Erasmus, FCD
Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007
|
d-d-d-d-dd-d-d-dembski replies
| Quote |
12
William Dembski
10/03/2009
9:39 pm
Khan: ID relevant research by ID supporters has certainly been supported by the NSF — indeed, my own early work on randomness was supported with an NSF postdoctoral grant. But research proposals that specifically name ID and indicate that the research is intended to support that hypothesis would, I strongly suspect, not get funded. But I’m happy to be proven wrong. Anyone? Anyone?.... |
yeah right. ID relevant in that humans did the research therefore it's all ID. Right, Joe? You and d-d-d-d-d-dembski smoking that same doobie there
HERE is the closest fucking thing to science that the morons behind IDC have EVER done
| Quote | | .....P.S. It would be interesting to write up essentially the same ID research proposal in two ways, one making the ID connection explicit, the other cloaking it, perhaps even by suggesting that the research actually supports Darwinism, and then seeing which variant, if any, gets accepted. If enough of such proposals are submitted and if only the “cloaked” variants get accepted, that would be strong (experimental?) evidence that ID is being systematically discriminated against. |
do it, asshole. "supports Darwinism" right. what an idiot.
--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK
Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG
the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat
I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles
|
