Replies

Hey, I like your login AND your tagline.

Then you never had an understanding of what evolutionary theory is or what it's limits are.
***For purposes of social policy discussion, that doesn't really matter. I think I had a rudimentary understanding of the theory at the time, and I also think that I'm running into a lack of understanding from the proponents of TOE/abio that their theories have implications in the inductive realms that they need to address.

Was any of it a substantive dispute with what the theory says?
***Yes.

The president is not the arbiter of what is correct in science.
***I'm not saying that he is. In one stroke, it became a SOCIAL POLICY issue. It still has elements of an issue of science and science policy, but now those elements are now inextricably mixed with politics. That means you start having these kinds of discussions with numbskulls like me, and if you can't explain things in a clear fashion, politely - look up the word politic & compare it to polite -- without arrogance, they tend to wander away and vote against your policy down the road (maybe even become president & really stir things up). I have trouble seeing that ID is a pseudoscience when these guys were instrumental in finding that the fine structure constant of light (and most probably a resulting finding that the speed of light is not a constant) has changed. Scientists were not able to convince two of our greatest presidents that this is wacky pseudoscience. There is something to this controversy.

I gotta run, talk to you folks later.

"Was any of it a substantive dispute with what the theory says?
***Yes."

This was about why you allegedly discarded evolution, you had said,

""Some of it is with experience. Some of it is with instinct. Some of it is still undecided." "

You have not shown you even know what the theory says. Smoke is still rising from your butt.

"That means you start having these kinds of discussions with numbskulls like me, and if you can't explain things in a clear fashion, politely - look up the word politic & compare it to polite -- without arrogance, they tend to wander away and vote against your policy down."

You haven't shown the least inclination in wanting to know anything about evolution. You want to discuss the politics of a science debate without any mention of the science. That is impossible.

"I have trouble seeing that ID is a pseudoscience when these guys were instrumental in finding that the fine structure constant of light (and most probably a resulting finding that the speed of light is not a constant) has changed."

The speed of light is still constant and hasn't changed. What are you talking about?

"Scientists were not able to convince two of our greatest presidents that this is wacky pseudoscience. There is something to this controversy."

You only argument has been that Bush and Reagan like ID so we must take it seriously as science. You DO know that the argument from authority is a logical fallacy, right? Especially when they have no science backgrounds.

You are way, WAY out of your league.