![](/i/fill.gif) |
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Personally, I wouldn't have been able to get past the name of the author and
what I already know about him.
--
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Invisible wrote:
> 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.
Why subject yourself to such horror?
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> I wasted about a week reading this book. If any of you have the change
> to read it... don't bother. Seriously.
Too late for me, but to help recoup your losses, there's some information on the
subject that is worth reading/watching. In 2005, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area
School District trial in Pennsylvania ruled on whether a statement providing ID
as an alternative to evolution should be read in science classes. For whatever
it's worth (and the value is debatable), they determined that, legally
speaking, ID is not science. There's even a great NOVA special, complete with
reenactments! It's actually quite remarkable how they uncovered the motives
behind textbook editing and donations. Behe was a witness at the trial, and,
well, the judge says it best.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/2:Context#Page_28_of_139
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/4:Whether_ID_Is_Science#Page_79_of_139
I'll go with my judgement and avoid saying anything too pungent on the issue,
but I think it's safe to say that now, thirteen years after he wrote the book,
the ID movement seems to have been exposed as a thinly disguised rehashing of
creationism. I'll let you draw your own conclusions regarding the Discovery
Institute's leaked "Wedge Document."
http://ncseweb.org/creationism/general/wedge-document
- Ricky
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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] dev null> 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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
"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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |