Topic: Intelligent Design, Evolution, and Falsifiability. (Read 17760 times)

8d82thebone · « **Reply #20 on:** November 01, 2005, 11:05:13 PM »

Quote from: Copernicus

You produce an alternative hypothesis that explains biological development better, and then you produce evidence that supports that hypothesis. So far, the attempts by some IDists to do that have failed miserably.

ID clearly does explain biological development better, the problem is that the scientific community has narrowed the possible definitions of what can be termed 'science' to include only materialistic definitions, and then proudly proclaims itself the only contender by default. As far as what is falsifiable and what isn't , that's all just a big smokescreen anyway. Darwinian evolution, apart from finch beaks, pepper moths and selective breeding, is more philosophical in nature than scientific. If you don't believe me, try reading Richard Dawkins, and then compare it with Michael Behe. It's like going from Alice in Wonderland to the laboratory...

Copernicus · « **Reply #21 on:** November 02, 2005, 02:33:47 PM »

Quote from: 8d82thebone

... the problem is that the scientific community has narrowed the possible definitions of what can be termed 'science' ...If you don't believe me, try reading Richard Dawkins, and then compare it with Michael Behe. It's like going from Alice in Wonderland to the laboratory...

Yes, and Behe has very forcefully made this point in his courtroom defense of ID. When asked by the plaintiff's lawyer whether astrology would be considered science under his definition, Behe confirmed that it would.

8d82thebone · « **Reply #22 on:** November 03, 2005, 12:03:09 AM »

Quote from: Copernicus

Yes, and Behe has very forcefully made this point in his courtroom defense of ID. When asked by the plaintiff's lawyer whether astrology would be considered science under his definition, Behe confirmed that it would.

And I suppose you can provide some kind of reference for this, Cop?...
(the plaintiff's lawyer?...was he on trial?)

Copernicus · « **Reply #23 on:** November 03, 2005, 02:27:29 PM »

Quote from: 8d82thebone

And I suppose you can provide some kind of reference for this, Cop?...
(the plaintiff's lawyer?...was he on trial?)

This refers to the trial in Pennsylvania over the Dover school board decision to force biology teachers to include ID in the curriculum. The school board is being sued by 11 parents, and their attorney is Eric Rothschild, who posed the question to Behe. See http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178&feedId=online-news_rss20.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #24 on:** November 03, 2005, 04:29:21 PM »

Can you get us a link that comes from an organization that doesn't have any bias? They have published stories critical of ID, and are obviously proponents of evolution, so we cannot trust that they would have objectively reported this story. In fact, the limited amount of actual quotations renders the story meaningless. Take this example:

"Rothschild suggested that Behe

Broken · « **Reply #25 on:** November 03, 2005, 08:12:48 PM »

Quote from: 8d82thebone

Quote from: Copernicus

You produce an alternative hypothesis that explains biological development better, and then you produce evidence that supports that hypothesis. So far, the attempts by some IDists to do that have failed miserably.

ID clearly does explain biological development better, the problem is that the scientific community has narrowed the possible definitions of what can be termed 'science' to include only materialistic definitions, and then proudly proclaims itself the only contender by default. As far as what is falsifiable and what isn't , that's all just a big smokescreen anyway. Darwinian evolution, apart from finch beaks, pepper moths and selective breeding, is more philosophical in nature than scientific. If you don't believe me, try reading Richard Dawkins, and then compare it with Michael Behe. It's like going from Alice in Wonderland to the laboratory...

Dawkins is an old-school neo-darwinist and Behe's arguments are about 15 years out of date. If you read contemporary molecular biology research on genomes, the importance of evolution as an analytic tool is hard to escape.

Here's an example of a discovery that doesn't make sense except through evolution:

Unlike most other mammals, humans and apes cannot produce vitamin C. The reason is, the gene which codes for the vitamin C making protein is broken. The gene is missing a single nucleotide (DNA letter) about halfway from the beginning. This sort of mutation, a deletion, turns all the DNA codons after the mutation into giberish. No protein can be made at all. The punchline is: the mutation appears in exactly the same location in humans, chimpanzees and gorillas.

Evolution explains this easily: humans and apes have a common ancestor in which the mutation occured. What is the intelligent design explanation? Did the designer purposely design humans and apes with exactly the same flaw in exactly the same spot?

Copernicus · « **Reply #26 on:** November 03, 2005, 08:30:39 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

Can you get us a link that comes from an organization that doesn't have any bias? They have published stories critical of ID, and are obviously proponents of evolution, so we cannot trust that they would have objectively reported this story. In fact, the limited amount of actual quotations renders the story meaningless...

Sntjohnny, the New Scientist is a widely respected source of information, but you are correct that they are highly critical of ID. Very few mainstream news organizations picked up this story, but it has been more widely reported outside the US. I believe that virtually any pro-science source would be considered biased by you, because none of them support the claim that ID is a scientific theory. The best thing for you to do is read the transcript of the cross-examination of Behe, which you can find here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html#day11pm132.

Quote

"Because ID has been rejected by virtually every scientist and science organisation, and has never once passed the muster of a peer-reviewed journal paper, Behe admitted that the controversial theory would not be included in the NAS definition.

howlingmeteore · « **Reply #27 on:** November 04, 2005, 01:25:42 AM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

Some have invoked the falsifiability standard against ID by saying that intelligent design cannot be falsified. I do not want to fight that battle right now. Instead, let me agree that something that cannot be falsified is epistemologically weak (definition of epistemology). Instead, I want to apply that standard to evolutionary theory to see if it does any better.In other words, if ID is not 'scientific' because it is not falsifiable, maybe its in good company with evolutionary theory itself, which is adamantly affirmed as 'scientific

Now You can't possibly quote such a long post so I had to choose the words that actually struck me most, let me tell you something though, I couldn't agree more with you

the only thing I don't understand is where the big deal is, religious people believe creation didn't quite happen like on science books and want their children to learn the "truth"? so what ? some people trust science so passionately and don't care about any church theory of any sort ? soooo ?
what I'm trying to say is that there is no need for conflicts and mess like they're doing, they should just put two different types of science classes, two teachers, two syllabuses , two everything

The students and their parents would choose one or the other , everybody would complete their education just fine and nobody would see denied the right to have their children educated according to what they think is true, I just don't see why people complicate their lives so much

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #28 on:** November 04, 2005, 08:02:32 AM »

howling, ultimately, I think such a solution should be allowed by local school districts, if they so desired. I think a school district should be allowed to teach voodoo if it wanted.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #29 on:** November 04, 2005, 08:14:24 AM »

"Sntjohnny, the New Scientist is a widely respected source of information, but you are correct that they are highly critical of ID."

I'm trying to employ obnoxious atheistic arguments in an attempt to pre-empt later arguments I expect to use. Try not to ruin it, ok? So you are saying that just because they are highly critical of ID this doesn't discredit them on fair reporting on this issue. Do you give such latitude to other perspectives?

"The best thing for you to do is read the transcript of the cross-examination of Behe, which you can find here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html#day11pm132."

Bugger. An actual transcript was what I was hoping for. Talkorigins is the height of bias though. I guess I can still play the bias card and hold out for an independent transcription.

"That wording was not precisely what came out of the transcript."

Wow, that's a shocker. You don't think that was perhaps MY POINT?

"Rothschild read the wording from a deposition,"

My main reason for jumping in was because I didn't want you floating an obviously biased source to support a cheap shot.

The portion of the transcript that you cite does not support the categorization provided by New Scientist.

"No, I'll disagree with it because your position has no logic or reasoning to back it up. Sorry, sntjohnny"

Well, in that case, I shall employ the same reasoning again that was utilized by the New Scientist reporter. Its their reasoning, dude, not mine. So, here I go. Because you are confronted with a superior argument, and a man with dazzling good looks, and let us not fail to mention- witty- when faced with my argumentation, you will disagree with my assessment about the bias at New Scientist.

You can stop this madness by admitting that your New Scientist article shows evidence of bias. My own view is that is ok to be biased. Its harder to find big enough seats, like on busses, and sometimes an airline will charge you two seats, but- this is the important part- BEING OPEN AND HONEST ABOUT YOUR BIAS is the critical component to making 'bias' ok.

Of course, all of this is just banter. I pretty much don't care. :)

8d82thebone · « **Reply #30 on:** November 04, 2005, 08:44:59 AM »

Quote from: Broken

Quote from: 8d82thebone
Quote from: Copernicus

You produce an alternative hypothesis that explains biological development better, and then you produce evidence that supports that hypothesis. So far, the attempts by some IDists to do that have failed miserably.

Dawkins is an old-school neo-darwinist and Behe's arguments are about 15 years out of date. If you read contemporary molecular biology research on genomes, the importance of evolution as an analytic tool is hard to escape.
Here's an example of a discovery that doesn't make sense except through evolution:
Unlike most other mammals, humans and apes cannot produce vitamin C. The reason is, the gene which codes for the vitamin C making protein is broken. The gene is missing a single nucleotide (DNA letter) about halfway from the beginning. This sort of mutation, a deletion, turns all the DNA codons after the mutation into giberish. No protein can be made at all. The punchline is: the mutation appears in exactly the same location in humans, chimpanzees and gorillas.
Evolution explains this easily: humans and apes have a common ancestor in which the mutation occured. What is the intelligent design explanation? Did the designer purposely design humans and apes with exactly the same flaw in exactly the same spot?

As far as Dawkins being 'old school' people couldn't agree more. Problem is it seems none of them can agree with each other either...
Behe's book "Darwins Black Box" was published in 1996 so allow me to do some quick double-nought cipherin' here... 2005 -1996= 9. So now research that is nine years out of date is antiquated is it? I guess that must mean all those 'real' biologists have now come up with credible models of how bacterial flagellum and the blood clotting cascade evolved. I mean since they've had all of 9 years to do it?
So the nucleotide which allows humans and apes to produce vitamin C is "missing"? This is what is commonly observed in genetic mutation. Is there empirical evidence to prove it was ever there in a common ancestor? Is there empirical evidence for a common ancestor? If not, is the theory of a common ancestor falsifiable?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #31 on:** November 04, 2005, 10:06:59 AM »

I have now read the transcript and the next page of continuation.

The New Scientist article is clearly inaccurate, and I now have just cause for no longer considering them reputable at all. That or the reporter in this case is a blathering idiot, and is not illustrative of the rest of the staff. This whole 'astrology' business was exactly as I thought it might be when I quite skeptically heard the allegation made by Cop and in the article.

howlingmeteore · « **Reply #32 on:** November 04, 2005, 12:53:56 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

howling, ultimately, I think such a solution should be allowed by local school districts, if they so desired. I think a school district should be allowed to teach voodoo if it wanted.

I don't think giving the choice between a "normal" science class adn id is the same thing as giving the option to teach voodoo

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #33 on:** November 04, 2005, 01:25:07 PM »

No, its not the same. But my point is that this is a democracy, and local school districts should have the ability to reflect local public opinion. I should think that I have as much right to cry about a California district teaching voodoo as they might care about my local district teaching a class on 'hollywood losers.' Well, I suppose we could each cry however much we wanted, but neither would have the right to interfere.

You can be sure that democratic forces would mount locally to change the situation.

However, in the ID debate, the people fighting ID are going above their local district, and in doing so, if the courts rule in their favor, they'll be interfering in everyone else's district as well. By refusing simply to operate within the democratic rules of their local district, they are in a position to enforce their will on every district in America.

This, of course, has been a procedure honed to a science by the liberal left elitists, who cannot get their way any other way. They can't convince average Americans, so they go over their heads. ID, on the other hand, is making progress specifically because it CAN convince average Americans.

So, in my opinion the whole "ID in the classroom" debate has more to do with whether or not we are willing to live in a country fashioned on democratic ideals.

My only regret is that President Bush is an honorable and respectable man. I think just to spite I'd prefer to fill the judicial branch with conservative judicial activists so that the elitists can get a taste of their own medicine. To my chagrin- though this is why I love him- Bush will restore an honest democracy by stocking the judiciary with people who will respect the people's rights to express their views legislatively- that is, democratically. Its too bad. It would have been fun to invent constitutional rights out of thin air and use a couple of juicy decisions about events in one school district and thereby set the precedent for ALL school districts.

Let's see.... maybe.... forced daily devotionals? Take a public school in the Bible belt and have it decide to make every kid read a Christian devotion at the beginning of the day. Atheists, often acting as though they are the center of the world, will predictably react, even if the school board put this into affect with a unanimous vote, both of the board and the local populous, say, 10,000 for and 3 against. Employing our conservative judicial activism, though, we'll see our case brought up before a Christian fundamentalist that thinks of the law and the constitution the way liberal elitists do, as a 'living document' and he'll find a right for 'private introspection.'

Up the chain it will go, until the SC gets ahold of it, and despite the fact that the law in question was approved by one small community in Arkansas, it can now become the law of the entire land.

We'll hear the elitists whine and cry all day long at that time, but now that they are the one 'winning' they don't mind acting that way, at all.

Sorry for the rant. Concisely: these matters are as much about the health of our democracy as much as anything else.

