intelligent design is not only not falsifiable; there is simply no way to test it. But that is not the main reason it is not science. The main reason is, that ID does not actually explain anything. When we ask, "Why is the world the way it is?" it answers, "Because it was designed that way." The world is the way it is because it is that way. That might be the furthest from a useful, satisfactory explanation you can get.

String theory has problems, too. But while intelligent design is untestable in principle, string theory is just really hard. It is quite possible some clever scientist will devise a way to test it.

That's some major leage convoluted logic.

I still don't know why people aren't free to reach their own conclusions about our origins.

OR

[GLDNGUN]

So, if I understand this correctly, it should be illegal to discuss STRING THEORY in school.

[bvw]

fyi

[spunkets]

"For instance, it is commonly said that the 1919 observation of the bending of starlight around the sun was fantastic confirmation of Einstein's theory of general relativity. And in the public eye, it was. But in reality the results were far from conclusive - perhaps only 30 percent. Still, no one would have rejected the theory based on the outcome of that experiment."

The author is absolutely wrong. Had the bending of starlight not been observed, the hypothesis would be junk.

[spunkets]

"string theory's inventor Leonard Susskind "

He didn't invent string theory.

[TChris]

When we ask, "Why is the world the way it is?" it answers, "Because it was designed that way." The world is the way it is because it is that way. That might be the furthest from a useful, satisfactory explanation you can get.

But, what if that explanation is true? Because it is "unsatisfactory", boring, etc. to some scientists, should it, therefore, simply be rejected out of hand? Is there nothing to be learned if what is being studied was designed?

Can an art student learn nothing from a Renoir or a Van Gough because the paintings were the result of conscious action? Shall I stop studying the C++ source code of those with far more experience than I because "It is the way it is because that's the way the programmer intended it"?

The venemous anti-ID'ers seem to be saying that the principle of ID spoils all the fun in science, so it should be banished outright. I simply don't get the basis of the hatred.

[Paul Ross]

A theory is a framework to explain the facts. A theory is one level up from fact, so the mantra ought to go, "Evolution is not just a fact. It's a theory."

Clearly, this joker "author" is not a 'scientist'.

What a MAROON!