Joined: Oct. 2012
|Quote (Sealawr @ Nov. 16 2012,14:21)|
|"the PSC award banner (that is only for award winners) is there so that no matter how well you think you're doing (making it seem that you know better than everyone else) the how-to community most knowledgeable in what else is around already made it clear what they think about it, and you cannot change that."|
Could I have this translated into syntactically correct English, please? Perhaps a complete thought will then emerge.
Seeing how some seem to think there must be something fascinating in that one, I'll try to explain it another way.
Expectations were that a Theory of Intelligent Design would have to come out of a biological lab where lab results are published in a peer reviewed journal, and all the rest you already know by heart.
But meanwhile, there was the Intelligence Generator model that came with included (now looks crappy but better than nothing) operational theory. That model combined with the ID work to become the Intelligence Design Lab that was next born at Planet Source Code. Before you know it, all the hoopla over them being there started a little protest then won award because none there mind such science fun there either.
This theory does not meet expectations because of it not having been considered that a Theory of Intelligent Design would have to come from a place like Planet Source Code where what is most important is the source code, perfect grammar optional. None there want lab papers, wrong place for publishing that. So as fate has it, the theory had to come from where it did, and belongs. To help make my last New Year one to remember Ian let me know that (to spite the ruckus from a little outside protest) I'm always welcome anytime. It's home because the theory genuinely most needs that type of environment to thrive, and probably always will.
Where you ask where the lab results are, you get the Intelligent Design Lab with included operational theory to explain how to apply that intelligent causation events and more. It's not overturning what was already found to be true in the lab, it's (for example) how to organize all the circuitry needing to be sorted out in a standard multilevel circuit form that works for unintelligent particle systems on up to living things with brains. It makes the sciences easier to connect and model. And as I earlier mentioned it is pioneering new areas of science, not overcoming areas already covered by another theory. Only makes sense it would not come from somewhere you're not used to, that you here need to be to really get around in the science being pioneered. It's here not just the opinion of the community that I am showing it's where the theory is from where it's not at all a new thing that out of the blue arrived there, the Intelligence Generator did well too.
Hopefully that better translates why meeting expectations that the theory must be judged by its peer-reviewed lab journal published results is rather pointless. It becomes a way of making it seem like it's a crime for not instead having brought lab results to someone just being pompous.
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.