Science Says NO to Evolution Theory!

[Loudmouth]

Intelligent Design is science;

Then show us the primary research papers in the field of ID.

 

[Loudmouth]

Oh, please.

Scientists can't speak ex cathedra?

You can't present the science?

 

[FollowerOfJesus]

"Nobody in the biological sciences, medicine included, needs Darwinism at all," added Leguizamon. "Darwinism is certainly needed, however, in order to pose as a philosopher, since it is primarily a worldview. And an awful one, as Bernard Shaw used to say. The hold it has in academic circles is not at all due to the empirical evidence that allegedly supports it, but to its philosophical presuppositions and implications, the political correctness of the Darwinian paradigm and the intellectual inertia of academia in general. "

 

[FollowerOfJesus]

Then show us the primary research papers in the field of ID.

(em) "Loudmouth" turns a blind eye.

Not related to this thread; just curious, did you pick your name "Loudmouth" based on one of the titles of the Antichrist or is just a coincidence?

 

[Loudmouth]

"Nobody in the biological sciences, medicine included, needs Darwinism at all," added Leguizamon. "Darwinism is certainly needed, however, in order to pose as a philosopher, since it is primarily a worldview. And an awful one, as Bernard Shaw used to say. The hold it has in academic circles is not at all due to the empirical evidence that allegedly supports it, but to its philosophical presuppositions and implications, the political correctness of the Darwinian paradigm and the intellectual inertia of academia in general. "

Science, not scientists.

 

[Loudmouth]

(em) "Loudmouth" turns a blind eye.

Not related to this thread; just curious, did you pick your name "Loudmouth" based on one of the titles of the Antichrist or is just a coincidence?

Notice how you try so hard to change the subject when someone asks for ID science.

 

[RickG]

Oh, please.

Scientists can't speak ex cathedra?

I believe Loudmouth said it better than me. SCIENCE, NOT SCIENTISTS.

 

[Jan Volkes]

Intelligent Design is science; unfortunately, many object because it does not fit their world view. This is very scary, that the definition of science is being filtered thru a particular world view, I fear this type of censorship and where it leads.

Then Astrology is also science and so is Palmistry and Tarot Card reading and Crystal Ball gazing and water divining.

 

[RickG]

Intelligent Design is science; unfortunately, many object because it does not fit their world view. This is very scary, that the definition of science is being filtered thru a particular world view, I fear this type of censorship and where it leads.

World views are not science. The idea of ID comes from the Discovery Institute masquerading it as creation science.

 

[bhsmte]

Intelligent Design is science; unfortunately, many object because it does not fit their world view. This is very scary, that the definition of science is being filtered thru a particular world view, I fear this type of censorship and where it leads.

Read the transcripts of the Dover trial, in which Michael Behe was under oath and trying to convince the judge that ID was science. It didn't go well for him.

 

[FollowerOfJesus]

World views are not science. The idea of ID comes from the Discovery Institute masquerading it as creation science.

We both agree that "World views are not science"; though, the rest of this statement is blatantly false on so many levels, it is obviously a presupposition based on misinformation.

 

[RickG]

We both agree that "World views are not science"; though, the rest of this statement is blatantly false on so many levels, it is obviously a presupposition based on misinformation.

No, it was people at the Discovery institute that coined the phrase Intelligent Design.

"The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States.[n 1] Although they state that ID is not creationism and deliberately avoid assigning a personality to the designer, many of these proponents express belief that the designer is the Christian deity."​

(Source: Wiki)

ID is not science because it has no testable hypothesis.

 

[FollowerOfJesus]

No, it was people at the Discovery institute that coined the phrase Intelligent Design.

I take it this is your way of backing off your original statement and restating it to justify what you said? Unfortunately, your new and revised statement is still false:

ID is not science because it has no testable hypothesis.

I am surprised you quoted a Wiki; though, it may give insight into how you arrive at your position.

 

[RickG]

I take it this is your way of backing off your original statement and restating it to justify what you said? Unfortunately, your new and revised statement is still false:

Then you need to show different. I'll be glad to retract it if your source is legitimate.

I am surprised you quoted a Wiki; though, it may give insight into how you arrive at your position.

If you have a better source, then please provide it. Otherwise.........

 

[FollowerOfJesus]

If you have a better source, then please provide it. Otherwise.........

I have provided plenty of sources and none of them are Wikis; though, it is obvious by the responses that they have not been referenced.

 

[RickG]

I have provided plenty of sources and none of them are Wikis; though, it is obvious by the responses that they have not been referenced.

I have not seen any reference by you as to the origin of the phrase "intelligent design". Please restate it or provide the post number. Thank you.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Niles Eldredge is still alive. He is opposed to the gene-centered view of evolution. Along with Gould they also for all practical applications rejected the modern synopsis. Although were under academic pressure to keep that low key.

For those that do not know Gould and Eldredge proposed the theory of Punctuated equilibrium in their 1972 book.

 

[joshua 1 9]

[/thread]

Don't you realize that your model of horse evolution has been falsified?

 

[RickG]

Don't you realize that your model of horse evolution has been falsified?

That's news to me. How about providing citations in the scientific literature that supports that claim.

 

[pat34lee]

Millions of fossils have been found, and we can't look for fossils everywhere. It's not like we have some magical fossil detector that locates them. Do you even know how they find them in the first place? Do you think they just pick a random spot and start digging?

If the earth were old enough, there should be fossils under every stone you turn over. As I said though, people have no idea what actually happens in a million years. Just hundreds of years are enough to change deserts to jungles or marshes to deserts. Geology was not a gradual process, but the result of many series of catastrophes, one being the global flood.