AgnosticWeb.com
Log in
Register
Search:
Back to the entry by xeno6696
Post reply
Reply to the message by
xeno6696
Name:
E-mail:
(optional, won't be displayed directly)
Leave this field empty:
Homepage:
(optional)
Leave this field empty:
Location:
(optional)
Remember me (cookie)
Category:
Introduction
The atheist delusion
Agnosticism
Evolution
The limitations of science
Origins
The nature of a 'Creator'
Where is it now?
Endings
Identity
Animals
Humans
Religion
Art
Politics
What should be taught in schools?
A mad world
General
Subject:
Formatting help
skip to input
format text bold
[b]bold text[/b]
format text italic
[i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink
[link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color
[color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size
[size=small]small text[/size]
[size=large]large text[/size]
insert list
[list][*]list item[/list]
insert image
[img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]
left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]
right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]
thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]
thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]
thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]
:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(
Message:
> > Umm... Darwin wrote in support of ID.. he didn't work for CSI. I would like to point out that mainstream science has left scientist who are proponents for ID no recourse but to work for institutions like CSI by the very act of castigating them out of the scientific community. Your argument basically amounts to, "You can't work for us, but if you work for anyone else we are going to do our best to ruin your career." What kind of choice is that? What a wonderful example of open-mindedness and what a shining example of a willingness to have your dogma challenged!! I am utterly astounded by how receptive to different modes of thought science has proven itself to be! > -The problem with ID is that the authors aren't publishing their papers in philosophical journals, they're trying to publish them in things like "Nature." -"The universe is too complex to have arisen by chance" isn't a materially supportable claim. It is however, philosophically supportable. Read David's book sometime. Many popular ID authors (especially Dembski) also have failed to correct errors in their books... not even an online errata. -> If being open to explore every avenue of thought makes me an enemy, than an enemy I am. I have no issue with being that. Though, I would think that it says more about your character than mine... just saying... > > I respect Matt's dedication to the 'scientific process' but I don't share it and I certainly do not wear the same rose colored glasses he seems to.-It's not a rose-color, it's the fact that at the end of the day, any scientific claim has to be testable. "The universe is too complex to have arrived by chance" isn't a testable hypothesis. -It IS a valid PHILOSOPHY, however, and I don't hold a bad place in my mind for philosophy. Hence why I've read MOST of what's out there. -I can't stress enough--you need to read Kuhn!!!! I will send you MY copy if I have to!!!!-Scientific revolutions occur when enough upstarts challenge the current paradigm and then the whole process repeats. It's a human process, and I'm sorry, it's not going to move any faster than it already does. -But the pattern is clear--if there's any [b][i]experimental merit[/i][/b] to a new hypothesis, the paradigm [i][b]will [/b][/i]shift.
OK - Submit
Preview