Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,287 Year: 5,544/9,624 Month: 569/323 Week: 66/143 Day: 9/19 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design vs. Real Science
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4308 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 5 of 142 (575534)
08-20-2010 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Fiver
08-17-2010 5:10 PM


Compare this to the discovery of Dark Matter by Vera Rubin. With her work originally dismissed by peers, Vera Rubin's suggestion was able to win over advocates until it is fairly widely accepted today. But Dark Matter doesn't have a document like the Wedge document: spelling out a 'strategy' to gain acceptance.
Why doesn't it?
The fact is most scientific theories were met with outright rejection or at least a large dose of skepticism. The main difference between all of these and ID, is research. Plate Tectonics, originally called continental drift, originally was rebuked by science since there was no known mechanism to move continents, through research it was found that the earths crust consists of plates which move by magma pushing at plate boundaries moving plates apart and at other boundaries, one plate move under another. (italics simplified events)

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Fiver, posted 08-17-2010 5:10 PM Fiver has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024