Steve Peterson wrote:

snip

Horsehockey. Intelligent design postulates a designer. The
existance (or non existance) of a designer cannot be falsified,
thus, cannot be postulated.


It goes further than this. They claim the complexity of some things, like
the human eye, is so great that they are irreducibly complex, and there is
no point or hope of further investigation. In this way, ID is
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Utter baloney. I have never seen an IDer even suggest that this follows
from irriduceable complexity. You are erecting a strawman to desparately
try and save your position.

anti-scientific.


Again, I am not particularly defending ID as an idea - I'm still trying
to understand its claims. But the kind of self-important ad hominem
bellowing going on in the science community on this topic at the moment
casts grave doubts (at least to me) as to how willing that community is
to ever have a fair discussion on the matter. ID assaults the very
philosophical underpinnings of scientific materialism. ID does not claim
that contemporary science is wholly incorrect. It does claim that it is
not sufficient to completely know what can be known from the physical
evidence.

Tim is only going to be convinced if you actually take all the evidence for
evolution, starting with the pre-Darwinian data, add all that has been
learned since Darwin provided a theoretical framework that makes it all
sensible and coherent, fill in future discoveries, and then do a Reader's
Digest condensation to make it simple enough for him to comprehend.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ad hominem. You have no idea how well or poorly I assimiliate complex
ideas. Again, your unwarranted condescension speaks to ideological
desparation, not knowledge...


IMHO
Steve




--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/