spongebob wrote:Yeah, that Ben Stein is a real scientific genius.
Emery wrote:Hey, what's worse than reading a boring court case? Listening to Emery read a boring court case.
LOL! Good one, wonders!wondersforoyarsa wrote:spongebob wrote:Yeah, that Ben Stein is a real scientific genius.
He's right up there with Judge Jones.
Eh, neither is macroevolution, but that doesn't stop evolutionists.nobody wrote: I did, however, find this very simple article of why ID should not be considered science...basically because ID is not falsifiable.
Why Intelligent Design is not science
spongebob wrote:I guess I have to agree with you Wonders, Judge Jones seems to be a very intelligent judge with a keen eye for science. Is that what you meant?
spongebob wrote:Let me back up for a moment and be very specific. I don’t like this notion of forcing science teachers to teach ID. It’s clear ID is not science and does not belong in the science classroom. But I’m certainly open to the discussion of what ID is. I find it fascinating, in fact. And although I made that remark about Ben Stein, I’m even willing to hear what he has to say. It might be interesting. But I sense an onslaught of rhetoric clothed as science and some unrelenting Evolution bashing may be in store. If Ben’s movie is made of that stuff, then I will be unrelenting in my criticism of his work. Ben is no scientist, but he has the opportunity to be fair and balanced in his film. Let’s just see if he is truly open-minded or if he’s just a Behe acolyte.
Information theory - how we analyze something and decide if it came about by random processes (noise) or from intent (information-bearing signal).spongebob wrote:Forgive me, Rian, but I fail to see what signal analysis has to do with the biological sciences. And I happen to agree that the ID concept is an interesting one. I applaud any research that goes into it. But until any actual objective evidence is discovered, it will remain a pseudo-science and has no place in science classrooms, except to be an example of what is not science.
You must feel that it needs a lot of defending!And can you please stop referring to macroevoloution in your peculiar way that suggests it is not well supported by evidnece. I feel the need to respond every time you do it and it's tiresome.
Emery wrote:If either side puts their head on the chopping block, folks are right to take a swing!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest