Albatrossity2
Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007
|
| Quote (bjray @ Mar. 16 2010,01:12) | | I understood him to mean that we will come to realize that the “scientific” community at large are not so receptive to alternate theories to evolution. |
That's incorrect; science is always interested in new explanations. The problem for Dembski et al. is that ID/Creationism is not a new explanation, it is an old and failed explanation. As far as ID/Creationism goes, the scientific community was receptive back in the 19th Century. Experiments, observations, successful predictions, etc have all combined since then to show that evolutionary theory is a better explanation than ID/Creationism. Dembski and his acolytes have added no new basic arguments, and, more importantly, no new data that would make it useful to revisit the defeat suffered by ID/Creationism in the late 19th Century.
Do you have new data or arguments that make phlogiston a better explanation than oxidation/reduction? No? Then we won't bother to revisit that defeat either.
The point is that new data will be required to make scientists pay attention to old controversies. Let us know when you, or Dembski, or Behe, or Minnich, or anyone else manages to come up with those data. Until then, ID/Creationism will be deservedly ignored. And if that revelation succeeds in "opening your eyes", so much the better.
--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
- Pattiann Rogers
|
