Jump to content

D^2

Member
  • Content Count

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About D^2

  • Rank
    Member

Previous Fields

  • Occupation
    Physics lecturer
  1. Just a quick additional to note to agree with that point, too. It's important to remember that very little is actually proven in science -- except that current theories are either wrong or need to be modified. And that's a good thing. Science isn't really about proof; it's about patiently and methodically, accumulating a body of evidence in a verifiable, repeatable manner. Faith, on the other hand, is about boldly stepping out, on a minimum of evidence, in hope of things promised but unseen -- and completely unverifiable in an objective manner. That's a very different animal. That's why I
  2. I.D. got a very fair thrashing in a federal court where the judge even noted, in a very unusual statement, that the ID folks had lied in court to him. The recent PBS special Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial showed the prevarications of the ID side very convincingly. The discovery of the "transitional form" between creationism and ID in an early draft of Of Pandas and People was especially damning. That's how theories work, but it is clear that the 'only a theory' crowd is intentionally trying to misrepresent evolution in a particularly dishonest manner. Which theory has a better
  3. In addition, why has there been no mention of "The Wedge Strategy" proposed by the Discovery Institute in this conversation? http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
  4. I wonder if there are any atheists who subscribe to the ID model. If there were such proponents, it would demonstrate that ID is scientifically motivated, and not religiously motivated.
×
×
  • Create New...