The state of ID/YECism here at EvC

Percy, this is just absurd. The fact is we understand ID, creationism and evolution whereas evos often understand neither Id, creationism, nor evolution, but just spout off their talking points with nary a hint they understand why thier critics disagree with them.

ID is bigger than the Discovery Institute. I first heard the term Intelligent Design back in 1988, to give you a clue, long before Behe published his book. It has gathered steam, and the guys you mentioned have been in the forefront, but by no means are the only people out there.The truth is there is a lot more going on than is readily available on the web, and since IDers and creationists are very suspicious, and rightly so, of publishing in evo journals (I think peer-review when it comes to evolution is total crap), there is a lot you don't hear, and may not hear about until someone publishes a book or some articles and studies.That doesn't mean I think the Discovery Institute is wrong or anything. I think they are doing great work, but they are not the whole of the intellectual and scientific movement, as you will see in the coming years.

ID preceded those guys and will be around long after they are gone. It's funny because you guys insist I have been influenced by Wells when, in fact, I have very little of Wells, except maybe his peppered moth articles.I first heard about ID in 1988. It's been around longer than you guys realize, and will be around for a long time, and will eventually supplant some evo ideas.

Most evos here:1. Were unaware of the influence of Haeckel's forgeries and the significance of his data for evolutionary theory. They just accepted bogus claims. According to Richardson's 1997 study, it appears most evolutionist scientists working in the field accepted Haeckel's data as well. Basically, evos accepted uncritically the claims of a phylotypic stage.2. Evos don't appear to even realize that had the claims of a phylotypic stage been true (they are not), it would have been evidence against evolution, not for it. The reason is the hourglass model of a conserved stage, not at the beginning nor end, but in the middle conflicts with the concept of evolution. The fact species differ widely at the earliest stages makes claims of homology based on temporary "vestigal" appearances at later stages false, but most evos never seem to get that.3. Evos often don't understand that creationism and ID embrace speciation and microevolution.4. Evos have never substantiated their claims of fossil rarity in respect with species as a whole, but merely assert the claim.It's probably off-topic, but there are whole threads on this stuff. Look around and you can get all the evidence you need to show evos don't understand a lot of what they are claiming.

Well OK. So the idea that whatever Behe and some guys leading the way now are doing is the totality of ID is incorrect.

Percy, I refer to your comment as buffonery to be nice, and assume it is a mental lapse rather than an intentional lie, considering you have no reason to refer to me as a YECer.That doesn't mean I think badly of YECers, as I do of mainstream evolutionism, but the simple point of the matter is I am not a YECer, and I think you know that.

Percy, I've gone on record ad nauseum here. You just don't like it because your position is weak, and mine is not. Uh wrong. I have stated my position previously to you that as far as I am concerned the biblical account is consistent with YEC, ID, and evolution because the biblical account is not specific enough to discount any of these models on it's own, except for the random and atheist conclusions of ToE, but you say evolution can be true without atheism. So assuming that, I don't see the biblical record as inconsistent with any of these basic models.My position is that the scientific data, however, is inconsistent with evolutionary models, and so I think an ID model would best explain the evidence. I am not dogmatic about any one particular model. I think that an answer of we don't know yet is preferable to giving a blatantly false answer. Unlike evos it seems, I don't have a psychological need for an explanation, but prefer to go over the data in detail and see what it does and does not state before drawing any conclusions.I don't see the fossil data as supportive of evolutionary models, and for that reason, I think evo models need to be abandoned or seriously revised.There is no secretive aspect to me here at all. The beliefs above have been repeated over and over by me. You are merely slandering me, and imo, for no good reason.

They may be "leaders" at present, but just like there are lots of evos besides, say, Dawkins, that are not as militantly atheist, etc,...in their views, there is a wider range of ID scientists as well.I suspect, just as in evolutionism, newer "leaders" will emerge based on their work, and I think some ID scientists have published in journals concerning adaptive mutations being governed by quantum mechanics rather than classical mechanics. If those claims turn out to be true, some of those scientists and others may then be considered "leaders."But there is a difference between spokespersons for a movement and advocates for a movement and scientists developing specific theories within a movement. I think you will see a great many of the latter regardless of who occupies the former.

That'd be funny if it wasn't so sad.

I think their work is fine. I am just not as familiar with them, and winning or losing in a court-room means nada to me. I think the modern interpretation of separation of Church and State is wholly at odds with a free soceity and with the intent and words of the Constitution, but I am not surprised that evolutionists use the courts to try to force their views on the public, and do so all the while falsely accusing their critics of doing the same.

The main problem is that evolution is not based on actual facts and data, and so it is harder to get evos to drop their beliefs since they are more asserting prejudicial views than actual observed facts. Basically, evolution is a method for viewing the data, and as such defines what is an acceptable view of the data. If you look at the data without the evo assumption, a different picture emerges, but evos insist that you must first accept the conclusion prior to viewing the data. They've basically inverted the concept of empiricism.

It's you evos using the courts to force your views on everyone else, not IDers. Frankly, when you've devolved into using courts to thwart scientific opinion, you can clearly see that evolutionism is not science but is primarily an ideological movement using scientific data.If it was just science, you guys would not resort to courts to silence your critics.

Which just shows you how ignorant you guys are, and moreover, on other threads, nuggins has conceded embryological development is used to argue for evolution. In fact, all arguments for evolution touch on some other related field such as paleontology, genetics, etc,...To actually argue that because an argument for evolution also touches on another subject means the evo argument "isn't event talking about its impact on the ToE" just shows how deeply ignorant and twisted some evo minds are.

Ever hear of the Scopes-Monkey trial?Evolutionists used the courts first to allow for equal time to present evolution, and now years later, they argue the exact opposite. Evolution has always been steeped in propaganda and remains so to this day, which is why evos have to resort to courts to try to silence their critics and force their views on people.This message has been edited by randman, 12-23-2005 02:55 PM

Percy, you are well aware you are misrepresenting me. Thinking YEC is a respectable view in light of the Bible is not the same as being a YECer.Why you inisist on resorting to lies I don't know, but I'll ask again.What is secretive about my position, as stated clearly to you on this thread? What don't you get about it?Personally I think you are just upset because you can find no reasonable weakness in my position whereas your's has holes in it.