I think we should cut to the chase and only ask one question:
Do you think this statement:
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged"
(1) Is a normal statement of scientific skepticism, and that similar statements can be made about any scientific theory, that it is not any more critical of evolutionary theory than most other sciences, and that it in no way promotes Intelligent Design as a valid alternative, (2) Is a normal statement of scientific skepticism, that some similar statements can be made about other scientific theories, that it is critical of some aspects of evolutionary theory more than most other sciences, but that it in no way promotes Intelligent Design as a valid alternative, (3) Is a more than normal statement of scientific skepticism, that similar statements cannot be made about most other scientific theories, that it is critical of some aspects of evolutionary theory more than other sciences, but that it in no way promotes Intelligent Design as a valid alternative, (4) Is a more than normal statement of scientific skepticism, that similar statements cannot be made about most other scientific theories, that it is critical of some aspects of evolutionary theory more than other sciences, and that it promotes Intelligent Design as a valid alternative, (5) Is a normal statement of scientific skepticism, that some similar statements can be made about other scientific theories, that it is critical of some aspects of evolutionary theory more than most other sciences, and that it promotes Intelligent Design as a valid alternative, (6) Is a normal statement of scientific skepticism, and that similar statements can be made about any scientific theory, that it is not any more critical of evolutionary theory than most other sciences,and that it promotes Intelligent Design as a valid alternative.
And let the cards fall where they may.
{{edited to add radio buttons, thanks ben}}
This message has been edited by RAZD, 09*17*2005 08:28 PM
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.
I realize that, but I was trying to create a spectrum of possibilities and allow only one {answer set} per person out of 6 possibles (now 16?) to simplify analysis.
Nice radio buttons.
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.
That's a totally different question than what the ID statement is promoting.
And if you ask evolutionary biologists you will likely get a {No} answer -- there are other mechanism proposed, especially in the early bacterial stages of life formation of a lateral transmission of genes between different individuals (viruses may be a left over of this process).
This also raises the question of how sex came to be a part of the equation.
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.