Joined: Dec. 2008
|Quote (dmso74 @ Mar. 05 2009,06:51)|
|Andrew SIbley aka Al Roker throws his vast qualifications into the ring:|
|My own background is in meteorology, with a focus on understanding the chaos of weather forecasting |
then offers up some sage advice for us Darwinians:
|The science of weather forecasting has improved because it takes seriously the levels of uncertainty in nature. A lesson there for Darwinian biologists I would suggest.|
I'm not exactly sure what he's saying here. is it that evolutionary biologists have never considered that "nature" is subject to a lot of stochastic variation? perhaps he'd like to replay the tape of evolution with SJ Gould sometime..
Does this article also look at personality disorders? I personally think that Dave Tard is the only one there close to being the full quid (which is a sad indictment in itself). Having had a short foray into posting and reading the tard directly, there is an all pervading denseness in their replies.
Also, how many IDists are there? The people at the DI know that ID was manufactured to get Creationism into the school and there publications now are purely evolution criticisms. Dembski and Behe have ID as their meal tickets so they have got to push it. After 20 years I am sure that these guys know that if ID was anywhere near honest it is about time to ask who, what, when and where.
Ask a creationist if they believe in ID they will say yes, but I am sure they prefer AIG for their source material.
So how many people are left?
MY definition is a person who can say with a straight face that ID does not require knowledge of the designer.