Broken · « **Reply #34 on:** November 04, 2005, 02:32:17 PM »

Quote from: 8d82thebone

As far as Dawkins being 'old school' people couldn't agree more. Problem is it seems none of them can agree with each other either...

Dawkins is old school in the sense that he hasn't evolved (pun intended) much beyond the population genetics and morphological phylogeny arguments of the 1960s. His new book "The Ancestors Tale" is a little better, but still barely touches on the explosion of molecular genetics knowledge.

Far worse, Dawkins has used evolution to promote his own strident atheism. He is indeed guilty of introducing his religion into science, so his pointing fingers at Creationists and IDers for doing the same thing is hypocritical.

Quote

Behe's book "Darwins Black Box" was published in 1996 so allow me to do some quick double-nought cipherin' here... 2005 -1996= 9. So now research that is nine years out of date is antiquated is it? I guess that must mean all those 'real' biologists have now come up with credible models of how bacterial flagellum and the blood clotting cascade evolved. I mean since they've had all of 9 years to do it?

Much of the reference material in Behe's "Black Box" is from 1990 or earlier, see the Notes section of his book.

Behe's "irreducible complexity" argument is a useful critique of evolution. Behe has helped draw attention to the question of the evolutionary origin of the molecular machinery found in living organisms today. This is certainly not all his doing, but he has been a positive factor.

However, for each of Behe's irreducibly complex systems, a simpler system using the same proteins has been found. For the bacterial flagellum, the bacterial Type III Secretory System has many of the same protein components. In fact, for almost any type of flagellum, similar systems exist with secretory functions or virilence (infection) functions. Here is a LINK. So, if a flagellum can be assembled from components which are used in other simpler systems, it is not an irreducibly complex system.

Quote

So the nucleotide which allows humans and apes to produce vitamin C is "missing"?

A single nucleotide is missing (deleted) from the human gene which encodes the protein, called GLO, which makes vitamin C. Working copies of the GLO gene are found in most mammals except primates.

I am assuming you know the basics of DNA -> RNA -> amino acids (protein). DNA comes in an "alphabet" with four nucleotide 'letters': A, T, C, G. Three nucleotides strung together make a triplet or "codon" for one of the 20 different amino acids. For example, G-C-A is a codon for the amino acid Alanine. The DNA code for a single protein consists of hundreds of codons strung together, each codon made from three nucleotides.

If a single nucleotide in one codon is deleted, the meaning of all the downstream codons is changed. For example consider the codon string

GCA UGC GAC UUC

which codes for the amino acids

Alanine, Cysteine, Aspartic Acid, and Phenylalanine.

If we delete the second nucleotide, C, we get

GAU GCG ACU UCX

which codes for the amino acids

Aspartic Acid, Alanine, Threonine, and Serine.

This is a completely different protein from the first example. This sort of nucleotide-deletion mutation is called a "frame-shift" mutation because every codon triplet downstream of the mutation is shifted by one nucleotide.

So, the single nucleotide deletion in the human GLO gene for vitamin C renders the gene completely inoperative (at least, for making vitamin C). Evolution predicts that the exact same nucleotide is missing in apes, who need vitamin C in their diet just like humans do. This was recently confirmed in chimpanzee, macaque and orangutan genomes. Most other mammals have functional Glo genes and don't need vitamin C in their diet.

So, this same vitamin C mutation being identical in all primates is not only explained by evolution, it was predicted by evolution. Many other similar mutations have been found. Some are common only to humans and chimpanzees.

What is the ID explanation for this? Did the designer purposely put the exact same defects in all primates?

For a detailed discussion of this type of finding, see LINK.

Quote

This is what is commonly observed in genetic mutation.

It is not common to find the same exact mutation in different species unless they are related. If we assume roughly 1000 nucleotides in the GLO gene, the chances of a deletion mutation ocurring in exactly the same place in five different species is 1:1,000,000,000,000,000. Obviously this is not a random occurence.

Quote

Is there empirical evidence to prove it was ever there in a common ancestor? Is there empirical evidence for a common ancestor?

The common defect is evidence of common ancestry. Very strong evidence, since it is difficult to come up with a plausible alternative.

Quote

If not, is the theory of a common ancestor falsifiable?

Certainly.

Darwin predicted that all life has a common ancestry. He made this prediction knowing nothing of biochemistry. We now know all life stores genetic information in the same way, using the same exact molecules, the same genetic code, and the same machinery for assembling proteins from genetic information. If these mechanisms were different in bacteria, humans, and redwoods, Darwin would be proved wrong.

If the human genome was closer to that of bears than chimpanzees, a theory of common ancestry for humans and chimpanzees would be proved wrong. Recent work has shown that human and chimp genomes are 96% identical. In fact, some mutations have been found which are only common to humans and chimpanzees.

howlingmeteore · « **Reply #35 on:** November 04, 2005, 10:25:12 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

No, its not the same. But my point is that this is a democracy, and local school districts should have the ability to reflect local public opinion. I should think that I have as much right to cry about a California district teaching voodoo as they might care about my local district teaching a class on 'hollywood losers.' Well, I suppose we could each cry however much we wanted, but neither would have the right to interfere.

You can be sure that democratic forces would mount locally to change the situation.

However, in the ID debate, the people fighting ID are going above their local district, and in doing so, if the courts rule in their favor, they'll be interfering in everyone else's district as well. By refusing simply to operate within the democratic rules of their local district, they are in a position to enforce their will on every district in America.

This, of course, has been a procedure honed to a science by the liberal left elitists, who cannot get their way any other way. They can't convince average Americans, so they go over their heads. ID, on the other hand, is making progress specifically because it CAN convince average Americans.

So, in my opinion the whole "ID in the classroom" debate has more to do with whether or not we are willing to live in a country fashioned on democratic ideals.

My only regret is that President Bush is an honorable and respectable man. I think just to spite I'd prefer to fill the judicial branch with conservative judicial activists so that the elitists can get a taste of their own medicine. To my chagrin- though this is why I love him- Bush will restore an honest democracy by stocking the judiciary with people who will respect the people's rights to express their views legislatively- that is, democratically. Its too bad. It would have been fun to invent constitutional rights out of thin air and use a couple of juicy decisions about events in one school district and thereby set the precedent for ALL school districts.

Let's see.... maybe.... forced daily devotionals? Take a public school in the Bible belt and have it decide to make every kid read a Christian devotion at the beginning of the day. Atheists, often acting as though they are the center of the world, will predictably react, even if the school board put this into affect with a unanimous vote, both of the board and the local populous, say, 10,000 for and 3 against. Employing our conservative judicial activism, though, we'll see our case brought up before a Christian fundamentalist that thinks of the law and the constitution the way liberal elitists do, as a 'living document' and he'll find a right for 'private introspection.'

Up the chain it will go, until the SC gets ahold of it, and despite the fact that the law in question was approved by one small community in Arkansas, it can now become the law of the entire land.

We'll hear the elitists whine and cry all day long at that time, but now that they are the one 'winning' they don't mind acting that way, at all.

Sorry for the rant. Concisely: these matters are as much about the health of our democracy as much as anything else.

I respect your opinion, I am not trying to convince you, I just really don't see it like that....I don't know, also being from another country I am used to different which again, doens't mean where I come from is better...I am an LDS but still believe in a world where the people try to please one another WHERE POSSIBLE....take the situation of abortion for example, that one can only be sore, there is no pleasing way, we Cristians believe you're killing a life , the Atheists believe you're putting a woman in chains so to say....with ID democracy would be represented by giving the right options available, no more fighting, no more complicating your life, if somebody wants to have a wider education may even go to both classes , I myself , being a Christian and believing ID would even go to the other class, you have to know every side of this world to live a good life

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #36 on:** November 04, 2005, 10:27:53 PM »

Hey buddy, I started a new thread with that very post of mine. Why don't you post your reply there. Then I'll delete these threads. Its a small attempt not to hijack my own thread.

Copernicus · « **Reply #37 on:** November 04, 2005, 11:23:04 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

Bugger. An actual transcript was what I was hoping for. Talkorigins is the height of bias though. I guess I can still play the bias card and hold out for an independent transcription.

You always accuse me of bias, but you are being ridiculous. All the transcripts come from the same source, but you can hold out for a host site that promotes your bias if it makes you feel better. :) I originally read the transcript that the Discovery Institute maintains, but they post PDF files with limited navigability. Talkorigins bothered to convert to HTML format, which is much more readable and searchable.

Quote

"That wording was not precisely what came out of the transcript."

Wow, that's a shocker. You don't think that was perhaps MY POINT?

