Many Christians don't have much use for them, either.Anything but deal with the facts, referred to, eh ? So, what's new ? tee hee tither tither. Do you really think the opinion of an agnostic, evidently, of an atheist persuasion, on the subject of the Discovery Institute, is worth squat ? Go back to sleep, there's a good chap.
Read post #9 of Bornagain77 at this link :
Science Mag’s hit on Michael Behe’s new book Darwin Devolves avoids his main point
Have you seen this ? Let it be 'all over bar the shouting' very soon. It has been known for a long time now that Evolution is not even science. It's ludicrous that it has taken so long. The power of money in this fallen world.
Nota Bene: Skepticism About Darwinian Evolution Grows as 1,000+ Scientists Share Their Doubts
Read post #9 of Bornagain77 at this link :
Science Mag’s hit on Michael Behe’s new book Darwin Devolves avoids his main point
Skepticism is the default scientific position, even on established theories. Darwinian evolution has been modified and extended considerably since first proposed and that continues.Have you seen this ? Let it be 'all over bar the shouting' very soon. It has been known for a long time now that Evolution is not even science. It's ludicrous that it has taken so long. The power of money in this fallen world.
Nota Bene: Skepticism About Darwinian Evolution Grows as 1,000+ Scientists Share Their Doubts
Turns out the link tag is false - they do address his main point.Read post #9 of Bornagain77 at this link :
Science Mag’s hit on Michael Behe’s new book Darwin Devolves avoids his main point
Actually, the comment in question doesn't even defend Behe. Behe accepts common descent and that life has changed genetically over time. The commenter posted things that would be rejected by both Behe and his critics.A Disco Toot blog entry defends one of their shining students? Shocking!
So no, you don't want to discuss anything in that comment. It's okay -- I realize you don't actually know anything about this subject.Just point out to you the folly of the .. well, not even 'theory' of 'evamalution', when a billion years produces the nothing but stasis ; and as for Popper's criteria .... Pass.
Something tells me that my cognitive skill set is a bit better suited to evaluating claims about evolution than yours.Perhaps this is not the thread for you, if you learnt nothing from that post. Nothing to be ashamed of ; we all have different cognitive levels and skills.
scientific consensus mean nothing since the consensus was wrong many times in the past. only the evidence count, and we do have evidence for design in nature.1000/18 = 55.6 per year
per the NSF there were over 12,000 new PhDs granted in the life sciences alone in 2017 - and this is only the US. Looks like Intelligent Design is fading rapidly.
By any calculation the Discovery Institute is a miserable failure
scientific consensus mean nothing since the consensus was wrong many times in the past. only the evidence count, and we do have evidence for design in nature.
true. are you sure that most scientists actually aware of the problems with evolution? im not.
you can see at least 2 of them in my signature link.
Anything but deal with the facts, referred to, eh ?
Do you really think the opinion of an agnostic, evidently, of an atheist persuasion, on the subject of the Discovery Institute, is worth squat ?
scientific consensus mean nothing since the consensus was wrong many times in the past. only the evidence count,
and we do have evidence for design in nature.
true. are you sure that most scientists actually aware of the problems with evolution? im not.