Creation Scientist Challenges Intelligent Design

| 64 Comments

Well, this “news” article is hilarious in an uncountable number of ways:

Creation Scientist Challenges Intelligent Design

Saturday, Aug. 6, 2005 Posted: 9:12:30AM EST

One of the world’s leading experts in origin of life research issued a statement on Friday saying that intelligent design should not be taught in schools because it is not science.

(more below the fold)

Dr. Fazale Rana, vice president for science apologetics of the organization Reasons to Believe, said in his statement, “As currently formulated, Intelligent Design is not science. It is not falsifiable and makes no predictions about future scientific discoveries.”

Dr. Rana further commented on the idea of teaching intelligent design in schools.

“As a biochemist, I am opposed to introducing any idea into the educational process that is scientifically ludicrous,” said Dr. Rana. “Proponents of Intelligent Design lose credibility, for instance, when they say that the Earth is thousands of years old when the scientific evidence and the fossil record clearly prove our Earth is at least 4.5 billion years.”

Intelligent design, the idea that the earth is so complex, there must have been a divine being behind its creation, is the most recent challenge to the theory of evolution. In the past year, several school districts have considered whether or not to incorporate the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. Some state legislatures are deciding on bills that would require science teachers to teach intelligent design alongside evolution.

The debate is a familiar one, an offshoot of the creation-evolution debate, and one that has generated conversation across international circles. Probably the most publicized debate was held in May, when the Kansas State Board of Education called together witnesses from around the world to testify about intelligent design. The state board is currently deciding whether to adopt new science standards to allow the teaching of intelligent design and other alternative theories on the origin of life in schools. Scientists boycotted the hearings.

Dr. Rana’s position gives him a unique perspective on the issue. As a scientist and a Christian, Dr. Rana provides a point of view that is often overlooked in the debate. As a leader of Reasons to Believe, Dr. Rana works to bridge the gap between science and faith, especially on issues such as the origin of life.

“At Reasons to Believe, our team of scientists has developed a theory for creation that embraces the latest scientific advances. It is fully testable, falsifiable, and successfully predicts the current discoveries in origin of life research,” said Dr. Rana.

“With the creation model approach every perspective is encouraged to participate in the scientific process to see which theory best fits the emerging data,” continued Dr. Rana. “With this cutting edge program no philosophical or religious perspective is denied access.”

“It holds the possibility of bringing to resolution the creation/evolution controversy once and for all.”

Susan Wang [Enable javascript to see this email address.]

(links added for context)

64 Comments

Oh, and don’t miss: “Interview: Harry Potter - Making Evil Look Innocent?,” published on August 3.

Why do creationists always have to inflate each other’s credentials?

One of the world’s leading experts in origin of life research issued a statement on Friday saying that intelligent design should not be taught in schools because it is not science.

Fazale Rana seems to have had an average scientific career at one point. His bio

http://www.navpress.com/AuthorInfor[…]n/A1106.html

is respectable. But there is nothing to indicate he is one of the “world’s leading experts” in OOL research. Compare his bio to that of, say, Andrew Knoll, who is such an expert.

Note that Reasons to Believe is Hugh Ross’s organization–old earth creationists.

Rana and Ross have a recent book out on the origin of life. It is pathetic. I have started several times to write a review, but it will take twice as many pages to correct their errors than they used in the first place.

Does anyone know about the claims of Dr. Rana?

“At Reasons to Believe, our team of scientists has developed a theory for creation that embraces the latest scientific advances. It is fully testable, falsifiable, and successfully predicts the current discoveries in origin of life research,” said Dr. Rana.

RtB is an old earth creationist organization so I would expect the same misleading approach to science used by the ID folks. It is interesting that YEC rejects ID and OEC. OEC now rejects YEC and ID. But ID seems to include everyone.

Is there a tear developing in the big tent?

I guess this is the advantage of creationism “becoming more mainstream” - it will split into factions which fight with each other as much as they fight with real science. You can have a definite set of “facts” or you can coexist with other pseudoscientists, but not both.

Jim Lippard Wrote:

Note that Reasons to Believe is Hugh Ross’s organization–old earth creationists.

Joe Bough Wrote:

Is there a tear developing in the big tent?

