truthfinder9 - Wrong. Some ID scientists have formulated a testable model. The NAS obviously isn't advertising that fact.
Alacarte - I mention the NAS only because I want to be specific without naming every top science organization and journal, so I chose the most prestigious. But I want to be clear that when I say NAS, all other real science organizations agree 100%, and examples can be cited. What the NAS says about science is the most competent, educated opinion on science at man's disposal. Inifintely mroe so than that of christians.
truthfinder9 - Archaeologists don't study fossils. Paleontologists do.
Alacarte - I corrected myself yesterday as soon as I re-read my post, thanks for doing it again.
truthfinder9 - Really? Is that why evolutionists came up with punctuated equilibrium to explain it away?
What is wrong with punctuated equilibrium? There has to be a natural explanation for the distribution of fossils, and this is one. Maybe it's not right, in which case SCIENTISTS will figure it out and come up with the right answer. This is an important point. If punctuated equilibrium is found to be wrong, or a better theory is found, it will be SCIENTISTS who discover it, not ID propogandists.
EVERY field of scientific study is like this, so why is this one an exception? Why aren't christians pointing to the gaps in germ theory? Or relativity? Why don't you all have a problem with gravity?
Let's say that tomorrow we find a cat skeleton beside a pterodactl, evolution as a viable theory is put into serious jeopardy and found to wrong. How does that in ANY way lend credence to god doing it(and ID does imply god, drop the pretense already)? The death of evolution would mean exactly the same thing the death of a theory in ANY field means - there is another natural explanation.
The simple fact that ID takes a conclusion (god made the universe), then selectively collects real scientific data to support that conclusion is unscientific. The mere fact that it mentions the supernatural disqualifies it! The whole point of science is to explain our NATURAL world. If you want to have an invisible friend, more power to you, but that has absolutely NOTHING to do with science. So stop trying to sell it as such.
truthfinder9 - Logical fallacy/appeal to authority. Who gave the NAS the last say on reality? When did this come about?
Hey good, you managed to qualify your accusation of fallacy this time. This time you are right, I am appealing to authority, but it is no logical fallacy! The scientific community (not just the NAS) says ID is not science, and that evolution, as it stands, is the best model to explain diversity of life on earth. Science is NOT a democratic system! We never voted on whether gravity was caused by atomic attraction or invisible leprechauns, science is dictated by the facts.
The simple fact that christians are so SELECTIVE about which science you question is pathetic. Planes occassionally crash, where's the christian outrage over the theory of flight? If, as you say, the scientific community does NOT have the last say on reality, then why don't you just run off a cliff, flap your arms and fly next time you want to go somewhere? Well? Why not? Hmmm, those engineers and scientists aren't such fascists bad guys anymore?
Faith has nothing to do with reality, if it did, you wouldn't need 'faith' to believe it. You don't need faith to know that planes are safe, engineers and scientists tell you it is ok. You don't need faith to tell you the food you eat is ok, scientists at the FDA tell you it is. Don't pretend you use your 'faith' for anything useful, because you don't. You use science as much as anybody. Science DOES have the last word on reality, that is its job. And the people know science, are the scientists (ie. NAS).
If Michael Behe wants to productively contribute to science by honestly criticising evolution, that's great, it will only make the theory stronger by more testing. Or it may even expose its weaknesses and lead to a better theory. But as soon as science starts allowing people to hypothesis ghosts or gods as causes, it ceases to be scientific.
You people must drive evolutionary biologists up the wall.
Alacarte - Faith has nothing to do with reality, if it did, you wouldn't need 'faith' to believe it.
JFK_Lib - So faith in my coworkers to do their job right has nothing to do with reality? Or my faith in my wife to handle her responsabilities, or in the people alongside me driving to work to.....ah, you get the idea by now, surely.
Alacarte - You don't need faith to know that planes are safe, engineers and scientists tell you it is ok.
JFK_Lib - Oh, and when was the last time I got on an airplane and some scientist came forward and told me that he had personally checked out the plane? Ummm, never happened.
Scientists tell few people anything in their personal lives, almost nothing at all.
Alacarte - You don't need faith to tell you the food you eat is ok, scientists at the FDA tell you it is.
JFK_Lib - And when did the FDA stop short-order cooks from preparing food without washing their hands? When did the FDA stop hot dog venders downtown from re-using the same old hotdogs left over from yesterday? They didnt.
You confuse policy that may have had some input by some scientist somewhere with the actual enforcement of those policies and guidelines which is left to anonymous strangers in some municipal bureacracy, kind of like your scientists too, come to think of it.
Yes, we all operate by faith in each other each day of our lives.
Alacarte - Don't pretend you use your 'faith' for anything useful, because you don't.
JFK_Lib - How on Earth could you even *possibly* *know* that?
You cant, but it is in step with all your other anti-religious polemic so far. Really, are you just an anti-Christian bigot, or what?
Alacarte - You use science as much as anybody. Science DOES have the last word on reality, that is its job.
JFK_Lib - No, science really doesnt have the last word on anything at all, as 'science' is not an entity that has a voice. Yes, there are some people who claim to speak on behalf of 'science' as though it were some form of deity, but really it is just a collection of concepts that express a view of reality derived by consensus among some tenured people cushioned from expectations by the political chicanery common to Universities and colleges competing with each other for more funds at the federal research trough, but thats about it. It is being constantly updated, revised and modified but it is no more the final word on a subject than anything else.
I cant recall the last time that 'science' had anything useful to say about beauty, why I feel love for my wife and daughter, or why the stock market rises and falls or why the Philadelphia Eagles and Pittsburg Steelers look like Super Bowl favorites this year.
IF science was really the last word on everything, then scientists would have the prettiest wives (from their absolute wisdom on what love is and how to control it), the most money (from their absolute knowlege of how stock markets work), and be hired for coaching positions in all the top sports who could possibly afford them.
Instead we see scientists mostly performing minimal University services sometimes teaching class when the TA cant do it for them, maybe doing something that can tossed down on paper for some minimally peer-reviewed journal no one actually bothers to read, and playing a lot of politics amongst the faculty and wishing they were better looking, had more sense and could learn to sell used cars.
Some scientists actually do make and design things for use in the real world, but we call them 'engineers'.
Alacarte - And the people know science, are the scientists (ie. NAS).
JFK_Lib - Hah, yeah, sure. Whatever.