 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Hough wrote:
> 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.
Reading the judge's summing up made for interesting reading... It's
heartening to hear that somebody is still sane. So often in this world
court rulings seem to produce absurd results.
The response was equally insane: "The Dover decision is an attempt by an
activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even
to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed
censorship rather than open debate, and it won't work. He has conflated
he totally misrepresents intelligent design and the motivations of the
scientists who research it."
What. The. Hell.
Seriously, how can people actually be allowed to utter such outragous
lies?! o_O
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> The response was equally insane: "The Dover decision is an attempt by an
> activist federal judge
Make that conservative activist judge, appointed by George W. Bush. His
decision was a knife in the back of the evangelical Christians who got him
there, was it? He's an activist judge because he DIDN'T rule based on his
preconceptions and a political agenda? A ruling based on precedent, evidence,
and testimony? Sounds like a horrible guy. I need a walk.
- Ricky
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"triple_r" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> For whatever
> it's worth (and the value is debatable), they determined that, legally
> speaking, ID is not science.
Forgive me for talking to myself, but before I start problems I should emphasize
that I really don't mind whether you fall into one camp or the other. What I
despise is the dishonesty--the disingenuous claims by groups like the Discovery
Institute that they're trying to uncover objective truth without any religious
motives.
- Ricky
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
triple_r wrote:
> Forgive me for talking to myself, but before I start problems I should emphasize
> that I really don't mind whether you fall into one camp or the other. What I
> despise is the dishonesty--the disingenuous claims by groups like the Discovery
> Institute that they're trying to uncover objective truth without any religious
> motives.
Sure. If people want to believe that God created the universe, they're
entitled. Heck, maybe they're *right*. But either way,
1. The question is not science.
2. Don't force other people to believe something just because you want
them to.
3. Stop lying and trying to cheat the system to get your own way.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Why subject yourself to such horror?
My mum was in a bookshop, saw a book about science and thought I might
be interested. I was... for the first few chapters.
By the time it got to the part about "maybe at some point in the future
we will have the technology to design our own genome and travel back in
time to seed the Earth with it", I was in a state of utter disbelief.
*How* can somebody who claims to be a scientist seriously propose such
nonesense?!
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 escreveu:
> By the time it got to the part about "maybe at some point in the future
> we will have the technology to design our own genome and travel back in
> time to seed the Earth with it", I was in a state of utter disbelief.
> *How* can somebody who claims to be a scientist seriously propose such
> nonesense?!
Hmm, can't a scientist speculate? Thought experiments, anyone?
not that that guy is much of a scientist...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> By the time it got to the part about "maybe at some point in the
>> future we will have the technology to design our own genome and travel
>> back in time to seed the Earth with it", I was in a state of utter
>> disbelief. *How* can somebody who claims to be a scientist seriously
>> propose such nonesense?!
>
> Hmm, can't a scientist speculate? Thought experiments, anyone?
"Hmm, how could something this complex have arrisen? Well, maybe it was
designed by aliens from another planet."
"Well, yeah, but then how did *they* arrise in the first place? You
haven't really answered the question, just moved it to another planet."
"Hmm, well, maybe in the future *we* will became sufficiently advanced
to both design entire genomes and also travel through time. So maybe
*we* are the 'aliens'?"
"Uh... now you've just hidden the problem inside a temporal paradox
instead of answering it."
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> activist federal judge
I remember once the supreme court said something like
"Activist? Of course we're activist. You come and stand in front of us and
ask us to make a decision. Who do you expect to act, Donald Duck?"
How can you be an "activist" judge, if your job is to make the decision
about what was intended by a particular law?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 escreveu:
>>> By the time it got to the part about "maybe at some point in the
>>> future we will have the technology to design our own genome and
>>> travel back in time to seed the Earth with it", I was in a state of
>>> utter disbelief. *How* can somebody who claims to be a scientist
>>> seriously propose such nonesense?!
>>
>> Hmm, can't a scientist speculate? Thought experiments, anyone?
>
> "Hmm, how could something this complex have arrisen? Well, maybe it was
> designed by aliens from another planet."
>
> "Well, yeah, but then how did *they* arrise in the first place? You
> haven't really answered the question, just moved it to another planet."
>
> "Hmm, well, maybe in the future *we* will became sufficiently advanced
> to both design entire genomes and also travel through time. So maybe
> *we* are the 'aliens'?"
>
> "Uh... now you've just hidden the problem inside a temporal paradox
> instead of answering it."
Hmm, yea. It makes a lot less sense now. :P
BTW, wasn't he supposed to be supporting a creationist view? He's
contradicting even that by suggesting man created man! O_o
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Hmm, can't a scientist speculate? Thought experiments, anyone?
>>
>> "Hmm, how could something this complex have arrisen? Well, maybe it
>> was designed by aliens from another planet."
>>
>> "Well, yeah, but then how did *they* arrise in the first place? You
>> haven't really answered the question, just moved it to another planet."
>>
>> "Hmm, well, maybe in the future *we* will became sufficiently advanced
>> to both design entire genomes and also travel through time. So maybe
>> *we* are the 'aliens'?"
>>
>> "Uh... now you've just hidden the problem inside a temporal paradox
>> instead of answering it."
>
> Hmm, yea. It makes a lot less sense now. :P
In other words, as a "thought experiment", the result is pretty
conclusive: this line of reasoning doesn't make coherant sense.
> BTW, wasn't he supposed to be supporting a creationist view? He's
> contradicting even that by suggesting man created man! O_o
*shrugs*
All I know is that his book's argument is basically
1. Darwin's theory has various problems. (E.g., it doesn't address how
life *started* - well, yes, that's true, it doesn't.)
2. Darwin's theory is therefore false.
3. ID is therefore correct. (Wuh?!)
4. "Now that we have proved that ID is correct, this raises several
interesting questions..."
That last point really made me gasp. Seriously, you haven't *proved*
anything! You're just waving your hands around going "hey, Darwin is
imperfect, therefore you're all wrong". Sheesh...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
