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 >  
Occam's Toothbrush

Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2007,08:58   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 09 2007,15:27)
it's amazing the amount of unknowing support of ID out there. Maybe one day they will also get some knowing support!

Mark Pagel, an evolutionary biologist, gives an unwitting slam of Darwinism. The review was published in the prestigious scientific journal Nature.

Biology has unwittingly adopted the central tenets of ID.

it should be noted Barrow and Davies won an almost combined 3 million dollars in the form of Templeton Prizes for their (perhaps unwitting) ID-sympathetic works. Some of the best ID literature is in places you’d least expect!
Uncommon Descent will from time to time point out other books like Tipler’s Physics of Christianity and now this (unwitting) ID-sympathetic book by renowned scientist Owen Gingerich: God’s Universe

ironically, Daniel Dennett unwittingly gives powerful “scientific” reasons why secularism is doomed and why religion (which tends to be ID-friendly) will prevail

DNA researcher Andras Pellionisz has found unwitting friends in the ID community.

Francis Crick (a Nobel laureate) and Fred Hoyle (author of Intelligent Universe) were valuable (perhaps unwitting) pioneers of modern ID theory. Even today, SETI is used as a staple example for the ID movement.

Last month I pointed out the unwitting admission by some Darwinists that Darwinism is useless to modern medicine (and for that matter modern science).

This month I’m pleased that world’s most prestigious scientific journal, Nature, has published a letter from a biophysicist who has (perhaps unwittingly) shown that the design revolution continues, and Darwinism is slipping into total irrelevance.

And to finish the irony, Darwinist Ken Miller (of all people) unwittingly supports ID in his books:

The point was to show MacCallum is forced to admit Medical Doctors today find little use for Darwinism. Her article unwittingly demonstrates Egnor’s point.

The very existence of her editorial refutes the point she was arguing for. It was an unwitting admission of Darwinism’s irrelevance.

I suppose It kinda makes sense then for Dembski to say:
Unwitting Pro-ID Peer-Reviewed Articles on the Increase . . .


It's amazing that even though every piece of research published by "Darwinists" apparently supports the contradictory conjecture of ID--by complete accident!--the stupIDs can't seem to do a single iota of original research to support their own assumed conclusion, even on purpose.

"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  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]