creeky belly
Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006
|
| Quote | | Let me put it to you this way, I place Brian Greene and Behe in the same catagory. Both are relating a theory composed largely of someone else's ideas that can not be empirically supported. |
Who's theories? Witten's, Feynman's, Bohr's, Einstein's, Newton's, Galileo's, Kepler's, Aristotle's? The mathematical description of natural forces has been investigated for centuries. They've been supported by evidence, which gives us some idea that we're on the right track. Behe's IC is just wrong, there's no other word for it, there's a wealth of evidence that contradicts what he says.
| Quote | | Greene's ideas challenge no necessary dogma and hence are no threat and even more interestingly indirect methods to support this theory are now being contemplated or tested. What happens if some method arises to test Behe's claims, I don't believe this is possible, but what if? This is why no question should ever be off limits to science. Each new day brings new data and who knows which direction it will lead us; we have to be willing to follow. |
We should follow the data, and the data has shown us that Behe is wrong. End of story.
| Quote | | Personally, I get real nervous when someone wants to completely shut the book on some line of inquiry in the name of "science." That justs screams of agenda (i.e. global warming). |
This is the only way for ID to be successful; if we stop doing science and ponder at how marvelous a creation the flagellum/immune system/gonads are. You're walking a thin line between skepticism and denialism.
|
