Re: Ben Stein's Movie EXPELLED - Could we have been "designed"

"Brian E. Clark" wrote:
> 
> In article <481B1670.C91458AD@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Bill Bonde
> ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal
> attack' ) said...
> 
> > Creationism "jibes" with known facts.
> 
> Alas for you, no. The creationist notion of a kind, to
> mention just one problem, is at odds with biological
> reality. Likewise the contention made by creationists
> that microevolution and macroevolution describe two
> very different phenomena is incorrect on both
> evidentiary and conceptual grounds.
> 
Really? If it can be shown that polar bears and grizzly bears are
types of brown bear, does that proof that bears are related to
fish? No, it doesn't. The idea that all the creates that exist
today must be "kinds" is absurd. If "microevolution" were to exist,
the various "kinds" could ****ft to accommodate their environs, but
still be "kinds".

The fact that life generally uses DNA doesn't prove a common
evolutionary ancestry any more than the fact that IBM and Apple
both use solder proves that their computers are made by the same
company. If space aliens (or God) put Life on earth based on
"kinds", why not use the same underlying technology?



> (Also, why did you put the perfectly normal word jibe
> inside scare quotes?)
> 
I was quoting the person I replied to. That's one use for quotes.




> > In fact, Creationism has no problem explaining
> > everything that we see today.
> 
> Creationism explains nothing. "God did it" is not a
> scientific explanation.
>
This is because it isn't falsifiable. But there is no doubt that it
is an explanation and it can be ****fted to conform with any
observation or experiment. You might find the ****fts unbelievable,
but that doesn't stop string theorists either.



> More elaborate descriptions
> amount to the same thing. "God gave squirrels the fur,
> fluffy tails and large incisors they need to fill
> the niche he created for them" is meaningless from a
> scientific point of view.
> 
Keep in mind, you are replying to the following: " Creationism has
no problem explaining everything that we see today." Creationism,
as you describe it, isn't a scientific theory. But it is an
explanation.



> > > String theory differs from Creationism in another way:
> > > When technology has advanced such that the predictions
> > > of string theory can be tested, string theory will
> > > stand or fall by the results of the tests.
> > >
> > Or they'll just change to a new string theory.
> 
> So what? That's how science progresses. The new
> theory will, like the others, be vulnerable to the
> blade of disproof.
> 
If the theory is infinitely malleable, the theory will not submit
to falsification.



> All the while, though, creationists will be insisting
> that their own long-disproved ideas be treated as
> viable alternative theories.
> 
What makes "God did it" worse than "Let's add in a few more
dimensions to fix up this observation or experiment"?



> This is where you get very confused about the
> difference between scientific inquiry and creationism,
> Bill. Making wrong guesses is not unscientific.
> Clinging to wrong guesses is.
>
There is no scientific evidence against the existence of "God".




-- 
"Question, two men starving to death decide to eat their hair like
spaghetti. Is that funny?"
"Hmmm, well, it depends on if by funny you want to make people
laugh."
-+Eddie Izzard and Joanna Lumley, "The Cat's Meow"