Darwin's meme: or the origin of culture by means of natural selection
Out of context: Reply #88
- Started
- Last post
- 100 Responses
- Brookoioioi0
Again,
ID is creationism.
ID is nothing more than a handful of crticisms of current evolutionary theory coupled with the assertion that a higher intelligence (God) exists.
Tell your agnostic friends whatever you like.
These so called peer-reviewed papers do not really have any credability either.
It is unfortunatley (for you) too easy to discredit these obvious attempts at legitimacy you have cited;
(seeing as you're so fond of geocities)
http://www.geocities.com/lclane2…
"Letter to the editor - Nature 432, 897 (2004) - original
Sir – I cannot in all honesty share in the anxiety surrounding publication of a dubious paper on 'intelligent design' — regarded by most scientists as a version of creationism — in a journal with an impact factor of less than one. Your News story "Peer-reviewed paper defends theory of intelligent design" (Nature 431, 114; 2004) suggests that getting an intelligent-design paper into a peer-reviewed journal is a huge achievement for creationism. I am more surprised it took so long to get one in.The paper in question presents no new arguments and is unremarkable in any way except in that it has been published. It appeared in a journal that, until this particular editorial decision, enjoyed much-deserved obscurity. Proponents of intelligent design would have us believe that this publication is a testament to the scientific legitimacy of their theory — although the editor has since left and the journal has disowned the paper as "inappropriate" (see Nature, 431, 237; 2004)."
And you're evidence for ressurection is even worse...
Again, Creationism, in its current form as ID, explains exactly and precisely nothing. All it can do is point to apparent flaws in evolution and suggest.
"if theory A is wrong, then automatically theory B must be right..."