N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
Egads, Gary: Luskin misrepresents almost everything, but you cite him; Joe makes horrendous mistakes all the time, but you cite him; Salvador misrepresents and misunderstands more often than not, and you cite him too. You do yourself no favors by linking to those sorts of sources. I'd appeal to your sense of embarrassment and your ability to evaluate sources, but you've shown quite clearly how futile such an appeal would be.
You are going out of your way to give your ideas a name that serves your purposes about as well as if you had named them "New and Improved Phlogiston Science" (particularly if your work didn't even touch on phlogistons). If that's too obscure a reference, let me be blunter: leaving aside the issue of whether or not your model meaningfully addresses intelligence, it doesn't show ANYTHING originating through design, so why shoot yourself in the foot, wrap an anchor chain around your neck, and pin a "Kick Me" sign to your behind by labelling your stuff "intelligent design" and citing such pitifully atrocious sources in its support?
If you can't find anything better, you'd be better off letting your model stand on its own without external support.
|
