Joined: Oct. 2005
That's part of the fascinating stupidity of ID. I asked Dembski, years ago, what kind of evidence I'd see that ID was winning. What kind of tangible events could he point to, or expect, as the ID paradigm was adopted. He replied "read Kuhn's the Structure of Scientific Revolutions." Well no shit Sherlock. I've already read that book. Read it years ago in Philosophy of Science classes. That's what I'm asking you. What are you going to accomplish? Who will convert? When will the conferences be held? What field of biology is first to be revolutionized?
They've got nothing. And it's obvious. They can't publish anything because they can't figure anything new out. And Any ID supporter with an IQ over 85--there must be at least three or four--should be able to look at ID, look at PCID, look at the fact it is currently 2009, and the last issue of the "ID journal" was published in 2005, and say "Hmm... Apparently ID scientists can't accomplish jack shit." and that's the end of it. That they can't do that tells me they don't have the teeny tiniest idea how science works.