The article does not draw that conclusion. But, if you keep saying that it does long enough, you are certain to convince yourself that it does.
Wow... I guess that's what makes a market. All I see is obfuscation and assertion. All 3 ID threads that Z started here ended the same way - Z yelling that the belief in the scientific method is faith too. I kept asking for one shred of proof of ID, since the whole damn thing is based on the idea that ID is scientifically provable. I got nada. I guess I need to read some other ID theoreticians.
jd - I read the article. I think you keep missing the point. The whole point of the paper was to postulate that perhaps DNA works so as to help the organism evolve in response to changing environmental conditions. It did not say the definitively but authors surmised that point. Otherwise why write the paper. Are you saying the article supported the notion that evolution happened randomly. Also in the article the authors pointed out that others have stated that we did not have enough time to evolve randomly. I do not know why you keep arguing this point with teleogist. He clearly pointed out the error of your statement.
You did not read the article. If you did you would know that: 1. The engine of evolution is random mutation (aka DNA replication error). This has nothing to do with whether the environment is or is not random. 2. The article is intended to show how environment may cause evolution to be channeled to adapt to environment stress more quickly than would be the case in an environment free of stress. 3. The introduction re intelligent design advocates, is used as a strawman that the article then proceeds to tear down. Observation. Approximately 50% of your posts are written by a person of Asian culture who has typical "English as a second language" grammatical issues. The other 50% of your posts are written by a person who reads remarkably similar in grammatical syntax to Z. Ordinarily I wouldn't care about your sharing your user ID. However, by using multiple roles to prop up your argument, you force me to reargue the same position as if you didn't already understand. So, either come clean and identify all of the user IDs involved in your ruse, or you can continue the argument with yourself.
I spoke with ID scientists like Dembski at length. They have very different views than what is attributed to them on ET. Best to read their books, or ask them directly. I just find them more deep thinking than Darwinists like Miller (who I have also exchanged ideas with). The ID guys admit they have a bias towards a creator God, but the Darwin "scientists" really think they are view freed, objective investigators. And that delusion makes them prone to conceit and practically impervious to any evidence that is in conflict with their materialistic view of the world.
I don't think it would be possible, unless perhaps if you were Demski himself, to mess up the actual circumstances and the facts in order to suit an opinion, more than you have in that post.
Yes, well, it's one thing to have a bias towards the ideal of 'objective analysis' and empirical measures and quite another to have a bias towards a 'Creator God'. Anyway, of course you're right; there are lots of dogmatic scientists and as I tried to point out for a while (until it became clear that the ID'ers here weren't listening to anything which tended to call their assertions into question), it was the 'new physics' that led us to the realization that the entire edifice of science was built upon some rather troubling assumptions, little things like our notions of causality and the nature of matter, among others. Absolutely true, but science is not done in a vacuum. These ideas take generations to seep into the mainstream of science, and I find a lot of evidence that there are researchers out there who understand the new(est) paradigm. Science will progress and in 300 years there will be scientists who won't believe some of the assumptions that are made today. The ID'ers love to paint every scientist with the same brush. I would rather be on the side that is at least trying to find proof, to uncover facts which will allow us to understand the universe. I notice that even though I brought it up in my post to you, you didn't mention anything about the one thing that the ID'ers on here just refuse to address. That is, they are simultaneously trying to tear down the scientific method and claim that ID is scientifically provable. ID is creation rebranded. However, religion is a private matter. Please don't suggest that it is moral to legislate on the basis of the particular God you choose to worship. Not everyone has the same Gods. ID belongs in Church, not in schools. roberk, I hope you read the mission statement of those who first proposed this rebranding of Creationism. It shows that their aim is to remake American society in a sacred mold. I am not interested. I will try to read a book or two, after finding out which ID theorists are least likely to be zealots like the ones we see here. I do recall reading that a Cambridge guy (or Oxford??) got a huge grant from the Templeton foundation to try to show that ID was a scientifically sound theory. I wonder what happened to him?
To be honest that Mission statement looks suspect to me. It is not what I read on the major ID sites. IDs strength is in pointing out the flaws and weakpoints of SPW *Scientific picture of the world. It is mainly because of their pressure- they have some excellent philosophers- that the Darwinists are in retreat . They don't have any real evidence to support their creator God idea though, and so far reply on a a two choice theory. i.e if SPW, all by chance, is wrong then God must have done it. I think they are fairly upfront about this.
Great, but in that case it's misnamed. If it is an attempt to undermine SPW by calling into question the failings of the scientific method, then say that. Certainly, that is the only thing we have see on Z's ID threads here, so what you're saying makes sense to me. They surely don't have any evidence, since I asked for it about twenty times and I didn't get one shred of it. Well, I'm sure that everyone can guess what I and many others think about that. They don't understand that it is actually a 4 choice theory - SPW, God must have done it, or, as I believe, the Green-Cheesians must have done it or as my buddy believes, Space Aliens from Andromeda must have done it. I'm being facetious but you see my point...if you don't try to find some proof for a theory, then there are an unlimited number of equally credible theories. Basing education policy on my theory about the Green-Cheesians might not go over to well with the ID'ers...
Well the Dawinists also promote the two choices only idea . You may have heard of Richard Dawkins: âGod and natural selection ⦠are the only two workable theories we have of why we existâ (1982, p.181).