I get soooo ... tired ... of these people, who would make as much sense denying atomic fission. "Well, show me a PROOF that it works. No, I DON'T want to get a degree in physics so that I understand the details ... I want YOU to explain them to me right now on this thread."

Back to lurking ...

Wow, Steve, you sure called *that* one.

That is just utter nonsense. First off the mechanism of duplication and loss of function can produce irreduciple complexity. All of Behe's examples have been shown to be severl lacking in terms of irreducible complexity. Dembski's work is just very bad mathematics.

Goodnight.

That these puzzlers have hit a few of the soft spots in current Darwinian Theory raises the hackles of those who say "damn, we haven't gotten to that yet". Or, "it 'will' be solved within the Darwinian Theory."

It appears that most scientists want to quash the people and not address the puzzles. How very dishonest.

I've read the original papers by the IDCists. The characterization of Dembski's work as "information theory" is quite a stretch as his work is unoriginal and often wide of the mark.

Typically, Creationists are really bad at information theory. Dembski included.

RJN,

One more time: Domenech did not try to enlist Gould as a supporter of ID. He did the permissible thing an advocate, like yourself for instance, can do; he advocated. He attached significance to the fact that Gould also had problems with neo-Darwinian evolution.

This not what Domenech did. Saying, "Gould had issues with some aspects of the neo-Darwinian synthesis," is one thing. Saying that this therefore implies that Gould lent weight to ID is dishonest.

By the way; long before I had heard of Creationism, or ID, I had heard of Gould. I used to watch his stuff on PBS. I was aware of his �Punctuated Equilibrium� postulate, and thought at the time that this was interesting and, at least somewhat, supportive of a creation story.

Oh for heaven's sake. Punk Eq is fully consistent with both methodological naturalism and evolutionary theory in specific. Gould set up somewhat of a strawman when in regards to neo-Darwinism when he first presented Punk Eq, but that doesn't mean Gould supported ID or Creationism.

floyd,

If this is shrill, I can't help you, just skip my posts then.

Just who in the hell is Ben Domenech, I heve heard of him, EVER.

What make him another "Expert" We have a world full of experts.

And, Who gives a damn what he has to say. about anything.

Guess he's just seeking his 15 minutes.

One more time: Domenech did not try to enlist Gould as a supporter of ID. He did the permissible thing an advocate, like yourself for instance, can do; he advocated. He attached significance to the fact that Gould also had problems with neo-Darwinian evolution.

By the way; long before I had heard of Creationism, or ID, I had heard of Gould. I used to watch his stuff on PBS. I was aware of his "Punctuated Equilibrium" postulate, and thought at the time that this was interesting and, at least somewhat, supportive of a creation story. That thought sprang from the rational regions of my mind, before I was told I had faith based regions that were disqualifying my rational regions.

The road is long, but we are patient.

Unless you have read and understand the original research papers I would suggest you refrain from merely throwing mud.

That has got to be the most ridiculous thing you've posted in a long time. It isn't that Domenech believes in ID, but that he tried to enlist Gould as one of the people supporting ID. The record is quite clear that Gould supported nothing like ID. Ever. This makes Domenech either dishonest, stupid or both.

floyd,

Then skip these kinds of posts. If you find my "zealotry" for sound science and relying on empirical evidence when evaluating scientific hypotheses too much to stomach, then my only suggestion is to not read them.

If sometimes the saint sees something that eludes earthly proof, but is clearly sensible, and a desirable advance in evolution, he can claim that there may be a designer. He is not dishonest to do so and remain an objective researcher.

If, in reaction to his posing the question of ID, he is vilified as faith driven, and he knows better, he is free to observe the obvious that the atheist complainer is also faith driven.

Happy trails.

It is not dishonest to claim that Gould had some doubts about neo-Darwin evolution. You, not Domenech, or me, are the one claiming that this is tantamount to endorsment of ID. Gould did not endorse ID, and we donâ??t claim he did. Say that to yourself ten times before you transgress again.

Actually Domenech did. Read the quote again,

He canâ??t just dismiss intelligent design as â??empyâ?? or â??full of lies or dogma,â?? when no less prominent an evolutionist than Stephen Jay Gould has lent weight to the theories of Michael Behe and his brethren.

Gould despised all forms of creationism and ID as promulgated by the Discovery Institute is a form of Creationism. The implication is quite clear.

I also believe that science and religion occupy different, non-intersecting, but perhaps adjacent, spheres of intellectual pursuit.

Then I suggest that your beef is with Behe, Dembski, Wells, Witt, and the rest of the Discovery Institute people since they clearly see otherwise. Each and everyone of them sees the designer as God, and that methodological naturalsim is a form of atheism.

I personally reject that latter claim, and am agnostic on God and would quite happily leave God out of any and all discussion of evolutionary theory.

And to call Domenech dishonest is, in my view, utterly dishonest, even if you donâ??t realize the dishonesty.

For some people no amount of empirical evidence is sufficient to get them to change their mind...or in this case see the obvious.