Discovery Institute loses one

Problem is that we are testing the claim of DI: Which kind of leaves us tied to the term in question.It might be interesting to try to finess the distinction and see if you get a different answer.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

ahahaaaa, a "finessed" distinction indeed.But,Most consider "natural selection" to include (a) survival of the fittest and (b) sex with the sexiest (providing your survive rage of the dadiest).

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

might a been here?
http://EvC Forum: Sexual Selection, Stasis, Runaway Selection, Dimorphism, & Human Evolution

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

yesthat is where you can get into run-away sexual selection mechanism.and yes

topic hasn't been promoted yet. we may want to work by e-mail on this, to hone it and then put that in the PNT for review.

I was thinking of bumping this to bring it back to the top.

ROFLOL.So it wasn't the Discover Institute that misrepresented the statement as actual support for Intelligent Design and put it on their website as such, it was Davidson who misrepresented his postion on evolution ...Even though this statement (the one in question eh?): (1) Says nothing about Intelligent Design in any way,
(2) Says nothing about "therefore evolution is wrong" in any way,
(3) Says nothing that could not be said about any other science with similar statements (worded for the various theories involved): careful examination of the evidence for all theories is not only encouraged but actively pursued via the peer review process, skepticism of any theory to explain all the evidence is normal scientific SOP (standard operating procedure).As I've said before there is nothing in this statement that is really critical of evolution. Random mutation and natural selection are not the only mechanisms of evolution, therefore it is no surprise if they cannot explain all the diversity of life. Natural selection and mutation alone do not explain {sex}, and that's a pretty big element of species diversity.Appears to me that Davidson is nowhere near as duped as you appear to by the DI propoganda.Enjoy.(and learn to use quote boxes eh?)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

LOL Again, do you dispute(1) that the statement says nothing contradictory about evolution or in any way supports Intelligent Design?
(2) that the DI exhibits these signatures as if they show that evolution is admitted false and that therefore Intelligent Design is the answer?If you don't dispute point (1) then you could hardly claim that davidson signing the statement was misrepresenting his position on evolution, whether duped or intentionally, in any way.If you don't dispute point (2) then you cannot claim that davidson intentionally misusing his (valid by point 1) position on evolution to misrepresent his position on ID, AND that all the deception is on the hands of DI.Ball in your court, time to dance.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

umdo you?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

And yet you stated elsewhere that the statement signed on the list is nothing out of the ordinary for normal scientific skepticism in any field.How do you get from {A} to {B} here? If the statement expresses normal skepticism then there is no additional concern or question to address. Nothing to be marginalized for because of signing it. How does this relate to education reform?Note that I concur with the assessment re skepticism (which actually renders the statement irrelevant) and have said so before (see early in this thread), but that this is not the issue I have with it (the issue I have is misrepresenting this statement as some kind of justification for the neo-Paleyism of "intelligent design" when there is no connection between the statement and anything to do with ID). Yawn. That filter already exists: it is called the scientific method - if you do science it is science, if you don't do science it doesn't matter what you call it, it isn't science. Do you think untestable concepts should be included? Astrology? What validity do scientific hypothesis (concepts based on scientific evidence but which have not been validation tested yet) have in the process? Do you discuss ways to test the hypothesis involved?I have no problem with reaching the end of current knowledge and saying "beyond this we just don't know yet" - whether it is dark matter or abiogenesis or neuro-psychology. I do have a problem with claiming that our lack of knowledge implies something one way or the other.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.