RightWingGirl said:
Ahem. Read my signature.
'Other theories' does not include ID or divine creation, since they are not scientific theories and so do not belong in Science class.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
RightWingGirl said:Evolution is a scientific theory, and as such is not provable. Other theories exist.
Is any part of the above false?
Unless part of the above statement is false, what is the problem in saying so on science textbooks?
notto said:Behe was for the defense, right?
notto said:Q. And, in fact, there are no peer reviewed articles
by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by
pertinent experiments or calculations which provide
detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of
any biological system occurred, is that correct?
A. That is correct, yes.
Behe was for the defense, right?
notto said:Mark, you're missing a few lambdas.
mark kennedy said:notto, so is Dawinian gradulalism.
Dr.GH said:Well, there are some confused people here to be sure. Not one person on the Dover School Board is qualified as either a scientist of an educator. There are a majority that are simply fundamentalists. Clearly they believed the professional ID propagandists that ID was True science. Really, honest, with math and all that stuff; science. Their "message" seems to have been based on the Georgia science book "sticker" with enough variations that they thought that it could pass. And, finally the notion that "Of Pandas and People" was supportable science seemed to have not been questioned, even by the non-fundy minority on the Board. Still and all, before the vote took place the fundies drove the non-fundies off the Board.
The Defense legal team make the School Board fundies look like moderates. This coupled with the fact that their income depends on high profile religious cases, has produced an approach that the far smarter Discovery Institute lawyers have tried to avoid like the plague.
Then, it has been obvious for years that the intellectual rot has destroyed both Behe and Dembski. They deny that there is any critical problem with their beliefs, and take the attitude that their many critics are merely athiests. Unlike their critics, who carefully read the creationists, the creationists ignor the mainstream scientific refutations of their position. So, Behe has estabilished a routinized presentation for friendly church audiences that he was incompetent to defend under actual questioning. Dembski bailed out early on and is now merely trying to collect his "expert witness" fees.
I won't be surprised if other defense experts 'hit the trail' following the demolishment of Behe under cross examination.
notto said:But apparenlty not as much as ID. Just ask Behe.
Q. And, in fact, there are no peer reviewed articles
by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by
pertinent experiments or calculations which provide
detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of
any biological system occurred, is that correct?
A. That is correct, yes.
mark kennedy said:Great! Now show me the context the question was asked in.
KerrMetric said:That question needed no context. It was self contained and asked for a simple yes/no.
mark kennedy said:ID, if it were be treated fairly would be represented by what it actually does, it criticizes Darwinism.
It is not about a logical fallacy. It's about a question in the trial. Let's state it again:mark kennedy said:So what is the question? This is about a logical fallacy so you should know the question, what is it!?
Imagine that, school boards that have only common citizens.
ID, if it were be treated fairly would be represented by what it actually does, it criticizes Darwinism.
Now since no one on here has the nerve to defend it they don't have to right to attempt to address ID.
Why this is asinine is exposed by Andrea Bottaro in Behes meaningless complexity.Proteins change single mutation by single mutation, amino acid by amino acid, so thats the level of explanation that is needed. What part of "numerous, successive, slight" is so hard to understand?
And not only a list of mutations, but also a detailed account of the selective pressures that would be operating, the difficulties such changes would cause for the organism, the expected time scale over which the changes would be expected to occur, the likely population sizes available in the relevant ancestral species at each step, other potential ways to solve the problem which might interfere, and much more.
"Youre asking me to play a game: Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position. ID is not a mechanistic theory, and its not IDs task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering."
In the key of funk, "There's another one down, There's another one down, There's another one bites the dust ..."The defense abruptly withdrew its expert witness Dick Carpenter II, who was set to testify on Friday. Instead, we were treated to the cross-examination of Dover Area School District Superintendent Richard Nilsen.
GoSeminoles! said:I'm all for exposing students to legitimate criticisms of evolution, i.e., criticisms which appear in the scientific literature, not hack textbooks like Pandas or propaganda like Icons.
Besides, ID is being treated fairly. Its coverage in high school science programs is proportional to its support in the science literature, which is to say, zero.
asiakim said:behe is good god man
asiakim said:behe is good god man
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?