Joined: Oct. 2012
I first have to say that I had to walk to the store for coffee to keep me awake another 12 hours, so be glad I'm still here for you. And as always, please don't mind the typos..
|Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 02 2012,05:09)|
|The only thing JoeG and others who are passionate to ID and Creationism have to do is not mind being patient while science keeps going their way too. |
Could you explain what it is that JoeG is right about, and give a specific example where science has "gone his way"?
Could you explain what it is that Creationism is right about, and give a specific example where science has supported Creationism?
If you can't then please withdraw the claims.
I do not know enough about JoeG to be able to comment on their work. But I did notice they kinda have their own thread in this forum too, and it's almost 2/3rd of the way to a million hits!
My ID experience long ago started at the KCFS forum where Jack Krebs taught me everything he knew about debating against the theory. I myself said ID is not science it is a religion which at the time it more or less still was. I knew the UD site did not have a science worthy theory yet, and drove some at the ARN forum nuts by being honest about their not having a theory together there either. Along with Mike Gene who loved to find all the most recent recent info on metabolic pathways it was still an excellent learning experience to have been in on.
Since I did not see a Theory of Intelligent Design being possible I instead worked on original models and classroom experiments that were put together mostly at the KCFS forum. There was also added inspiration by email from Kathy Martin who instead of being negative and hating the idea was encouraging my search for an easy kitchen/classroom experiment to help explain what was later found to be called "self-assembly". We in turn ended up helping to introduce the concept of "self-assembly" to science teaching, by it being published in a National Science Teachers Association journal. It might not be as good as the delivering of a science-worthy Theory of Intelligent Design, but was still not bad for amateurs. At least there was that to show, as something good that came out of the rubble of the public hearing in Kansas that all fell apart on them. They proved to be right about it being more constructive to call in both sides of the issue to discuss the scientific merit of such a theory. Now there is Chromosomal Adam and Eve taking a respectable place in science. Dust/clay is now vital to know about in origin of life. Through emergence we express what created us, which we are systematically in the image/likeness of. Theory can now read so much like Genesis I could go on and on about how things are for the most part working out well for what you would call "creationists".
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.