ID taken to the end

quote:

---

Reread my statement more carefully. I didn't say that there wasn't enough time. I said that ID offers an alternative mechanism for the diversification of life on Earth.

---

Does it? How can this mechanism be tested for? How does this mechanism work? Making a claim is not good enough in science. You have to back it up with hard data, and for theories, there has to be explanatory powers, and it be testable and falsifiable.ID is still in it's infancy because it's proponents don't know biology for the most part, and spend more time with the politics of trying to get it accepted in schools rather than overcome is defiencies.

Deleted duplicate postThis message has been edited by ramoss, 09-09-2005 07:45 AM

Dembski has come up with this thing he calls the 'Law of Conservation of Information', and uses it as if it was the absolute truth. It is utter nonsense in my opinion. However, I suspect you will be seeing people who are ID'st keep on quoting it ad infinitum now.

Prove it. That is an assertion. Come up with an experiment to demosntrate it. Show how you demonstrate that 'law'. How can 'information' be detected? Dembski makes the assertion, show me that assertion can be demonstrated with an experiment.

You are incorrect.You are making excuses about WHY you can not make an experiment, or make a prediction using the concept of 'conservation of information'.We can show experiments to demonstrate the conservation of energy.To claim 'oh , we can't do that because of shows that the 'Law of conservation of information' is untestable, and therefore worthless.

And, how woudl you test for any of this.Where did the intelligent designer come from?

Your message 53 does not address Dembski's claims at all. Except for Dembski, and a few other ID people, the 'law of conservation of information' is not taken very seriously from the people in the field.A critique of his 'law' can be found at | American Scientist-