Posted: Jan 22, 2011 4:51 pm
Царь Славян wrote:Tsar, you are a willfully ignorant cunt, because any biologist would understand what the implications of GRN's in development and evolution. And any biologist would understand that ID is not science. Grow up, and don't splatter your stinking intellectual diarrhea here.
Michael Behe is a biologist, he claims that ID is science, so that proves you wrong.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8 ... -told.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html
Q = questioner
A = Michael Behe
Testifying in court under oath.
Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes.
Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?
A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.
Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?
A That is correct.
Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes, that's correct.