The lack of empirical evidence for the theory of evolution, according to Faith.

Actually, I have studied physics at the graduate level, and I see no inaccuracies in this particular statement by the writer of post 3.Edited to correct the attibution of paisano's quote. I will admit, though, that the writer of post 3 doesn't seem to quite understand Kuhn's paradigm theory.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 04-06-2005 10:39 AM

I agree, except that I would add that any choice of analogy would be poor, since all the analogies show that scientists quite willingly (and often quickly) change paradigms when a superior one is developed. I can't think of a case (except, perhaps, in cases where the scientists had to acknowledge a central authority whose displeasure could be disasterous) where the scientific community, as a whole, exhibited fierce resistance to a new "paradigm" that turned out to be correct. While it is true that changes in paradigm tend to occur very quickly -- it may even seem "all at once" for those not familiar with the particular field -- this change tends to occur rather quickly after the new theory is first introduced. That ID has been around for such a relatively long time and has not managed to win over any significant members of the relevant communities suggests that ID is a poor choice for a potential new paradigm.

I thought of that one, too, but I decided not to count it since, if I recall correctly, Wegener didn't actually have a theory -- he just noticed that the shapes of the continents were suggestive of a past super continent, but proposed no mechanism to explain how the continents could have separated (at least no correct one). Without a plausible mechanism, as you say, the rejection of Wegener's idea was not unreasonable.But maybe you're right -- it should count as a counter example. But in the spirit of this analogy, maybe the IDistas will come up with a theory that can be used to definitely identify intelligent design, and we can sit back and have our paradigms shift!

I was afraid that I might have been repeating an oversimplified version of the story. Thanks for the clarification.Reminds me when I was in graduate school studying planetary science. Due to my philosophical biases, my preference was for a completely terrestrial explanation for the demise of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. It was unfortunate for my preferences (but fortunate for the progress of science) that the Chicxulub impact site was discovered.