I just posted this on Talk Origins:

Interesting. “Reasons to Believe” endorses classic OEC - not YEC nor the “don’t ask, don’t tell” ID. As such it is a little heard voice in the (unscientific) debate these days. So we have AIG, and IIRC, also ICR, both YEC outfits, criticizing the ID approach. And AIG criticizing the comical “Dr. Dino” YEC as well. And RTB criticizing them all. IDers desperately want to keep the “big tent” intact, but these objections from YECs and OECs are straining it. This is no “healthy debate” as with “evolutionists” with mechanistic details, but irreconcilable differences such on such crucial things as the age of the earth and basic strategies to misrepresent evolution (e.g. should one try to defend one of several mutually contradictory alternative “what happened and whens,” or just fabricate weaknesses of evolution, misrepresent scientists who differ on mechanism as “dissenting from ‘Darwinism’,” and let the audience fill in the blanks with their favorite origins myth?).

Maybe if we take a breather from complaining about “sneaking in God,” and lumping all misunderstanders and misrepresenters of evolution, professional and otherwise, under the “creationitst” term (and helping prop up the “big tent” in the process), and better advertise the irreconcilable differences, most people can begin to see what a charade anti-evolution is.

This is puzzling, because Fazale Rana gave a major speech at last year’s “Darwin, Design and Democracy V conference” in Albuquerque (see “I was a Token Darwinist” for the sordid details), titled

There’s more here.

Looks like a flip-flopper to me! Somebody get the SwiftBoat guys.

This article is obviously a retelling of some press release that Reasons to Believe put out. Keep in mind the disaster that occurred back in January when the Christian Post overinterpreted a blustering press release from the Thomas More Law Center. They seem to be the last link on chain of religious-right organizations that repeat each other’s press releases in a weird kind of game of telephone.

It looks like Reasons to Believe doesn’t buy the ID movement’s craven ambiguity on the age-of-the-earth issue, either:

“Proponents of Intelligent Design lose credibility, for instance, when they say that the Earth is thousands of years old when the scientific evidence and the fossil record clearly prove our Earth is at least 4.5 billion years.”

Here is another version on the Christian Communication Network.

When Dr. Fazale Rana says, “Proponents of Intelligent Design lose credibility, for instance, when they say that the Earth is thousands of years old when the scientific evidence and the fossil record clearly prove our Earth is at least 4.5 billion years.” He illustrates his ignorance of the fact that most ID proponents are far more similar to old earth creationists than they are to the young earthers. For instance on August 4th in Dembski’s commentary on President Bush’s recent remarks about the teaching of intelligent design, he goes to some length in explaining that the majority of ID proponents do not hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and accept the 4.5 byo age of the earth. Rana’s comment would make some sense if “Young Earth Creationist” or “Creation Scientists” were inserted in the place of “Proponents of Intelligent Design.”

I understand it when anti-ID propogandists try to equate the two terms in order to spread misinformation or confuse readers in order to keep an upperhand. But I cannot understand why the “Reasons to Believe” OEC people can’t seem to get this right.

Oh well, maybe (and it seems to me that this is not all that improbable) the reporter who wrote out the story switched the terms himself before the article went to press. I don’t know. I am sure there will be more to follow between the creationists and IDists about this.

T Russ, haven’t seen you in some time. I believe Mr. Lenny Flank has some questions for you.

I believe Mr. Lenny Flank has some questions for you.

Just one, for starters:

*ahem*

What is the scientific theory of ID, and how can we test it using the scientific method?

Or are ID, uh, ‘theorists’ simply lying to us when they claim to have one?

the majority of ID proponents do not hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1

Glad to hear it. Of course, the YEC’s also tried to argue, in Arkansas and Louisiana, that their crap was NOT religion but was SCIENCE that *just happened* to support their religious opinions.

Sound at all familiar to you?

and accept the 4.5 byo age of the earth.

Gee, maybe someone should have explained that to the ID witnesses who testified during the Kansas, uh, Waterloo . … . .

(snicker) (giggle)

By the way, would you mind pointing to any argument being made for ID that isn’t just a plagiarized version of something that the ICR-ites were already shoveling on people decades ago?

For instance on August 4th in Dembski’s commentary on President Bush’s recent remarks about the teaching of intelligent design, he goes to some length in explaining that the majority of ID proponents do not hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and accept the 4.5 byo age of the earth.

Why didn’t Dembski go to some length in explaining that, despite Bush’s mistaken assumption, there is no such thing as any scientific theory of ID, which is, I suppose, why the IDers declare that they do not want to have it taught.

If there is no scientific theory of intelligent design, I’m a little curious why you think Bush’s declaration that it be taught makes him anything other than an uninformed pig-ignorant buffoon?

