RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 182
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2006,07:03   

On the other hand, I would argue that proponents of intelligent design theory have met the above-mentioned standard of scientific integrity. They simply assert: “Based on the evidence, we believe that an inference to design is scientifically justified, but we can draw no conclusions from that evidence as to how, why, where, or when design was implemented. The design inference is open to refutation through the demonstration of detailed materialistic mechanisms that can account for it.”

So IDers have no burden to show "how, why, where, or when design was implemented," but evolutionists are required to demonstrate "detailed materialistic mechanisms."  And Gil says this with a straight face in a post about integrity.

"I wasn't aware that classical physics had established a position on whether intelligent agents exercising free were constrained by 2LOT into increasing entropy." -DaveScot

  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]