>> You've got to admit, when you read about stuff like people believing
>> that ID is real science, it does make you wonder what kind of people
>> live there.
>
> If you take ID to be the idea that some protein(complexe)s can not have
> been evolved from earlier proteins, then that is a testable hypothesis.
> Stating and researching that idea was real science.

So there's a theory, the theory has been repeatedly proven wrong, 
there's no particular reason to believe that it might be right in some 
unknown case, and yet people continue to assert the truth of this theory 
as *fact*? Doesn't sound very rational to me...

> BTW would dissecting the cases brought forward by Behe at al. count as
> spending time on ID? Because that would be an ideal way to teach
> students how real science works.

I commend the idea.

Right along side showing how String Theory, despite looking far more 
professional than ID, is also not [yet] science. (And examining why it 
has the potential to /become/ science in a way that ID does not.)

Post a reply to this message