Why didn’t Bush get smacked upside the head by the Wedge-ites just like Buttars did?

Well, I think the best place to begin to get a hold of a scientific theory of ID is over ISCID.org. The definition they give in their encyclopedia for ID can get the ball rolling.

“Intelligent design: the theory that the directed organization of living things cannot be accounted for by purely blind natural forces but also requires intelligent agency for its proper explanation. Intelligent design needs to be distinguished from apparent design and optimal design. Apparent design looks designed but actually isn’t. Optimal design is perfect design. The adjective “intelligent” in front of “design” stresses that the design in question is actual, but makes no assumption about the optimality of design.”

So then, the “theory” behind Intelligent Design is very simply put that an intelligent agency is what best accounts for or properly explains the specified complexity found in biological organisms. ID theory is thus set up in contradistinction with theories which hold that blind natural forces can account for specified complexity. So in a short answer to the first part of your question Rev, thats the theory of ID.

As for testing the theory set forth by ID, that has been one of the main underlying projects of theories such as Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, Self-Organization, and so forth over the past 160 years.

But I guess the best way to go about testing the theory today is to first agree on a definition and understanding of what exactly complex specified information is, then show how it can be produced without recourse to intelligent agency. If that can be shown convincingly, the current theory of ID would then be falsified. A project like this would of course have to be carried out by many scientists and philosophers of science, with reproducible and agreed upon findings, and not simply come to an end with the writing of a few disputed papers claiming to “destroy the idiotic claims of Dembski” or however it would go.

As for testing ID by “the scientific method”. I’m not too sure what you mean there. I have had too many years of study in the history and philosophy departments at my university to believe any longer in any so-called scientific method. But if you will tell me what it is that you mean by “scientific method”, I will attempt a more fleshed out response to your question.

And if you really want to look into an answer to your query. Read in No Free Lunch pages 1-380. But for a quicker read, check out the essay, “The Logical Underpinnings of Intelligent Design” in Debating Design (the Ruse and Dembski volume)Particularly the section on Eliminative Induction on pages 328-29.

T. Russ Wrote:

The definition they give in their encyclopedia for ID can get the ball rolling. “Intelligent design: the theory that …

Do you really, after all this time, not know what a scientific theory is? That it isn’t simply a raw claim, especially not one expressed as a negative claim against a scientific theory, or a claim of necessity?

requires intelligent agency for its proper explanation

Kindly provide such an explanation, or even indicate what form it might take. Or do you simply not understand what an explanation is, and think that “requires intelligent agency” or “is a product of intelligent agency” is one?

As for testing ID by “the scientific method”. I’m not too sure what you mean there. I have had too many years of study in the history and philosophy departments at my university

But none in any science department, apparently. And this speaks very poorly of those philosophy departments, or of your study habits.

But if you will tell me what it is that you mean by “scientific method”, I will attempt a more fleshed out response to your question.

I’m sure Lenny will fill you in – he keeps this stuff ready to go, and posted a statement of the scientific method a few days ago. But for starters, please offer a testable prediction that can be inferred from the “theory” of intelligent design and that cannot be inferred without it.

Exactly–every description of the “theory” of Intelligent Design says pretty much the same thing: “Intelligent design: the…organization of living things…requires intelligent agency”–but this sounds to me like merely a claim, not a theory. There have been some arguments made in support of this claim (particularly by Behe and Dembski), but they have been countered by specific contrary evidence. Furthermore, the important questions necessary to make it a real theory are never addressed–if a designer, who? and if designed, how?

Well, I think the best place to begin to get a hold of a scientific theory of ID is over ISCID.org. The definition they give in their encyclopedia for ID can get the ball rolling.

I don’t want a “definition”. I want a testible scientific theory that can be tested using the scientififc method.

Do you have one, or don’t you.

What did the designer do, specifically. What mechanisms did it use to do whatever you think it did. Where can we see these mechanisms in operation today. And how can we test any of these using the scientific method.

As for testing ID by “the scientific method”. I’m not too sure what you mean there. I have had too many years of study in the history and philosophy departments at my university

Then why on earth are you yammering ignorantly about “science” if you don’t know anything about it? Or are IDers like you just lying to us when you claim ID is “science” and not just religious apologetics?

By the way, would you mind pointing to any argument being made for ID that isn’t just a plagiarized version of something that the ICR-ites were already shoveling on people decades ago?

