Subject:
|
Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 8 Feb 2001 18:05:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
156 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> My views about creationism should at this point be fairly well established,
> but I came across this piece in the local paper today.
>
> http://www.postgazette.com/magazine/20010208behe6.asp
>
> The Pittsburgh Post Gazette isn't exactly a rigorous scientific journal, so
> the inclusion of this article shouldn't be taken to equal legitimacy. In
> addition, Dr. Michael Behe's theory of intelligent design does nothing to
> explain where the intelligent designer came from, and he also seems
> uninterested in the theory of punctuated equilibrium, among others, since
> his comments come across as a refutation of basic Darwinian evolution rather
> than current theory.
I can only hope that you take this as an indicator that the major scientific
community does recognize the futility of macro-evolution explanation for how
life cameinto existance and 'progressed'.
The intelligence often pointed to is often described as being an alien race -
which only begs the question where did it come from.
If you totally reject the notion of a God-as-creator then you end up in this
sort of silly reasoning.
(FWIW- this is a hot topic in PA since they're considering changing school
cirriculum to refer to evolution as a theory (sad state of affairs there in PA
schools.)
-Jon
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
| (...) Hope away. Since you've demonstrated your inability to understand the processes of science and what science represents, your assessment of the alleged merits of Dr. Behe's theories is meaningless. (...) Yeah--just like begging the question of (...) (23 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
| (...) The article stated: "What distinguishes intelligent design from creationism is that it has won the backing of a minority of scientists" To my way of interpreting things "a minority of scientists" does not imply "the major scientific (...) (23 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
| (...) The major scientific community? Are you basing this on Behe's statements or maybe the intro to the article? Most of the major scientific community that I know have dismissed Behe-- I know I have. He has flaws in many if his arguments. One of (...) (23 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | In the interest of full disclosure...
|
| My views about creationism should at this point be fairly well established, but I came across this piece in the local paper today. (URL) Pittsburgh Post Gazette isn't exactly a rigorous scientific journal, so the inclusion of this article shouldn't (...) (23 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
25 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
