Replies

You forgot the part about his treatment at the hands of the established medical/scientific community.

So your conclusion is that contradicting established science proves the validity of an idea? And that any notion that's out of the mainstream should therefore be discussed in the classroom?

I'm not arguing that new ideas should always be rejected. But let's look at what Semmelweis did: he observed a difference in mortality rate between two clinics. He carefully winnowed down the possible factors until he isolated one he thought might be significant. He devised an experiment to address that one factor, and the experiment showed a dramatic result. From that he developed a theory about how disease spread. He was wrong in the details, since he didn't know about germs, but right in the concept.

So what's the creationist or ID experiment that will isolate the influence of God or the Designer? (I'm sorry, I don't know which anti-evolution camp you're in.) What test should we perform, and what result should we look for? That's how you overturn the ToE (and if you do, they'll be celebrating Jimmyray Day in another 150 years).

It certainly would have helped if you had actually addressed his comment instead of picking it apart and misrepresenting what he said.

In post 61, his point was about science that stifles debate.

Believe what you want, but I would be concerned about a "science" that stifles debate. Ever heard of Ignaz Semmelweis?

Yeah, we heard about Semmelweis, but you neglected to address the open-mindedness of the scientific community to his out of the box thinking.

[[So what’s the creationist or ID experiment that will isolate the influence of God or the Designer?]]

You know- for osmeone who claims they are ‘curious’ about both sides- you show a stunning subjective agendist adherence to the silly petty arguments proposed by Macroevolutionists. As you have been otld many times here on FR- ID in NO way has to posit who or what hte intelligence is behind intelligent design- ALL they have to do is present enough evidence that hsows an intelligence is NEEDED for the IC and design that we witness in nature, and to hsow that natural causes are simply impossible and can NOT account for hte IC and design we know to exist.

It seems htough that the macroevolution proponents, who assure us how sound hteir hypothesis is, are so afraid of exposure, that they must resort to villifying their those hwo are simply trying to bring pure objective science BACK into the classroom, and who bring the evidnece necessary to establish a reasonable and alternative hypothesis based on the facts and evidence

It is NOT ID’s goal to posit anyhtign beyond the evidnece, and repeatedly stating that they are tryign to do so is not a valid counterargument tactic

[[What test should we perform, and what result should we look for?]]

You know very well how forensics works- and you also know, because I personally have given you the facts before myself, that ID is every bit as falsifiable, testable and predictable as any other branch of science, even htose the Popper induced ‘requirements;’ are not infact scientific requirements, and you know that science can and does reach conclusions abotu intelligence based o nthe evidneces without EVER havign to extablish who or what that intelligence is.

Again, you claim to be an objective observer, but your quesitons and demands, claims and accusations betray your claism about objectivity.