Re: Do I have to be an expert to get performance: CL versus Perl

David Trudgett <wpower@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> no position, ID is not science.") What it does is affirm the fact that
> proposing an intelligence behind the origins and development of life
> in the universe gets too close to affirming a god,

Actually it gets too close to confirming absolute hopeless stupidity
in humans.

> Judge: "This rigorous attachment to natural explanations is an
> essential attribute to science by definition and by convention." -- by
> which he means that the existence of an intelligent life principle

No, all he means here is the simple ordinary key defining aspect of
science: any proposal that is to be considered scientific must be
falsifiable. So called "intelligent design" aka "creationism" aka
"creation 'science'" is by _definition_ not falsifiable.

> is "science" and the alternative is not. This is just the situation in
> which evolution scientists find themselves today: their theory does
> not simply have "gaps" in it, but has pretty much been completely
> destroyed by the counter evidence.

Sorry, this is total absolute nonsense and stunningly against all
known facts. Even for the "scientists" advocating "ID" the most they
can muster is that the current state of understanding of "evolution"
(which is in fact a pretty multifaceted thing), cannot yet explain
everything that is observed. BFD. That's true of almost explanation.
Of course if your an "ID" kind of guy I guess you may claim that it
explains everything - simply by fiat.


> the claim that the mountain of evidence against evolution theory has

There isn't _any_ evidence _against_ it. You are simply wrong.


> considerations that leads one to consider intelligent design as a
> serious possibility. In fact, the various complexity arguments


> ("irreducible complexity" is only one of them, and not even the best
> one when understood simplistically) constitute an *extremely* strong
> attack on random, survival of the fittest evolution (which is what

_Arguments_ here are totally _irrelevant_. You must show hard
objective physical _evidence_ which _contradicts_ the notions in
evolution. That's how real science works. The fact that all
currently known observations either i) are neutral or ii) directly
support the tenets of evolution are why the whole "ID" thrust is
completely confused and basically incoherent.


> Sounds like you should read a few books on the subject. Of course, if

Sounds like you need to get a basic grip on what science is and what
religion is and how the two are _fundamentally_ different.


> you are a committed atheist, then something like "evolution" *must*
> have occurred, because there is no other possibility.

Get a hold of yourself man!


> That is what scientists really mean when they put evolution up on an
> unassailable pedestal as they do.

It's not unassiable at all. If you can bring real evidence to bear
which directly conflicts with the tenets of the theory (yes it _is_ a
theory - just like the theory of Special or General Relativity - BFD),
then you will have gone a long way to showing what you so desparately
want to believe - that it is incorrect. No one has done this and
further, there is a _lot_ of confirming evidence.


> A lot of people (most, I would say) don't know what intelligent design

Here's another thing to think about: the whole idea (which is the
fundamental claim) that high levels of complexity involve _any_ kind
of _design_ is just plain crazy.


/Jon

--
'j' - a n t h o n y at romeo/charley/november com
.