- Culture & society (71)
- History (27)
- Notable Quotes (17)
- Personal story (12)
- Politics (29)
- Science and faith (103)
- Uncategorized (36)
- March 8, 2010: Reply to Ruse
- March 7, 2010: Another Bio-Language
- March 5, 2010: Global Warming and Religious Objection
- February 12, 2010: The Language of Life
- January 30, 2010: The Power of Pride
- January 18, 2010: Emissions and Omissions
- January 10, 2010: What Would it Take?
- January 2, 2010: Signature in the Cell
- December 13, 2009: Climategate and the Survival of the Politically Correct
- November 24, 2009: Climate Hackers and other Non-Believers
Blogroll
Chat
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
Of Baramins and Baloney 27 (Last word)
[Don,]
I guess I missed your “evidence” for the creationist/Id explanation of the Cambrian explosion.
I guess I missed the part where I denied evidence, simply because you have not presented any evidence.
I guess I missed the fact that I denied any cracks in the dike. On the contrary, I fully understand that evolutionary theory has plenty of unresolved issues. I understand that it probably will, like all theories, be discarded someday in favor of a better one. Unlike you, I also understand that cracks in this theory are absolutely not the same thing as evidence for your theory. Evidence for your theory will require hypotheses (of which you have none), predictions (again, none), and new observations (again, none)
I guess you missed the part where the folks in those papers I cited had hypotheses, stated those hypotheses, tested those hypotheses, and found new evidence that supported the theory of evolution. Too bad.
You have a very different view of evidence from me. You have an idiosyncratic definition of information. I have pointed those facts out to you, but I see no evidence that you wish to recognize those problems with your positions.
From another form, discussing ID/creationists, here is a statement that resonates for me:
they just can’t accept that their core organizing belief does not and cannot contribute to a scientific understanding of the world - and take that to mean that science is an enemy of that belief.
Think about it. Just because your worldview is incapable of doing what science can do (you know, generate testable hypotheses and get new observations and accept or refute the hypothesis), that is not a good reason to rail against science.
cheers
Mark*
- - - - -
Mark,
You have the last word.
Don Mc
- - - - -
[Don]
I have no delusions that is true 
cheers
Mark