Joined: Oct. 2012
|Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 31 2012,16:50)|
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 31 2012,16:16)|
|Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 31 2012,15:09)|
|Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 31 2012,10:32)|
|Let's start small however. Describe ID in your own words.|
Words should be fine. However:
|The "falsify" bit wore itself out, but the "verify" part of a theory which comes before the conclusion (not where you were are supposed to begin) is vital and must explain a way for others to take it from there, as Charles Darin did by explaining his theory to others than was crapped on by Owens and most all other greatnesses of science of his day who tried to discredit him out of science therefore it took 30 years before the scientific community even cared about him or his theory.|
It looks like sentences might be a problem.
I'm lost without the edit button to get the last minute typos that show up so well when seen on the screen. And I'm known for big sentences that are a part from defensive action against quote-mining a single sentence that that needs others to make a complete thought, but I try not to go overboard. Also can admit I have the writing skills needed for programming and forums but figuring out how to explain all this in a science paper gets complicated real fast. Soon need to get back to the coding and other things that are behind schedule as a result. But I would rather have something new online to experiment with that only needs to be properly coded and commented, than a small number of obsessed over pages of literary masterpiece explaining what we already have. It's like I mentioned in the other thread, and hope it did not come out rude, that I have to stay focused on the science and not worry about the hundred or so years of work already on the back burner that I will no-way have all done by this weekend either.
Here's the thing. If you can't explain it simply, then you either a) don't understand it well yourself or b) don't have the skills to get it into a science paper format.
There's nothing wrong with either of those. But if you read the science journals, the prose is very, very simple. Yes, the terminology is very complex, but the prose is simple.
"We did x with y." "We used x process to modify the gene Y." etc.
Now, let's see if I can help. DO you agree with or disagree with the following (and feel free to make comments).
1) 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.
2) the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence
3) The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.
4) Intelligent design (ID) is the empirically testable theory that the natural world shows signs of having been designed by a purposeful, intelligent cause.
5) Intelligent design is a belief that the universe could not have been created by chance and that some higher-power must have had a hand in creating the universe.
With the understood caveat that some of the information in these definitions may be fundamentally wrong (i.e. 1 says that natural selection is an undirected process. Depending on how one defines 'undirected' this may or may not be a true statement).
The premise, as stated by the Discovery Institute and now on the "public record" as one sentence only, is in my signature line. All else you presented are rewordings that are irrelevant to discussion.
And it's not that I cannot easily enough write a paper like you are describing, the problem is it's a lot of theory and gets into what has been going in Dover and all over these days and all else I hate to even get into but is incomplete without. It keeps forever changing never looking quite right, end up frustrated and just need to get away from it or will just get worse with more work. But if you can fit all I have been saying and the rest of the theory in a journal length article then you or someone else can second coauthor it. My problem is I'm me, not you, and the theory needs source code exchange not lab result research paper. It's in a way a formality I am being dragged into because of some thinking my job too on top of all else that already publicly states Theory of Intelligent Design not allowed, that seriously makes me wonder whether a science journal paper is a waste of time to begin with right now. Model and theory is already here. And no science journal can change that fact. So I'm honestly not sure what purpose you expect the publishing of the news in top journal will even serve. It's too late for tribunal and don't need to show up for a journal inquisition, unless I want to, and at the moment I don't.
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.