Slashdot Mirror

There is no evidence to support the idea of a divine creator.

Your opinion suggests that you haven't discovered Google (Or at least didn't use it before posting this...)

Um, there is no evidence of intelligent design. There is evidence of billions of years of random mutations and natural selection. You should be able to google that, if not, delete all your cookies and try again.

There is no evidence to support the idea of a divine creator.

Your opinion suggests that you haven't discovered Google

(Or at least didn't use it before posting this...)

One assumes that you would be as dismissive of biochemist Michael Behe of Lehigh University, microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, and mathematician William Dembski at Baylor University. I doubt, however, that you would convince many thinkers by categorizing them as stupid. Intelligent design theorists do not so dismiss evolutionists.

Assuming you would like to learn a bit about the difference between intelligent design and creationism, you could check the following:

Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren't the Same
What is Intelligent Design?
Darwin's Black Box

If your idea of a "not completely decided science" is one in which we "get new information daily" then there is no completely decided science. I haven't seen any information contrary to the hypothesis of AGW. I see lots of claims of this evidence, just like I see lots of claims that evolution is not how the variety of species came to be, or claims that the theory of relativity is all wrong. These are all examples of "fact-free science", in that they do not involve scientific evidence. What scientific evidence contrary to AGW do you think you've seen?

While I do agree with you regarding the article commentary, there are indeed people who are trying to get creationism(disguised as Intelligent Design) taught as science in schools. Eg. http://www.discovery.org/
A nicer list of the papers written etc. are here --> http://www.intelligentdesign.org/science.php

Ad hominem:

Source A makes claim X

There is something objectionable about Source A

Therefore claim X is false

Have a good day.

That doesn't hold true when the "something objectionable" about "Source A" involves their analysis of the issue at hand.

The Austrian school of economics has long been the "intelligent design" of the economic field.

the school has traditionally advocated an interpretive approach to history to address specific historical events......

its methods consist of post-hoc analysis, and do not generate testable implications; they argue this approach fails the test of falsifiability....

I know of a few other organizations whose philosophies take an interpretive approach to history and whose theories fail falsifiability as well.

Look, plain and simple, the austrian school is not economics, it's a religion being passed off as economics by the dogmatic and corrupt.

Some quotes on the efficacy of the austrian school:

Critics of the Austrian school contend that its methods consist of post-hoc analysis, do not generate testable implications and, so, fail falsifiability.[2][3]

This rings a bell

the school has traditionally advocated an interpretive approach to history.

So does every religion, extremist political ideology, and dingbat fringe cult.

"I don't know how it could have happened without design, so it must have been designed"

You could say the same thing about abiogenesis. "I don't know how it could have happened except at random, just one of those 1 in 10^9218891287491824 chance that everything falls into place at random." I'd like to see someone try and compute the odds of life starting at random. Check this out, I googled for this: The Odds

Got something more substantial than just saying that you don't understand it?

I referenced a book. There are many other books on the subject. I've read that one in particular, it was interesting but what I really got from the book was the vastness of unanswered questions on the subject.

By the way, I've never heard of the discovery institute. Intelligent Design has been around for centuries, wasn't it Thomas Aquainas who first rationalized it? Plato also talked about it in Timaeus, but both philosphers were referring to a universal creator, here we're talking about the design of life forms, Plato knew nothing about DNA, Aquinas came closer to what we're talking about, however he had no understanding of life's intricacies either.

Who cares what internal memoranda the Discovery institute passes around. It sounds like they were talking more about sociology, social issues. I think whoever wrote that link you sited makes a lot of sense, regardless of their intent, like I said they didn't invent ID, it's been around for centuries, but a few of the points they make hit home with me; "The social consequences of materialism have been devastating..." I often see science used as a justification for detrimental practices, there is a lot of scientists trying to say marijuana is safe, which may lead to more widespread acceptance, hoever I think more drugs are the last thing society needs. Some people think religion is the worst thing that ever happened to us. It's hard to say since religion has been so prevalent from the beginning of time. I tend to think we would have destroyed ourselves by now if there weren't the influence of religion guiding some people.

There was only one continent back then. You couldn't go overseas to do anything!