Some flaws on both sides -- Ben's Message Board

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Monday, May 12, 07:23:43pm

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: Some flaws on both sides

Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 11/ 3/06 10:14am
In reply to: Ben 's message, "No it doesn't" on 10/27/06 7:35pm

>Bah, humbug.
>
>Click here for details.
>
>Oh, and here. And
>
here. And here. And here. And here. And many, many other places.
>
>Science has, over and over again, validated the theory
>of evolution through its various disciplines. Anyone
>who claims otherwise is exhibiting wishful thinking.
>
>Ben

The poster you're responding to certainly has his problems with the facts, but to an extent so do you (and some of your links). Take the first link for instance. Popularity isn't the same thing as evidence, and at least some of the links distort the situation. Consider this statement, "Although advocates of Intelligent Design usually avoid mentioning a specific creator, the concept is in fact religious, not scientific." What is so religious with the idea of life being artificially created? We are not told�perhaps because the theory is not actually religious. Another example, "Intelligent Design fails to meet the basic definition of a scientific idea: its proponents do not present testable hypotheses" but this is untrue and perhaps even hypocritical. Behe for instance has put forth his hypotheses regarding irreducible complexity. Some say those arguments have been refuted, but if so then ID clearly puts forth testable hypothesis otherwise they cannot have failed such tests. In any case, ID does indeed put forth testable empirical claims contrary to what was reported here. Critics of ID have become overzealous and have used such remarkably bad arguments against ID that I've become rather skeptical of their ability to judge the theory impartially.

--Wade A. Tisthammer

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject	Author	Date
The overall point	Ben	11/ 4/06 11:34am
My point. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 11/21/06 8:57pm