Simply more of the same put downs, insults and condescension. Mainstream science is getting a bad name because of the aire of superiority coming from those who deride any thinking but their own. The earth does move, my friend. No amount of burning at the stake of your contempt will change that.
ID is a viable, meanngful and perfectly legitimate approach to understanding nature. If you dig below the surface of any significant research on evolutionary theory you will very quickly be confronted with speculation about the underlying forces determinative of evolution. ID is nothing more than an attempt to get at some of the important questions about natural life processes.
DUH is not an adequate answer to the question, "Why evolution?"
"ID is a viable, meanngful and perfectly legitimate approach to understanding nature. If you dig below the surface of any significant research on evolutionary theory you will very quickly be confronted with speculation about the underlying forces determinative of evolution. ID is nothing more than an attempt to get at some of the important questions about natural life processes."
Then I assume you will have no trouble presenting a scientific hypothesis of ID. Please do so. Since the ID community has yet to accomplish this, I wager neither will you.
Just saying ID "a viable, meanngful and perfectly legitimate approach to understanding nature" does not make it so. Provide the hypothesis, as a starting point to back that assertion up. But since Behe et. all have been unable to do so IN COURT all this month, I bet you have nothing. However, if you can't provide it, than what you said above is false.
I have dug way below the surface of the research on evolution. And yes it does contain speculation on the forces at play. That's why it is science. Science is an attmept to speculate based ont he data at hand, and then verify that speciulation through prediction and or experimentation. ID is an attempt to willingly forgo such speculation, and simply say, as you put it "DUH it's ID."
Produce a scientific hypothesis please. There is none.
Again, saying I am insulting you does not make it so. "Simply more of the same put downs and condescension..." I am not putting you down. I may by a bit condescinding, but since you have yet to produce an argument of real substance, or address my substantive comment on your posts, I feel my condescension is warranted.
For example, when I said that evolution was not a collection of debunked attacks, you could have challenged that. That was substance, and you could have mounted a substantive challenge. You chose not to. That Ipresent substance and you ignore it, might be called by some "lying". I'm not calling you a liar. I don't have to, I'll leave the emptiness of your posts to speak for poster's intent.
The difference between my contempt and yours, is that I am providing an actual argument, and asking you to address it. You have not, and continue to not do so.
If you can't counter the argument, then I have no choice but to assume you agree. That is not condescension, that's basic logic.
Lets hear your hypothesis.
Please...
Actually it's more of an attempt to avoid doing so. Note that ID'ers only "infer" the "presence" of "design". Any further questions are studiously, even actively, avoided. When were/are instances of "design" instantiated? How were/are they instantiated (or by whom/what)? Where were they instantiated? Upon what entities were given instances of "design" first impressed?
ID possesses no mechanism or model whatsoever (in every other known instance a crucial component of any "scientific theory") and refuses to pursue, or even speculate regarding, any question whatever of mechanism, mode, history, or any other substantive issue.
Science has sometimes been called a "way of knowing". ID is a "way of NOT knowing". (Or, for political reasons, to better serve as a umbrella movement and stalking horse for antievolutionism, pretending not to.)