Well . … ?

The original press release for Dr. Fuz’s announcement (which I posted in the Statements on ID Education thread here), avers that he is “one of the world’s top three leading experts in origin of life research”.

It does not say who the other two might be, nor does it disclose just when and where he won his bronze medal. However, it does include contact info for his PR agent.

Rana and “renowned astro-physicist Dr. Hugh Ross” are co-authors of Who Was Adam?, in which they “propose a new model for human origins–a model that is fully testable, falsifiable, and predictive–the very argument that the natural evolutionists use to discredit those who espouse Intelligent Design by saying they cannot scientifically prove their case for a creator.”

Hurray - Lenny’s long search is over! (Isn’t it?)

Rana and “renowned astro-physicist Dr. Hugh Ross” are co-authors of Who Was Adam?, in which they “propose a new model for human origins�”a model that is fully testable, falsifiable, and predictive�”the very argument that the natural evolutionists use to discredit those who espouse Intelligent Design by saying they cannot scientifically prove their case for a creator.”

Hurray - Lenny’s long search is over! (Isn’t it?)

Given the crap that comes from Ross concerning his, uh, “scientific theory of creation”, I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting . … .

But if Ross has a theory of human origins, I’m curious if he will tell us how the flying saucers (ya know, the ones that coem from Satan) fit in . …

Ross is just as nutty as any ICR-ite.

T. Russ Wrote:

I understand it when anti-ID propogandists try to equate the two terms in order to spread misinformation or confuse readers in order to keep an upperhand.

You may have noticed that this anti-ID “propogandist” takes every opportunity to remind everyone that most IDers are not YECs, and that some even admit common descent. But for the most part the ID strategy is “don’t ask, don’t tell” about the age of the earth and common descent. That baits many of their critics, including classic OECs, into suggesting that they are closet YECs, and I can just see the high fives when that happens.

My speculation is the opposite. While I make clear that I do not pretend to know the private thoughts of any particular individual, the possibility that many (most? all?) major IDers are closet evolutionists cannot be overlooked. What’s important though, is not want they believe, but what they let the audience infer. ID’s noncommittal approach makes it easier for many people to infer YEC because it neither criticizes it directly nor defends it, which risks exposing its flaws. Because YEC is firmly ingrained in most minds, whether they take it literally or not, ID can promote YEC even better than a direct sell.

If there were something to YEC or OEC claims, however, IDers would be all over it. They would not need the legally risky and scientifically irrelevant “argument from design.” Nor would they need to misrepresent evolution, quote scientists out of context, etc. and risk all credibility with mainstream science and mainstream religion. Even if most IDers are not “closet evolutionists,” most sure seem to know that YEC and OEC are nonsense. But for whatever reason, they need to sell it anyway.

“But I guess the best way to go about testing the theory today is to first agree on a definition and understanding of what exactly complex specified information is, then show how it can be produced without recourse to intelligent agency. If that can be shown convincingly, the current theory of ID would then be falsified.”

This doesn’t falsify ID. Just because something could be produced without recourse to intelligent agency doesn’t mean it COULDN’T be produced without recourse to intelligent agency. I can drive a nail using a rock, that doesn’t mean I can’t drive a nail using a hammer.

The ‘theory’ of intelligent design is not falsifiable.

Before I start to answer some of your questions, or charges/insults, I am going to attempt a little clarification of what I meant by my education leading me to doubt that there is any one particularly setdown, tried and true, “scientific method”. I have just completed my undergraduate degrees in Philosophy and History of Science at the University of Oklahoma and throughout my study I had become convinced by some of the arguments of historians and philosophers of science like Thomas Kuhn who see scientific theories as devoloping by way of much more than the five to eight step ordered process of “making observations, consulting prior knowledge, formulating a hypothesis, designing a controlled experiment, collecting data, interpreting data, consulting prior knowledge again, then drawing conclusions.” This is a fine little model of the means of discovery but has not always been the way in which certain scientific revolutions have come about. Darwin himself didn’t exactly follow this model did he? But still Darwins theory of natural selection to explain the diversification and new creation of species is a scientific theory proposed in 1859 to explain a great many observations in the natural world which he made throughout his travels and research. I think that Darwins special theory of natural selction is a good theory (possesss great explanatory power)and still has much to offer in explantaion of natural observations today. Myself, along with many other ID proponents think that his theory, and subsequent derivations and improvements on it, simply fails to explain many discoveries made since his time. (Genetic information, bodyplan programs, molecular machines, the complex interactions between proteins, enzymes, and hormones in the cell, etc etc.) The Complex Specified Information necessary at many levels for the mechanism of Natural Selection to even occur and produce new species is not explained by Darwin’s theory. A better explanation of CSI is a theory which posits a mechanism of intelligent agency (which for those of you who don’t understand, “Intelligent Agency itself is a mechanism. One which I am now employing to design/specify english letters into complex arrangments in order to convey information/meaning to you)to explain CSI. To falsify this claim, show that nature by whatever and all natural mechanisms (the opposite of Intelligent Agency), can produce CSI.

