Albatrossity2
Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007
|
| Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 05 2008,10:50) | Hi All,
The big banner in the upper left hand corner says "Antievolution, The Critic's Resource". It led me to believe there might be an interest in what I had to say.
If you have no idea why the concept of "randomness" is being challenged by ID proponents, frankly you need to get a clue.
If you just sit here waiting for people to make serious presentations just so you can pontificate that it isn't good enough, you shouldn't be surprised that no one capable of offering you a challenge will post here. By the time ID gets to the level of peer reviews and experiments, they won't have to come to you, you will be coming to them because they don't have to work very hard at all to get a following.
I happen to be a free-lance independent with anti-religious leanings. Those more loyal to the ID Movement would be perfectly happy for you to continue napping in you Group Think induced stupor. |
Baloney. Please address the issues raised rather than whine about them. And nobody cares if you are religious or Satan himself; we're talking about the RESULTS of your ideas.
Science consists of more than "serious presentations". And yes, I will always say that ID "isn't good enough" until there is EMPIRICAL evidence that it can produce testable hypotheses, test them, and subject the results and conclusions to the crucible of peer review. Books, blogs, and equations are not "good enough", and won't be. Papers in peer-reviewed journals are the coin of this realm. Sorry if that offends, but it is a fact nonetheless.
This has been pointed out to the IDists innumerable times, and yet they continue to publish crappy books and whine about how misunderstood they are. ID has had over a decade to produce experiments and submit the results to peer reviews. If they haven't done it by now, they never will. And the simple reason for that is the notion of ID, as currently formulated, is completely untestable and thus unscientific. Period.
As for ID proponents challenging "randomness", that is not news, nor is it important. It is yet another instance of IDists attacking a strawman version of an evolutionary concept and pretending that this attack somehow supports their notions, which remain, permanently, evidence-free.
So thanks for the serious presentation. If it makes you feel better about ID, that's great. I'll still be waiting for some serious RESULTS. But I won't be holding my breath.
--------------
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
|
