The state of ID/YECism here at EvC

Is there life after EvC? Uh oh, maybe it would have been better to lose in Dover, so that we'd have more to talk about... or they'd have more to talk about.In a way this raises the question of what the other side will do in the face of this? Hardcore Creationists shouldn't be hurt as they didn't like ID anyway. IDists though will have to reinvent themselves again, actually try and find some scientific evidence, or wait to try again elsehwere.After all the far right is still looking at overturning Roe v Wade through court packing. They could do the same for this. Wonder what the career track of that Judge is going to be after this? He must have lost some friends in high places.This message has been edited by holmes, 12-21-2005 05:26 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

North sea mammoth bones? I didn't know they could swim.If you went through the red light district then you pretty much had to walk past me. If you avoided the RLD but made it to the dam then you were still pretty darn close. Well at one point I did hear people screaming outside...

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

If it is the bridge I am thinking of then you certainly passed by our apartment. If you were around the RLD then you really couldn't have been more than a block or two from my place anyway. Whad'ja think of the neighborhood?A man comes to the RLD and leaves with fossils, that's gotta be a first.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I don't mean to be part of the pile on, but I do want to make something clear. I agree that there are people on the evo side who don't really know what ID is about, but that does not mean that most or all do not.There are people here who are quite on top of ID and what it says and does not say. Another person has already noted that they are well versed in it, and I know that I am. I have not seen Percy stray too far from an accurate depiction of it either, and I am not sure how much he has read of the primary literature.Conversely there are Creos who clearly do not understand ID. That is they use a belief in design by an intelligence as if it were ID, when it is not. Buzsaw is without question on of those people. That's not to slam his specific position, but clearly defining it. Behe and even Dembski reject positions Buz discusses within their writings.The court transcripts contain obvious supports for claims made by evos here, and did show that some supporters of ID lacked knowledge of ID, and were only interested in creationism.If you haven't yet, I'd suggest reading through those transcripts. At least pick a few people (and they can even be the ID supporters like Behe) and see what was revealed.This message has been edited by holmes, 12-23-2005 11:30 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Pose yourself as an expert on anything you wish, as long as it is not an expert on me, okay?I didn't hear of ID until around 2001. I discovered it from two different angles, one of which was preparations for a documentary. At that point I began reading literature, lots of literature. Most of it was offline. It was from many many other writers than Behe and Dembski and Wells.I most often refer to those three as they are the leading published proponents of organized ID theory. If you want to debate that, you provide refs which suggest otherwise. But you know and I know that these guys were the lead authors for the ID movement. The reason was that Dembski was a professional mathematician and Behe a biologist, who were working on and closest to a positive theory or methodology rather than just critiques... which have been going on forever.This gave them credibility and the proposed "theory" an apparent weight beyond mere assertion. Others have been riding on their coattails with greater emphasis on design in physics and astronomy. Unfortunately none of those are as concrete or as important if one wants to challenge and replace evolutionary theory. Its true, they are not. However they are the ones which spearheaded this revival and was one of the better shots creos had. How will I see anything in coming years if THIS is the prevailing attitude of IDers and Creos? You know I've never known an actual scientist who was "suspicious" of publishers to the point that they didn't actually try and submit something if they felt it had merit.Pasteur was against the establishment and he was oppressed, but he managed to keep working and develop bodies of evidence that were incontrovertible. Why is this a problem for creos and IDers?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

How does anyone track causes of mutation to the atomic level?In any case, I thought that one of the points of ID was that most mutations resulted in horrific flaws such that mutation cannot account for diversity of species? Not to mention that some characteristics are so complex that mutation couldn't account for them anyway? Why am I getting this image of a deck of scientists and creos simply pulling from the top and when they don't work to win the game, tossing them away and redrawing from the deck?Is there no sense that Behe and Dembski's work were worthy now that they've been shown to be incapable of surviving a court battle to get religion in the classroom? If their science was as good as everyone was claiming, why isn't their work being continued just the same and these guys remain the leaders?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)