Replies

No, I am saying that in 1990 there was no scientific evidence that the Wollemi pine was still extant.

This is what usually happens when folks jump into a tete-a-tete that has been ongoing for a few hours.... I make the same mistake my self sometimes....

I will at the risk of being redundant (spam.. hee hee) go over my point again. I was somewhat tersely chastised in the recent past for providing evidence that the Wollemi pine was declared extinct by scientists. I was informed in so many words the "few scientists" would ever say that the Wollemi pine was extinct, they instead would say "thought extinct" or "believed to be extinct".

Whilst reading early (very early) on in this thread, I noted a "scientist" posting unequivocally that there is "no scientific evidence that points to an intelligent design of life". There was no qualifying "we have found no evidence" or "we believe there to be no evidence"... And it just so happened to be the same poster who taught me part 1.

My point being, that just because someone had not found or knowingly observed a Wollemi pine doesn't mean that evidence of its existence was not available. It just meant they "thought" none existed or they couldn't find any. Oh, and btw, they were mistaken weren't they? So when said scientist makes an unqualified claim that "there is no evidence" it gives me pause as to whether I was being jerked around in my first lesson or am I being jerked around now....

I was simply seeking clarity and consistency from my teachers....

Now, can you tell me the difference between these two statements? :

[circa 2006] There is no scientific evidence that points to the intelligent design of life.

[circa 2006] There is no scientific evidence that points to the existence of Santa Claus.

Try not to ignore the above question yet again. :)

Whilst reading early (very early) on in this thread, I noted a "scientist" posting unequivocally that there is "no scientific evidence that points to an intelligent design of life". There was no qualifying "we have found no evidence" or "we believe there to be no evidence"... And it just so happened to be the same poster who taught me part 1.

In other words, we could never correctly say 'there is no evidence of unicorns on earth', because evidence of unicorns might be lurking behind the bushes on the south-west corner of Central Park, NY. In fact, the phrase "there is no evidence of..." could never be correct, according to darbymcgill.

Interestingly, I googled the literal phrase "There is no evidence of" and found 4,170,000 hits. All wrong, according to our hero. Among the nonentities who rashly used this nonsensical expression were NASA (several times), Columbia University, the UN, George Bush's physician (he said there was no evidence of heart disease; poor W probably thought that was a good thing) and W himself.

Thanks for setting the entire world straight, darby!

I would say that, in this particular case (i.e. speaking of ID), the phrasing is not erroneous. It is necessarily true that there is no scientific evidence that points to an intelligent design of life. I say necessarily because, to be evidence of a scientific theory, it must be a deduction of the theory. ID as it is currently constituted permits no deductions therefore it can have no evidence.