Joined: Oct. 2012
|Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 31 2012,18:21)|
|Gary, you really need to focus on writing better. Keep your sentences shorter and less wandering. |
|But you have to empirically contradict ("falsify") it, not oblige me to an endless cycle that makes it seem I have to do that|
Actually, in science, the burden is on the guy with the new paradigm. He has to prove it's more useful than the old paradigm.
ID needs people (1)creating an actual model, (2)using it to generate specific predictions about the real world, (3)collecting data, (4) using the data to further refine the model.
Instead, it's stuck at step (0), which is having people clueless about biology babble on web sites. That's all its done for 20 years, and accomplished nothing, because it's just creationism, which is scientifically worthless.
I'll remember to keep the sentences small. And all the other good advice. At the moment though I'm fighting exhaustion. My grammar then declines rapidly. But it seems like you and others know that I'm making sense, and can relax for a while.
The problem with a journal article is not knowing where to begin explaining all this there, or why. But it's not like it's an impossible problem to solve. It's just more frustrating than you can imagine. At least the pdf shows where I'm currently at in that effort, to show some progress has been made. It's not like I don't try, that's for sure.
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.