Cephus
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2007
- Messages
- 31,034
- Reaction score
- 11,932
- Location
- CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
You're wrong, there are some people who are trying to do real science with ID. Just read the Nagel paper I linked to, he mentions a number of such scientists.
It mentioned Michael Behe, who is a complete joke in scientific circles. He's never published a single scientific paper on ID, mostly because there's no science involved. Even his son thinks he's a religious wingnut. Try again.
Instead, all I see is closed mindedness towards ID coming from people who purport to represent the scientific method. If you genuinely support science you don't shoot down ideas before they've been tested.
They've been tested, at least as far as they're capable of being tested. They failed. They were discarded. If anyone manages to actually describe ID in a manner which can be genuinely tested, let us know. We won't hold our breath.
Last edited: