Instead, I spent 5 1/2 hours in the dentist's chair yesterday. My dentist, Dr. Shabnam Taherian, and her whole support team at Laguna Niguel Dental Group, are excellent.
And, then last night I came across in the Nature magazine discussion section,
I do not recognise Gary Hurd's characterisation of Intelligent Design . Has he actually studied work in this field, such as that of Stephen Meyer (who has a Cambridge Ph.D. in philosophy, for what that is worth). Hurd seems typical of those who I suspect are scared of the possibility that there may really be a deeper intelligence at work in the natural, and are driven by these fears to avoid examining in a realistic way what experts such as Meyer are in fact doing." Brian Josephson
Dr. Josephson received the 1973 Noble Prize in physics, and has been crazy for a long time. So, I think that my reply to him takes precedence over those other chores.
4 comments:
I just added my two bits:
"A difficulty in any such debate, is that it is inherently a political argument versus the scientific evidence. It is in the interest of Creationists to distort and misinterpret the evidence to their own political ends, which is to create further debate even when the evidence in favor of evolution is resoundingly clear.
We do not get to redefine the rules of science simply because the evidence is against our beliefs. Intelligent Design Creationism lacks anything resembling a rigorously defined hypothesis, and so is not testable. As any student of philosophy should know, when starting with a poorly formed hypothesis it is possible to reach ANY conclusion, no matter how ridiculous. It is this sort of false assumption that brings us methods like Irreducible Complexity, which can be used to disprove _any_ sequence historical events, *not* *just* *evolution*. It should be clear that a method that disproves everything has no value at all.
If there must be a debate, demand the alternative theory and the evidence in support of it. This will make the debate much shorter. (No promises about the length of the argument)."
What's funny about Chatman's gullibility is her inconsistency towards what she defends. She believes these stones disprove evolution in that they depict humans with dinosaurs... Fine, that's expected since thats their MO. But not a mention of why there are depictions of modern medical advances and procedures on them? (she obviously stayed away from the repeated admissions that they were indeed hoaxes... But that's too easy).
Well, regarding Nature magazine, they have obviously surrendered to creationists "negative flagging" my comments. There may be no human involved.
Scumbags.
As I now have learned, the technical reason Nature Mag netnanny banned me was a link to Forest and Gross, "Creationism's Trojan Horse."
Post a Comment