But right now, I just woke up, (late night last night) would like to drink a latte and take a shower. I will be back later to respond to posts prior to this one, and then maybe look at those attacking what I have just written above.

Cheers,

T. Russ

T. Russ,

Please tell us whether or not “the system is massively improbable” is part of the definition of CSI, or not.

If it is, then saying “CSI systems are too improbable to arise by evolution” is just a meaningless tautology.

If it isn’t, then you need to tell us what the real criteria for determining CSI are, and then show that evolution can’t produce systems meeting these criteria.

See Definitional Complexity for a summary of your/Dembski’s problem.

Before I start to answer some of your questions, or charges/insults, I am going to attempt a little clarification of what I meant by my education

I don’t give a flying fig about your education. I just want answers to my simple questions.

Forget them already? No problem:

*ahem*

I want a testible scientific theory of ID that can be tested using the scientififc method.

Do you have one, or don’t you.

What did the designer do, specifically. What mechanisms did it use to do whatever you think it did. Where can we see these mechanisms in operation today. And how can we test any of these using the scientific method.

Wave your arms all you want. Just answer my questions.

I don’t give a flying fig about your education. I just want answers to my simple questions.

Forget them already? No problem:

*ahem*

I want a testible scientific theory of ID that can be tested using the scientififc method.

Do you have one, or don’t you.

What did the designer do, specifically. What mechanisms did it use to do whatever you think it did. Where can we see these mechanisms in operation today. And how can we test any of these using the scientific method.

Wave your arms all you want. Just answer my questions.

Well?

“making observations, consulting prior knowledge, formulating a hypothesis, designing a controlled experiment, collecting data, interpreting data, consulting prior knowledge again, then drawing conclusions.” This is a fine little model of the means of discovery but has not always been the way in which certain scientific revolutions have come about. Darwin himself didn’t exactly follow this model did he?

Ummm, yes he did. He made observations (finch beaks), consulted prior knowledge (his theological training, Lamarkian inheritance) and found them both incapable of explaining his observations, he collected more data on the differences in the finches and their habitats, and how the latter impacted the former, and drew conclusions that the finches has shared a common ancestor who had migrated to the Galapagos from the mainlands, settled down, and diversified on the various islands based on available food supplies. His conclusion was that animals would adapt and evolve to meet selective pressures such as changing food supply, and that one common group of ancestors could give rise to a diverse group of modified descendents over time.

He followed the scientific process to the T. Even non-scientists like myself ought to be capable of seeing that. He observed changes, proposed both a cause and a mechanism that explained all observed evidence. The truly remarkable thing was that Mendel’s work on genetics, which was being done separately around the same time, wound up strengthening Darwin’s theory by confirming both hereditary characteristics and how mutations could change hereditary characteristics.

Sorry for a late reply here. I couldn’t get to a computer and then when I did, the server was down here at PT. But, should we continue this discussion here or somewhere else. If you look back up at the original comment I made, it was in reference to the oddity in Dr. Rana’s quote about ID theorists and whether he might should have said or actually had said YECers.

Of course, my not jumping up and down about disparate activity among various creationist types, and my noted lack of degrading cutdowns about ID theorists, revealed that I supported ID and therefore my own views and ID theory was immediately the new topic at hand. That is perfectly fine with me, (ID is interesting and worth talking about. Although I am still curious about the Quote from Rana…) but should we continue this here.

Quick replies:

Rev: Re-read some of my prior posts, I have not dodged your questions as you seem to indicate. And I asked you for your version of the scientific method so I could then make a fitting response.

