That is the difference between science and fanaticism. Scientists will admit when they don't know something. That's why there is still research going on - if we knew everything, what would we need to research for? Fanatics on the other hand already have an idea and will use gaps in knowledge to fit their fanatic ideas into. In reality, their arguments show a severe lack in logic
well....sorry!....but the real fanatics are the "scientists falsely so called" because they automatically pre-exclude any non-naturalistic explanation....its automatically ruled "out of court";
i can, in fact, cite you just such a quote from John Maddox, the (former) editor of Nature;
their "fanatical" religion is called methodological, atheistic naturalism;
here's a good little picture of it!
No such thing as Darwinism.
And Evolution is far from dead - it is actually a scientific fact.
get with it!
Darwinism died a long time ago.....well....neo-Darwinism....or the neo-Darwinian theory.....the current paradigm!
the people spruiking this nonsense are going to be made to look increasingly stoopid!
the results of the ENCODE project have pretty much nailed them to the wall!
wake up to the 21st century......Intelligent Design is the paradigm! ![Cool 8)](/Smileys/default/cool.gif)
[/quote]
uh....really?
perhaps you could explain how information and complex nano-type machinery could arise w/out the intervention of an intelligent agent......in this case.....a super-Intelligent Agent! ![Huh? ???](/Smileys/default/huh.gif)
You are still inaccurately asserting that the inability to explain something is the automatic proof of something else.
Complex systems are certainly possible in evolution, especially when one understands how things like protein facilitators and enzymes work.
You still have nothing to directly point to a designer.
exactly!
and the fact that complex, self-reproducing molecular machinery and information-driven and controlled recursive sub-sytems could not have originated naturally (since no known laws of Physics could produce such systems), ipso facto, defaults to the only viable explanation.....(super)-Intelligent Design ![Shocked :o](/Smileys/default/shocked.gif)
You are speculating that it could not originate naturally. You have no evidence that it cannot.
not really!
none of Behe's original assertions (contained in his first book, "Darwin's Black Box") have been answered;
in fact: they haven't even been satisfactorily addressed;
he 'touches' on this in the Blogging Heads 'interview' and goes into it in more depth in his most recent book "The Edge of Evolution"And how do you address assertions that are based entirely on questions about what is not yet known and yet still has nothing to do with the issue they are trying to project as true? Science is still looking for the answers. Finding gaps in knowledge and superimposing super-individuals in as an explanation and claiming it as fact is the same thing that religions do (look at Zeus in Greek mythology for the explanation for lightning). There is no way as of yet to prove an intelligent designer as there is no evidence, so any attempt to do so is the work of fanaticism and not science.
there is an "answer" and a very good one....its called Intelligent Design!
You are stuck with the idea you have been brain-washed with.
Intelligent design is a possible explanation, but not the only one. You and anyone else have yet to provide any proof that intelligent design is the answer.
And even if intelligent design was someday shown to be the answer, there would always be the question: where did the intelligent designer come from.
Science will never be finished asking questions - that's the fun of it. We never assume to know anything for sure. We look for evidence.
well....sorry!....but the real fanatics are the "scientists falsely so called" because they automatically pre-exclude any non-naturalistic explanation....its automatically ruled "out of court";
i can, in fact, cite you just such a quote from John Maddox, the (former) editor of Nature;
their "fanatical" religion is called methodological, atheistic naturalism;
here's a good little picture of it!
Now I know you are a joke lol
You say scientists are labeled falsely because they follow the evidence they have? There is no evidence for any non-naturalistic explanation. Scientists follow evidence. If you do not have evidence, you do not have anything.
get with it!
Darwinism died a long time ago.....well....neo-Darwinism....or the neo-Darwinian theory.....the current paradigm!
the people spruiking this nonsense are going to be made to look increasingly stoopid!
the results of the ENCODE project have pretty much nailed them to the wall!
wake up to the 21st century......Intelligent Design is the paradigm! ![Cool 8)](/Smileys/default/cool.gif)
[/quote]
Again - no such thing as Darwinism in science.
I believe the word you are referring to is Evolution.
I have yet to see anyone trying disprove evolution look anything but stupid... or at the very least lacking in the ability to argue logically.