Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discovery Institute's "400 Scientist" Questionaire
Howard Beale
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 22 (257151)
11-05-2005 7:46 PM


Does anyone know if there is any scientist who has shown that ID is a valid scientific theory? If so, a name, please.

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Funkaloyd, posted 11-05-2005 11:40 PM Howard Beale has replied

  
Funkaloyd
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 22 (257213)
11-05-2005 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Howard Beale
11-05-2005 7:46 PM


To my knowledge, none have. The best and brightest proponents of intelligent design generally try to show that it's a theory by redefining what "scientific theory" means (e.g. Page has gone | New Scientist).
Welcome to the forum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Howard Beale, posted 11-05-2005 7:46 PM Howard Beale has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Howard Beale, posted 11-05-2005 11:49 PM Funkaloyd has not replied

  
Howard Beale
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 22 (257216)
11-05-2005 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Funkaloyd
11-05-2005 11:40 PM


Thanks. I have yet to find one scientist who does...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Funkaloyd, posted 11-05-2005 11:40 PM Funkaloyd has not replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 19 of 22 (258254)
11-09-2005 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Monk
09-17-2005 7:32 PM


Re: one question
monk writes:
If its only one question, then shouldn't it be:
"Is random mutation and natural selection adequate to account for the complexity of life?"
You guys should bear in mind that "RM+NS" is the creationist's definition of evolutionary theory, not the working definition of scientists.
Evolution consists of more than random mutation and natural selection. There is also sexual selection, genetic drift, founder effects and other population processes, etc. etc. When we describe evolutionary theory as RM+NS we're doing ourselves a disservice. The answer to the suggested question is well known to be "No". I'm sure that Dawkins et al would agree.
Mick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Monk, posted 09-17-2005 7:32 PM Monk has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Belfry, posted 12-02-2005 6:54 PM mick has not replied

  
Belfry
Member (Idle past 5085 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 20 of 22 (265131)
12-02-2005 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by mick
11-09-2005 7:21 PM


Re: one question
mick writes:
Evolution consists of more than random mutation and natural selection. There is also sexual selection, genetic drift, founder effects and other population processes, etc. etc. When we describe evolutionary theory as RM+NS we're doing ourselves a disservice. The answer to the suggested question is well known to be "No". I'm sure that Dawkins et al would agree.
I agree, the question posed to the scientists doesn't encompass modern evolutionary theory at all, and I would expect many evolutionists to say that NS & RM aren't the only mechanisms. In addition to the above, I would include a big one: endosymbiosis.
This message has been edited by Belfry, 12-02-2005 09:26 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by mick, posted 11-09-2005 7:21 PM mick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 12-02-2005 8:58 PM Belfry has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 21 of 22 (265151)
12-02-2005 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Belfry
12-02-2005 6:54 PM


Re: one question
In addition to the above, I would include a big one: endosymbiosis.
welcome to the fray Belfry.
you can learn to do coding tricks for your quotes just by using the peek button to see how other do things.
type [qs]it's easy[/qs] and it becomes:
it's easy
Enjoy.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Belfry, posted 12-02-2005 6:54 PM Belfry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Belfry, posted 12-02-2005 9:27 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Belfry
Member (Idle past 5085 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 22 of 22 (265160)
12-02-2005 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by RAZD
12-02-2005 8:58 PM


Re: one question
Sorry about that. I did know about the coding, but I accidentally used chevrons < instead of brackets. I often use html tags, thus the slip. Fixed now.
Thanks for the welcome, though.
This message has been edited by Belfry, 12-02-2005 09:28 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 12-02-2005 8:58 PM RAZD 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