Post reply

Reply to the message by Balance_Maintained

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:

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:

> Recently, in another discussion, Matt posted the following:-[i]>The problem is that [b]the only dissenters are proponents of ID, which is a philosophical challenge only. There isn&apos;t a single testable claim made by ID, so in that light [color=#f66]it is rightly castigated.[/color][/b] Saying "life is too complex to have arrived by chance" isn&apos;t a scientifically testable statement.->The vitriol of the biological community is due to ID proponents attempting to launch their philosophical views into technical journals. I promise you, if they were submitting the papers into the philosophical journals where they belong, the fight wouldn&apos;t be so fierce. ID is not science.[/i]-This is one of the fundamental problems I have with the evolution debate. It is the tired argument of "If thou art not mine friend, then thou art mine enemy!" -In this light, anyone who questions the dogma of evolution is immediately caste as  a proponent of Intelligent Design, Creationist, Religious Fanatic, Young Earth Creationist, or some variety thereof. How does this lend itself to the scientific method?-In that same thread, I posed a solution: Prove that new innovations can occur(as opposed to adaptations), and I gave criteria for the experiment. Matt immediately posted an experiment that ignored the criteria laid out completely, as if that defeated my argument. -Now, granted, I AM a proponent for intelligent design, and make no bones about it. However, if everyone that questions the dogma is labeled immediately, with the follow up loss of research funding, denial of tenure, and all of the other well documented things that happen once such a label is applied, how can science  ever discover if it has made a mistake or not?