Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

[Phys-L] Re: ID defenders




ID is not science BECAUSE it is invulnerable to evidence.

This strikes me as a silly non-sequitur It is true that "science" has not
been well defined in this discussion, but an arbitrary one such as this is
not helpful.

However, now the discussion may well move toward a definition in which
every effort will be made by some which. excludes ID -- Then someone will
propose one which includes this topic. Do we really want to continue this
fight?

The problem seems to me that some here want to enshrine what they want to
call "science" as divine and render all else as trash. Folks, what we
teach in our physics classes is wrong -- We know it is wrong -- but we get
paid to do it -- besides we learned it from Bill Nye the "Science" Guy so
it must be "divine."

The question is not whether the six-day limit is valuable but rather was
there some sort of intelligent mechanism involved.

Was there some such thing as a grass committee which sat around and
proposed various kinds of grasses for various purposes and then had to
decide how to manufacture those grasses. I distinctly remember one of the
meetings where I suggested a very large grass -- large enough to produce a
delicious food -- The vegetable committee didn't like this but.....

We decided to have a plant which would produce editable seed on a stick
like shoot -- We didn't speak English in those days but I happen to know we
now call this corn in the US.

We had a discussion with the DNA committee to be sure that this is could be
done. They agreed to make a slight adjustment so it could.

This was my contribution to the creation. I wonder what your's was.

Jim


Jim Green
mailto:JMGreen@sisna.com
http://users.sisna.com/jmgreen