Comments on: Stepping into the intelligent design debate… http://noisyastronomer.com/2009/02/27/stepping-into-the-intelligent-design-debate/ Sun, 20 May 2012 14:55:52 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Mark http://noisyastronomer.com/2009/02/27/stepping-into-the-intelligent-design-debate/#comment-238 Mark Sun, 01 Mar 2009 04:06:00 +0000 http://astronoise.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/stepping-into-the-intelligent-design-debate/#comment-238 Great post. Well said. You can read a post I did on the same topic a few weeks ago. http://stargazersfield.com/31 Great post. Well said. You can read a post I did on the same topic a few weeks ago. http://stargazersfield.com/31

]]> By: Greg http://noisyastronomer.com/2009/02/27/stepping-into-the-intelligent-design-debate/#comment-237 Greg Fri, 27 Feb 2009 22:03:00 +0000 http://astronoise.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/stepping-into-the-intelligent-design-debate/#comment-237 Great article Nicole,<br/><br/>Most I.D.ers that I've had the misfortune of dealing with all seem to share two common states. 1. They do not understand the definition of the term Theory and 2. They all seem to think that just because they personally do not understand a concept, that concept is beyond understanding. <br/><br/>Personally, I love it when they accuse us non-I.D.ers of being closed minded because we won't accept their beliefs as science. Again, they miss the point that science has little to nothing to do with belief and everything to do with testable and verifiable evidence. Great article Nicole,

Most I.D.ers that I’ve had the misfortune of dealing with all seem to share two common states. 1. They do not understand the definition of the term Theory and 2. They all seem to think that just because they personally do not understand a concept, that concept is beyond understanding.

Personally, I love it when they accuse us non-I.D.ers of being closed minded because we won’t accept their beliefs as science. Again, they miss the point that science has little to nothing to do with belief and everything to do with testable and verifiable evidence.

]]> By: pax-athena http://noisyastronomer.com/2009/02/27/stepping-into-the-intelligent-design-debate/#comment-236 pax-athena Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:59:00 +0000 http://astronoise.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/stepping-into-the-intelligent-design-debate/#comment-236 This was one wonderful entry, thank you! It is frightening to see how people try to disguise ID as a kind of science without understanding what science is and how it works - but it seems like it is enough to fool some people, unfortunately... In spite of all the evidence we have in front of out eyes! This was one wonderful entry, thank you! It is frightening to see how people try to disguise ID as a kind of science without understanding what science is and how it works – but it seems like it is enough to fool some people, unfortunately… In spite of all the evidence we have in front of out eyes!

]]> By: WoodEngineer http://noisyastronomer.com/2009/02/27/stepping-into-the-intelligent-design-debate/#comment-235 WoodEngineer Fri, 27 Feb 2009 06:00:00 +0000 http://astronoise.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/stepping-into-the-intelligent-design-debate/#comment-235 I find intelligent design to be simply pseudo-science. Theres no real evidence for it. It's mostly untestable. And in general it's just garbage. It's good to take a look at the materials they put forward, if for no other reason than to refute it. This reminds me of Neal Adams who I once had a pretty violent argument with over his expanding earth theory, which quite frankly is mind blowingly impossible. Cartoonists have no right trying to refute science in my opinion. Heres a link for a good laugh. <br/>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1oza6jybOA I find intelligent design to be simply pseudo-science. Theres no real evidence for it. It’s mostly untestable. And in general it’s just garbage. It’s good to take a look at the materials they put forward, if for no other reason than to refute it. This reminds me of Neal Adams who I once had a pretty violent argument with over his expanding earth theory, which quite frankly is mind blowingly impossible. Cartoonists have no right trying to refute science in my opinion. Heres a link for a good laugh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1oza6jybOA

]]> By: gfish3000 http://noisyastronomer.com/2009/02/27/stepping-into-the-intelligent-design-debate/#comment-234 gfish3000 Fri, 27 Feb 2009 05:44:00 +0000 http://astronoise.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/stepping-into-the-intelligent-design-debate/#comment-234 The supposed mathematical calculations of how likely self replicating cells are to arise by chance coming from creationists suffer from the same exact problem. They calculate the amount of molecules or atoms and the probability they would line up in this exact sequence out of thin air, totally disregarding both natural selection and basic organic chemistry.<br/><br/>Creationists also use another formula that's generally used to predict how functional proteins arise and is actually used by biologists today to prove their point. But what they do is to plug the probability that every single living thing on this planet evolved the way it did and had the functional proteins it had. Which is not what the formula was designed to do. It was intended to look for a functional protein from molecular pairings, not calculate existential randomness. The supposed mathematical calculations of how likely self replicating cells are to arise by chance coming from creationists suffer from the same exact problem. They calculate the amount of molecules or atoms and the probability they would line up in this exact sequence out of thin air, totally disregarding both natural selection and basic organic chemistry.

Creationists also use another formula that’s generally used to predict how functional proteins arise and is actually used by biologists today to prove their point. But what they do is to plug the probability that every single living thing on this planet evolved the way it did and had the functional proteins it had. Which is not what the formula was designed to do. It was intended to look for a functional protein from molecular pairings, not calculate existential randomness.

]]>