Posted on 08/21/2007 9:53:14 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
“I’m eagerly awaiting the book where he explains how scientific Astrology is, according to his definition of science.”
Astrology says the orientation of planets affects human behavior. Most scientists probably doubt this, and someone might reasonably do studies and experiments to prove it is false. But if science can prove it is true or false, then why isn’t it a scientific hypothesis (albeit a false one)?
“Putting aside his rather thin basis for his observation, his solution to this perceived shortfall in natural variation...”
It is not a “perceived shortfall”. We have decades of hard data about the number of mutations in malaria and what they have produced. Your theory does not trump the physical data.
“...is that the invisible hand of God came down and made up for the supposed shortcomings of his own design of life; like a kid who built a radio-controlled car that cannot turn so he has to reach down and turn it by hand. Not a very flattering view of either biological systems or of God.”
Behe believes it is God, but science allows no claims about the existance or nature of God, so Behe doesn’t make them. His abiding by the rules of science while maintaining his personal beliefs does nothing to negate his scientific arguments.
The rest of your post is just an expression of your theology. It is you who are making theological arguments, not Behe.
I think you missed the point which was that the reviewer was substituting his own definition of a technical phrase, drawing erroneous conclusions based on his substitution, and then holding the author responsible. If this happened a single time as a result of misunderstanding, then one could point out the error and hope that the next time would be different. However, if it happens again and again, in spite of having been corrected, then there is something else going on. When it’s happening in a polemic, then the likeliest explanation is something akin to maliciousness.
When gravity didn’t seem to add up, physicists played with theoretical “dark matter” to try to make it make sense. Here there is actual consensus among scientists that there is an actual shortfall in the theory, yet the hypothetical solution they came up with was one dealing with physics. They didn’t say “It is the power of the creator that holds the universe together.”
Who said this, the author? Quite the Marxist ideology to wall out differing thought. There is no commonality in evolving antibiotic resistance and this human flesh body. Were there to be, there would be complete total chaos and we would literally have visible creatures, continuously creeping out of those superheated, global warmed primordial ponds of steaming evolving soup.
Who, what, when, where, and why did that primordial process evolve it self to an end. What great 'god' put out a cease and desist order?
A "scientist" who believes his concept should be chiseled in stone, figuratively, is not a scientist at all. That sounds more like a religious argument, that the concept pre-empts all. In science, the concept follows from the evidence--and there can always be countering evidence discovered.
Now it's external influence, not the hand of the almighty.
OK, Quantify the external influence. What is it and how did it work?
I am curious as to what...single thing...ID could possibly offer to mankind as a scientific advancement. Could you tell me that? And please don't repeat the "better understanding" stuff. When "better understanding" means "some unknowable, unmeasurable, untestable thing did it", then you've actually learned nothing, and never will.
ping
Agreed.
“Countering evidence” or Falsification is a necessary part of validating a scientific concept.
For example, the assertion that “all real scientists” are in agreement on global warming and “all the data” support them, by definition should “cause a pause” in the minds of those who know basic scientific method.
WELL..... now you're into different waters.
Just because something can theoretically be falsifiable doesn't mean it is low reliability. For example, all real scientists are in agreement that the earth rotates and revolves around the sun, even though that is a falsifiable concept and all the data are in good agreement with that theory.
“Countering evidence” or Falsification is a necessary part of validating a scientific concept.
Allowing for the possibility of countering evidence or falsification is a necessary part. Falsification or countering evidence is not necessary in and of itself.
A “scientist” who thinks his concept should be chisled in stone is called an “IDer.”
Actualy if you are a real scientists you would first look at ALL the evidence and be honest about finding the truth and not propaganda. So lets cut to the chase to real science, which the word science all it realy means is “to know” its not a entity its like electricity it doesnt realy exist as a substance but it is a phenomenon.
So in all reality lets look at the facts. first of all you can see dishonesty far more from the evolutionist than from the iresponsible Christian. Evolutionists have been caught in numerous frauds. Lets look at some other tid bits that support actualy I.D. The SCIENTISTS that beleive in I D have the same PhDs as any other scientists as a matter of fact many of the I D scirmtists are far more credible and far more recognised and known in the scientific acheivment areas of Science also many of the most renowned scientists who have invented some of the most notable were CHRISTIAN scientists, so for Evolutionists to say they are scientists and all else are creationists is a propaganda dishonesty attack. I D ers have the same PhDs as any evolutionist.
Now for a little list and I do mean little just for tid bits and a starter.
The 1st law of thermo dynamics supports ID
The second law of thermo dynamics supports ID
The fact that ther is absolutly NO evidence nor any example of A Bio Genesis anywhere, also it is a known fact that you cannot get somehtingfrom nothing. (dont even try to bring up the Stanley experiments or you will be laughed off the stage)
Also no missing links which was also backed up by Steven J Gould, Darwin Himself who was a racist I might add, and countless other evolutionists and if there was millions and billions of years of fossil making which is ridiculous then there should be an overwhelming supply of these fossils since they would be the longest time frame of the transitions which there are absolutly none despite what weak no science evolutionists will try and point out that they are transitions completely no evidence to add to even support these claims what soever.
Also Carbon dating and Potassium argon dating just a complete laughable joke, where they create this mythical timeline called the geologic column which has no credibilty to it whatso ever and then they pick and choose which fits where the dated Supposedly accurate dated material, with the time line, what a joke, this is complete fraud, also Potassium Argon dating has never been right where the date of the object was already known when they brought rocks from Mnt. ST. Helens which dated into the millions of years and we know it was only 20 something odd years ago many examples of this. just hundreds of examples as this check it out for yoursleves!!!!! Peace!!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.