I expected that kneejerk reaction from you, so I posted the actual wording. Anyone can see that the differences in wording are insignificant, and they derive from the fact that one comes from a reporter's notebook and the other from an official transcript. What was actually said may not be what was in either source, since transcriptions often contain subjective errors and misinterpretations, even when they are done from recordings.

Quote

The portion of the transcript that you cite does not support the categorization provided by New Scientist.

Oh, but it does. You have to remember that the transcript quotes from an earlier deposition in which Behe said exactly what the New Scientist report claimed. In the trial transcript, Behe (who was doubtless prepared for the question by the defense team) tried to minimize the impact of his earlier testimony by lamely claiming that his definition of science represented a 15th century concept. Rothschild exposed Behe's evasions for the flim-flam they were. The lesson for the court was that Behe's narrowed definition forced him to admit all kinds of discredited theories and bone-headed nonsense as "science". It was a classic reductio ad absurdum attack.

Quote

You can stop this madness by admitting that your New Scientist article shows evidence of bias. My own view is that is ok to be biased. Its harder to find big enough seats, like on busses, and sometimes an airline will charge you two seats, but- this is the important part- BEING OPEN AND HONEST ABOUT YOUR BIAS is the critical component to making 'bias' ok.

Anyone who advances arguments in favor of a proposition is ipso facto "biased". The pro-science bias that New Scientist has is self-evident. That does not make their criticism of ID unfair, however. After all, it is the IDists who are claiming to advance their proposal as a science claim. To do that, they actually need to convince scientists that it is, and that is precisely what they have failed to do. Behe goofed in his earlier deposition, and he knew it. That's why he was forced to backpedal furiously on what he had earlier stated under oath.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #38 on:** November 05, 2005, 09:47:30 AM »

"You always accuse me of bias, but you are being ridiculous."

Oh, I know I'm being ridiculous. :) I did say I was being pre-emptive.

"I expected that kneejerk reaction from you, so I posted the actual wording. Anyone can see that the differences in wording are insignificant,"

I think you need to look again at the whole context of what you claimed, what the article said that support that claim, my response, then what you posted from the transcript to support the claim of the claim of the claim. There is a disconnect. It goes beyond a differences in wording.

"Oh, but it does. You have to remember that the transcript quotes from an earlier deposition in which Behe said exactly what the New Scientist report claimed."

I read the transcript, and on the point in question, you are not supported.

You can hunt up the earlier part as well. Its clear to me that Behe's response was not 'lame' but rather that the attorney is trying to score a cheap point. My guess is that he was too ignorant to have known, originally, of the relationship between astrology and astronomy throughout history, so he tried to save face, counting on the ignorance too of the court and jury (if its a jury trial).

"Anyone who advances arguments in favor of a proposition is ipso facto "biased"."

Excellent. :)

"That does not make their criticism of ID unfair, however."

Not in principle, no. However, in this article it certainly was. A claim was made based on a contorted description of the court proceedings, without any apparent attempt to get the opposing side's statement in one case and in another case words were put into Behe's mouth.

Maybe you can say that NS deals with good science, its just their reporting that sucks.

"To do that, they actually need to convince scientists that it is, and that is precisely what they have failed to do."

I was focusing on this article and YOUR ridiculous argument that Behe allowed astrology in the definition of science. Because I have a pretty good grasp of these matters, I had a decent guess in my mind of what Behe was likely to have meant, if he did indeed say what he said, and I was right.

There are many reasons why scientists remain unconvinced of theories, and history is replete with examples where the merits of the position are quite irrelevant. So, actually, in my opinion, the issue is not whether they need to convince scientists of anything. Having seen their devolution into philosophical materialism and philosophy of science, while still trying to take the empirical high road, while simultaneiously not recognizing they are doing so (calling into question their honesty, their intelligence, their motives, or perhaps worse), has shown me that the entity they most resemble in history is the priesthood of the Roman Catholic church in the 1500s.

So, I think the real issue is whether or not local school districts have the right to affect policy in their own districts. I understand that you all think you are smarter than the rest of us, but that's still not a good enough reason, and eventually its going to backfire and burn you, to poke your nose in the affairs of local schools.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #39 on:** November 05, 2005, 09:50:30 AM »

oops, I forgot. You still haven't agreed that this bad, biased reporting, so here we go....

Because Copernicus knows that I am smarter than he is, with less nose hair, and all the babes on my elbows, he knows that he cannot agree with my points, or he will lose face, so, Copernicus will agree with what I have said.

Author Topic: Intelligent Design, Evolution, and Falsifiability. (Read 17760 times)