quote:
But, since it’s so “obvious” to you that this is proof of “intelligent design,” why don’t you write a paper and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal?
my reply:
I don’t need to do that. All I need to do is to note that no paper has ever been published that even remotely explains how the ear could have evolved *without* ID. That doesn’t “prove” ID for the ear, but it sure suggests it rather strongly.
I urge you to open up a physiology text some day and study the ear so you have a vivid idea of the level of complexity we are talking about here. (I have a funny feeling you don’t even *care* about the actual complexity of the ear. I’ll bet your mind is made up, and you don’t want to be confused with the facts.)
But if the ear doesn’t impress you, how about the first living cell. I sincerely hope you are not so ignorant as to believe that modern science has explained the formation of the first cell by purely naturalistic mechanisms. It hasn’t even come close — and that is an understatement.
So what is it that you believe? Do you believe that ID *must* be ruled out for evolution *after* the first cell — even though it *cannot* be ruled out in explaining the first cell? If so, that’s some funny kind of science — where the rules change dramatically at some apparently arbitrary point in time.
Oh, and please don’t give me the usual crap about how we just don’t “yet” understand the formation of the first cell, but it is just a matter of time. If you think you can “predict” what science will find, that is nothing more than a bias in favor of a certain result.
So, yeah, you don’t need to write a paper explaining how design is so patently obvious that only guys with “half a brain,” like me, can’t see it. It just so happens that your refusal to do so doesn’t advance your cause by one inch. You can type away all day long about how I’m not as smart as Mssrs. Kelvin and Newton, but you’re not helping those high school kids who you believe are being deluded by their teachers that there is no peer-reviewed paper that confirms intelligent design ideology, despite its “obviousness.”
My mind is not made up. Although I believe you are trying to pass off creationism as science in the guise of “intelligent design,” you can convince me if you become the first to have a paper supporting creationism in a peer-reviewed journal. In addition, you might be able to convince high school students that a wizard is behind it all. Can you imagine the repercussions of such an event? You’d be in the history books as the man who single-handedly changed the face of biology forever. I can see it - Russ Paielli, an aerospace engineer by training, demonstrated the importance of education when he wrote a paper that convincingly showed the role of an intelligent designer in guiding life. By strictly adhering to the scientific method and eschewing any reference to the supernatural in his paper, Paielli opened up new fields in biology.
I urge you to write that paper. You have a good grasp of the ideology, and as long as you refrain from the acerbic sarcasm and hostility that characterized your first few posts, you have a good chance of helping our kids gain a better appreciation of the “truth.”
Do your part to help our country. Spread your “truth” through the channels of the oppressor – peer-reviewed journals.