Joined: June 2006
I'm sure the following was merely an oversight on ftk's part, but my comment on this thread never showed up. I don't know why.
|Wow. A ginormous amount of flap-doodle. This for instance:|
ftk: <i>We are discovering things all the time that evolution canít begin to explain...</i>
Yet the rest of the paragraph--and indeed, the comment--seem to contain exactly zero examples of these discoveries. Frustrating.
ftk: <i>hundreds of articles and books written by ID supporters</i>
Yes, I'm sure you can point me to some of the astounding DISCOVERIES in these papers, wherever they might be when you also point out the new DISCOVERIES in the the literature I have not yet read.
Something to ponder: saying that the flagellum is IC is not an example of new knowledge. Um, "new knowledge" of a positive nature would be an example of new knowledge. Something along the lines of "wow, the tennets of ID led me to postulate the existence of this anti-body and now I've found it."
ftk: <i>But, letís say for the sake of argument that ID generates no new scientific research whatsoever. Hypothesis donít particularly have to generate new scientific research. They merely have to be a true description of what happens in nature. For instance, when we discover a new planet, that doesnít usually generate new scientific research, but it tells us about nature. There are many examples such as this.</i>
This paragraph is a mess. The first two sentences don't describe a scientific hypothesis. They do describe something like the sentence, "That table is brown." You are describing an observation, not an hypothesis and you apparently have an inkling of this in the next sentence about describing nature.
How exactly are we to know if an observation (your: hypothesis) is an accurate description of nature if it is untestable or uninvestigatable? This is what we mean when we call ID a science-killer. If all ID can do is generate information that needs no investigation, you know what? It is boring and by definition would create no new knowledge. We know the table is brown, no need to investigate. But if you are asking truly interesting questions, you'll find the need to test them. This is not what ID does.
And finally, your claim that discovering a new planet, or moon, or star, or whatever doesn't generate new research is completely inane. When we discover new moons, we send satellites to them. When that produces new discoveries of minerals, gasses, or whatever, that generates new missions and new hypothesis about: planet formation, early solar-system make-up, possible extra-terrestrial life, etc. The discovery of extra-solar planets has led to the testing and corraborating of many ideas in astronomy and cosmology: including star-planet development, pulsar study and more.
Do you really think that NASA scientists and all the world's astronomers just point telescopes at the sky, find a new piece of rock and then are done with it to find another piece of rock? Is that all you think their jobs entail?
ftk: <i>As far as testable hypotheses, I believe that Behe has certainly provided that in the flagellum, along with the prediction of design in other molecular machines, and he has laid our the reasoning behind his claims.</i>
Are you familiar with the refutations of Behe and with his own continually changing definition of what exactly IC is?
ftk: <i>But, itís pretty apparent, that as we see paper after paper coming out trying to refute ID claims, that ID does lead to further scientific research and the advancement of science. Iíve mentioned in the past that Harvard University has a research project regarding the origin of life due to the huge push to refute the ID movement.</i>
So, ID may not generate a noticable, or even visible, amount of research, but it's certainly valid and working because real scientists have decided to do work? Come on, which ID scientists are involved in the project? Which ID whizzes are funding this? Which papers are being written by the ID guys? That last paragraph is a hoot.
Also, she never provided me with the list of ID books that contain actual research--which she promised to do. I am saddened beyond belief by this. No, really; I'm crying.
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG
And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin