Skip to comments.
Witness: 'Intelligent Design' doesn't qualify as science [Day 4 of trial in Dover, PA]
Sioux City Journal ^
| 29 September 2005
| Staff
Posted on 09/29/2005 3:36:00 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220, 221-240, 241-260 ... 561 next last
To: KMJames
Is Intelligent Design a theory then?
221
posted on
09/29/2005 12:29:39 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: GretchenM
That is a fraud of unfathomable proportions. It appears the fraud was in your education. Seek a refund.
222
posted on
09/29/2005 12:33:05 PM PDT
by
balrog666
(A myth by any other name is still inane.)
To: GretchenM
Did you completely miss the first definition you posted?
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. We have a winner!
He was a bitter hack who turned his back on God and his theory was one of the results -- flawed, tortured, sick (as in lacking wellness) -- as was he. He knows better, now that he has taken up his place in eternity and met his Maker, but his "work" goes on, polluting the public discourse with an unproven set of assumptions, even turning people away from God.
You're crazy.
To: KMJames
So, could we clear this whole mess up by saying Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life. ??? ...and edit out "that differs from Darwins view". It would clear it up to my satisfaction if the 2nd paragraph was omitted. Well, you could keep the last sentence.
To: GretchenM
"Darwin doesn't even qualify metaphorically for that part of the example. He was a bitter hack who turned his back on God and his theory was one of the results -- flawed, tortured, sick (as in lacking wellness) -- as was he. "
Oh, my! Isn't that special?
Oh, by the way, your slip is showing....
225
posted on
09/29/2005 12:40:49 PM PDT
by
MineralMan
(godless atheist)
To: highball
Oops, sorry I inadvertently missed your answer to my earlier question.
scientists can predict what we will learn in the future about the past.
Whoa, dude - sounds like thought conditioning.
Scientists approach all new data with skepticism, even if that data would appear to support existing theory. That dilligence is what separates science from faith, and evolutionists from creationists.
Methinks you have fallen for the: evolutionist scientist is good scientist / creationist scientist is bad scientist ruse.
Let's be real here - the evolutionist scientist can be a good or bad scientist AND the creationist scientist can be a good or bad scientist (just like his/her evolutionist brother/sister). The creationist scientist though would assuredly be a bad "evolutionary" scientist, but, I'm sure he/she can live with that.
226
posted on
09/29/2005 12:46:04 PM PDT
by
KMJames
To: Just mythoughts
Now you have at it, I do not care what fully grown adults believe, that is a choice they are free to make, however, to teach children the TOE a the vehicle to their existence is NOT right.
Exactly why it's stupid to draw philosophical implications from a scientific theory! They have nothing to do with each other!
The majority of these children within the public school system have NO foundation upon which to build their lives
...and they're not going to get it from the theory of evolution. Or gravity. Or electrodynamics. These are not "foundations upon which to build their lives". I can just imagine the philosophy you'd extrapolate from quantum mechanics.
Who do you think you are kidding, to claim flesh human beings origin comes from a primordial "hot" bowl of soup does in fact reject the Heavenly Father, and further more it removes from Christ that perfection HE was in the flesh as being the only one for that final blood sacrifice.
They don't even have anything to do with each other. By definition science can't address anything that's not naturalistic. How many times do we need to state this before it sinks in?
To: Coyoteman
Good post Coyoteman. Very interesting.
228
posted on
09/29/2005 12:47:26 PM PDT
by
narby
To: KMJames
A "creation science" can of course be a "good" scientist. He could apply the scientific method to his specific field and not to the rest of science. Makes him a great scientist within his field, but for other branches, not so much.
To: RightWingNilla
Dr Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist A dentist?
Actually, I heard this guy speak somewhere (can't quite recall where)...anyway he gave an in-depth presentation on his analysis of the dental remains and skulls of human fossils. I thought it was pretty interesting, but, since I'm not a scientist, and he's not a scientist (at least you think he's not a scientist) that should be enough to totally dismiss anything he would ever have to say about the "pure science of paleontology".
230
posted on
09/29/2005 12:57:49 PM PDT
by
KMJames
To: GretchenM
The trouble with the Darwin's theory of evolution is there is a lot of actual physical evidence to refute it. That cannot be said in the reverse re proving D's theory. One of the most important parts of a scientific theory is that it must be falsifiable. Evolution is falsifiable by many different methods, such as finding species that the theory predicts are "new" intermingled with species the theory predicts are "old". Claims of such finds have never been sufficiently solid to cause evolution a problem, in comparison to the overwelming volume of finds in the "proper" sequence.
The Intelligent Design hypothesis, on the other hand, cannot be falsified. The "intelligence" could do anything, on any whim, in any sequence, and thus it makes no predictions about what we should find. ID cannot be falsified by studying any evidence, because anything we find can be explained as being created by the "intelligence".
231
posted on
09/29/2005 1:00:25 PM PDT
by
narby
To: Vive ut Vivas
"By definition science can't address anything that's not naturalistic. How many times do we need to state this before it sinks in?"
It won't sink in. Some surfaces aren't porous.
232
posted on
09/29/2005 1:02:46 PM PDT
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
To: Vive ut Vivas
Well, then - OK.
Now what do we argue about?
233
posted on
09/29/2005 1:02:56 PM PDT
by
KMJames
To: KMJames
Oops, sorry I inadvertently missed your answer to my earlier question.
scientists can predict what we will learn in the future about the past.
Whoa, dude - sounds like thought conditioning.
Nonsense. That's the hallmark of a good theory - it predicts future discoveries. We know there are gaps in the fossil record, and we can speculate on their nature based on what we already know. And this has borne out time and time again.
"Thought conditioning?" What do you mean?
234
posted on
09/29/2005 1:03:18 PM PDT
by
highball
("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
To: Vive ut Vivas
Did you completely miss the first definition you posted?
It seems a not uncommon trend for creationists to put forth a various definitions for a word, then insist that the one they choose is what scientists really mean when using it, no matter how much evidence to the contrary is offered.
235
posted on
09/29/2005 1:03:27 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: fortheDeclaration
where neither repeatability, nor observation, nor measurementthe three immutable elements of the scientific methodmay be employedfalse statement.
236
posted on
09/29/2005 1:05:27 PM PDT
by
King Prout
(19sep05 - I want at least 2 Saiga-12 shotguns. If you have leads, let me know)
To: Dimensio
Is Intelligent Design a theory then?Well, gee. I don't know. Some say 'tis and some say 'taint. Theory or no, it certainly is an EXPLANATION for a current area of ignorance.
237
posted on
09/29/2005 1:08:51 PM PDT
by
KMJames
To: FostersExport; Ichneumon
Ichneumon is the Big Dog of fossil links
238
posted on
09/29/2005 1:10:09 PM PDT
by
King Prout
(19sep05 - I want at least 2 Saiga-12 shotguns. If you have leads, let me know)
To: King Prout; VadeRetro
Vade is up there as well :-)
239
posted on
09/29/2005 1:11:42 PM PDT
by
RadioAstronomer
(Senior member of Darwin Central)
To: KMJames
Well, gee. I don't know. Some say 'tis and some say 'taint.
If you don't know for certain, why present it as an "alternative" as if it were on equal footing with evolution?
Theory or no, it certainly is an EXPLANATION for a current area of ignorance.
So is claiming that my cat created the universe and all in it Last Thursday. That doesn't mean that it should be presented as a viable scientific alternative.
240
posted on
09/29/2005 1:11:48 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220, 221-240, 241-260 ... 561 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson