RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (29) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Discussing "Explore Evolution", Have at it.< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 2008
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2008,21:44   

P. Nelson:  
In any case, the point of my Schwabe reply wasn't to endorse all of Schwabe's arguments or claims, but to illustrate the existence of a genuine controversy about relaxin, which Timmer had denied.
In contrast, according to an article by Daniel Conover which appeared in the Charleston Post and Courier on March 29, 2004 Schwabe doesnít endorse Nelsonís arguments at all:
It's the kind of argument that irritates mainstream scientists who say that regardless of whether intelligent design constitutes a meaningful critique of evolution, intelligent design is not science. Why?
"Because you can't make predictions from (intelligent design),"
said Schwabe, no fan of the movement himself. Despite his dismissal of I.D., descriptions of Schwabe's theory routinely show up on intelligent-design Web sites. †  
"And this just makes it more difficult, you see," Schwabe said. "They're desperate to get rid of Darwin, and they're misusing (the idea)."

"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

  859 replies since July 13 2007,13:04 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (29) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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