Why intelligent design isn’t.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Can't agree with that. In 1957, Yang Chen Ning and Lee Tsung-Dao received the Nobel Prize in physics for overthrowing the "absolute" law of parity conservation.

That was based upon experimentation, not observation (which does make it better). But even still, I believe that there are a few who favor theories with parity conservation...

The basic truth to things is this, science doesn't disprove things, it just makes alternate theories more favorable.

(I know people who are still working on ether theories, which became unfavorable with Michelson and Morely (and there is more evidence for Relativity then there is against parity conservation))

Jon Miller
(and yes, I don't think parity is conserved, and I do find current scientific theories more favorable then other theories)

(but I also understand what is being said by science)

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
You realise that would require some drastic changes in fundamental laws of nature, which, somehow, doesn't show up elsewhere.

As a physicist I am well aware of this.

Jon Miller

[MrFun]

I understand the wikipedia article about neuroscience.



However, I still think that the spiritual realm cannot be studied by any scientific specialization.

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by MrFun
Anyway, I just got a divine revelatiion from God at this moment.


God is telling me to take a break by going shopping for some new clothes, watch Phantom Menace later, on DVD, and then work on my thesis some more.

You need a new God! Mine would never subject me to such a punishment

I would not see Mr.Funs version of his beliefs as anything strange or unusual at all. And thats the thing as religion is a very personal experience.

Still as we deleve deeper into science and find more and more that life is programable, you do have to ask why is it this way?

[MrFun]

I enjoyed the movie.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
If biology classes in Dover, PA have to offer criticism of evolution and mention other possibilities, would they be permitted to offer criticism of the "other possibilities?

They'd probably try to burn you at the stake for interfering with their storkist rituals.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
The basic truth to things is this, science doesn't disprove things, it just makes alternate theories more favorable.

Once a theory is falsified, it's as good as disproved.

You agree that Creationism is not even a hypothesis, yes?

[Jon Miller]

it's not a scientific hypothesis, true

and as I said, the Ether was falsified, but now some are beginning to favor it again (although I don't, and I don't think that idea will pan out)

Jon Miller

[Whaleboy]

To paraphrase from the April edition of Scientific American, ID is a great idea... never mind being tempted by the pretty fossils and the mountains of "evidence", ID is a good scientific theory for one good reason... it doesn't get bogged down in details... an unknown, unnamed, incomprehensible being, at some indeterminate point in history, created life somehow, with absolutely no evidence to support this whatsoever.

Hmmm

ID also fails because of the principle of sufficient reason... which is to say that if the universe were any different, we wouldn't be here... the probability of the universe existing the way it is, is in fact 1:1. If you won the lottery last week, the probability of you winning last week is 1:1. Using complexity as your argument makes no sense.