From the wiki article: Behe eventually testified under oath that "There are 
no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design 
supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed 
rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system 
occurred"

That says it all, really. While scientists must provide sound experimental 
or empirical evidence to support a hypothesis, ID proponents merely point 
out the things that scientist do not know for certain and use that to 
dismiss everything else. Something you often hear in the scientific 
community is "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." The only 
logical conclusion one can make is that ID is not a science.


"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message 
news:49870bfd$1@news.povray.org...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_Black_Box
>
> I wasted about a week reading this book. If any of you have the change to 
> read it... don't bother. Seriously.
>
> While reading this book, I was actually astonished that somebody could 
> seriously present such obvious nonesense as "fact". I was simply amazed 
> that anybody would agree to print such lies. Furthermore, the author is 
> apparently paid to work as a "scientist", yet he seems to not comprehend 
> the simple definition of what "science" actually is.
>
> Seriously... I wasted a week of my life! >_<
>
> (Although some of the stuff was interesting... Inbetween the 
> thinly-disguised religious rantings, there was some interesting science. 
> Like the cascade of chemical reactions that turn a photon impact into an 
> electric potential.)

Post a reply to this message