Hyperion: If Darwin can be shown to have followed the scientific manner in the way that you showed then lets see…

Dembski and Behe etc made observations (complex specified information, Irreducible complexity), consulted prior knowledge (their scientific, mathematical, and theological training, Neo-darwinism and self-organization) and found them both incapable of explaining their observations, they collected more data on complex specified information, Irreducible complexity, noted the cambrian explosion in genetic information, enlisted other scientists like Scott Minnich. Continued to test whether neo-darwinism or any other available theories could explain their data. Found that chance and necessity could not purchase CSI and that darwinain gradualism could not explain irreducible complexity. Their conclusion was then that certain features in the natural world required a mechanism or explanation able to produce complex specified information, molecular machines etc. Developed the theory of Intelligent Design. And are trying to take it before the scientific mainstream and get a hearing.

By the way, go read Darwin’s Origin of Species and see If he even mentions the finches that you seem to think were so important to him during the development of his theory. Geuss what you’ll find? Seriously, more people should read Darwin. Especially those defending his ideas.

T. Russ, much of your description of the ‘method’ followed by Dembski and Behe (et. al.) is inaccurate. May I explain?

Dembski and Behe etc made observations (complex specified information, Irreducible complexity),

Factually incorrect. Dembski etc. have made assertions that IC and CSI exist - they have never demonstrated this. Ever.

consulted prior knowledge (their scientific, mathematical, and theological training, Neo-darwinism and self-organization) and found them both incapable of explaining their observations,

Once again, inaccurate. They have asserted that these casual mechanisms are inadequate, but they have been refuted (they simply ignore the results they don’t like) by such things as AVIDA, and the existence of more primitive versions of supposedly IC structures (blood clotting cascade).

they collected more data on complex specified information, Irreducible complexity,

False. They have not managed to demonstrate that CSI or IC exists in anything. Perhaps you can point us to the catalog of ‘specified stuff’ that Dembski once claimed needed to be built? The poster child of ID is the flagellum, and no one has demonstrated that it is IC or contains CSI. If you believe otherwise, please cite the literature and calculations.

noted the cambrian explosion in genetic information,

Not at all. They’ve done nothing with this observation except misinterpret the significance of it.

Continued to test whether neo-darwinism or any other available theories could explain their data.

Where? Cite the actual tests and research. Hint: there aren’t any.

Found that chance and necessity could not purchase CSI and that darwinain gradualism could not explain irreducible complexity.

Many problems here: as indicated, CSI and IC have never been demonstrated to exist; AVIDA contradicts the argument that they cannot develop through ‘algorithmic’ processes.

Their conclusion was then that certain features in the natural world required a mechanism or explanation able to produce complex specified information, molecular machines etc.

No. They have asserted that these things exist. Cite, please the actual mathematcs that demonstrate Dembski’s CSI. On ANYTHING. It doesn’t exist.

Developed the theory of Intelligent Design.

A theory that you have been unable to describe. Who is the designer? What was designed? What are the mechanisms? How do we test for them?

And are trying to take it before the scientific mainstream and get a hearing.

They have done NOTHING to take it to the scientific mainstream. They have written popular books and tried to influence school curriculums. The scientific mainstream realizes that they have nothing: no theory, no research, no experiments, no credibility.

Apparently, you don’t realize that.

By the way, go read Darwin’s Origin of Species and see If he even mentions the finches that you seem to think were so important to him during the development of his theory. Geuss what you’ll find? Seriously, more people should read Darwin. Especially those defending his ideas.

Call me crazy for thinking this possible in the first place, and call me wicked for willfully thinking about it, call me stupid for finding the theory worthwhile, but don’t go to bed at night thinking that you said anything whatsoever helpful to resolving your case against ID.

You think that what you think has any bearing on “resolving the case against ID”? Someone who has repeatedly proven his bad faith, ignorance, and lack of comprehension? How incredibly arrogant. Why are you here? The purpose of this site is to “discuss evolutionary theory, critique the claims of the antievolution movement, defend the integrity of both science and science education, and share good conversation”. What are you contributing to those ends?

what happens to free will?

See Susan Blackmore’s answer: http://www.edge.org/q2005/q05_8.html#blackmore

Why oh why why why don’t IDers ever answer any of my questions . … ?

once again lenny and ts have failed to see the silver lining in the cloud. We now have a clear method to eliminate all those costly texts and teachers and labs that we are wasting our childrens time with in public school and instead we can teach them to say “do you want fries with that?” in 30 different languages!

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Nick Matzke published on August 6, 2005 4:54 PM.

Father Andrew Greeley: Protecting science from religion was the previous entry in this blog.

Teach Both Sides. Really. is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter