Yes, I’m sure there is no miracle-working god. The belief in such a thing is like a belief in the Tooth Fairy: it’s a bit of fantasy, but not real.

Sorry, but had to stop reading when he “proved” that complexity does not indicate design by pointing out that in a pile of stones, the natural ones with many irregular facets are more complex than the single rectangular (man made) stone among them.

This is supposed to bust the complexity compnent of irreducible complexity?

I wonder what would happen if while examining one of the “natural,” infinitely more complext rocks, Perakh were to drop it and upon cracking open a computer circuit board fell out?

Well, if as he states, simplicity points to intelligence and complexity to chance, then it’s a done deal. The rock with a computer inside is even more likely to be the result of chance, as its complexity is even greater than the initial examination revealed.

Give me a feakin’ break!

You made my point for me. Science drifts from one truth to another. You may say, almost right, close to being right, really close to being right, but science does not deal with truth. Many say that they do but the evidence shows the complete opposite. When evolution is taught in school it is not taught as an almost truth, it is taught as fact. And with a straight face all of science could change their mind tomorrow with new information.

Reading post 33 made my head hurt. I think the logic actually killed off a number of my brain cells. I think I will chance – it and not read the link.

Mr. Adams, here is an article by Mark Perakh that explains why irreducible complexity does not imply intelligent design. It will help you understand ‘chance’.

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Suboptimal.cfm

But we’re not talking about that. As the author of the article above claims, “Definitions Are Everything”. I’m asking if anyone thinks the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the origin of species (three distinct subjects) can – in principle, at least – be understood by humans. There’s no point in arguing about what we know and how we know it if some of the participants don’t think it’s knowable at all…

Now, you can shift the goalposts at this point, and say that the hostility is limited to ID proponents. It’s true that there is hostility there. But I’ve already pointed out that there’s a difference not only in the specific claims that ‘disagree with evolutionary dogma’, but also a difference in the way they make their claims. Science “does… insist that people back up their claims with research and evidence”; Lynn Margulis “actually does science”.

Since I’ve demonstrated that people who “question evolutionary dogma”, but actually back up their claims, are not “ostracized” – what can we conclude about the ID proponents?

Apparently just citing actual data isn’t enough – at least, not enough to avoid two-year-old level “nuh uh!” rejoinders. So, here, let’s quote from the link in question, one of Expelled’s examples:

“Expelled claims that Sternberg was “terrorized” and that “his life was nearly ruined” when, in 2004, as editor of Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, he published a pro-intelligent design article by Stephen C. Meyer. However, there is no evidence of either terrorism or ruination. Before publishing the paper, Sternberg worked for the National Institutes of Health at the National Center for Biotechnology Information (GenBank) and was an unpaid Research Associate – not an employee – at the Smithsonian. He was the voluntary, unpaid editor of PBSW (small academic journals rarely pay editors), and had given notice of his resignation as editor six months before the Meyer article was published. After the Meyer incident, he remained an employee of NIH and his unpaid position at the Smithsonian was extended in 2006, although he has not shown up there in years. At no time was any aspect of his pay or working conditions at NIH affected. It is difficult to see how his life “was nearly ruined” when nothing serious happened to him. He was never even disciplined for legitimate violations of policy of PBSW or Smithsonian policy.”

There’s quite a bit more there, just on him. The other ‘examples’ have similar treatements. (That’s a specific claim anyone can check by, y’know, actually going to the site.)

Mr. Ingles, please, please help me understand “chance,” to which we owe everything.

Mathmatically speaking, what are the odds that something like chance (as a force) came to be at all? And then I would like to know what are the odds that chance, having beaten those odds, produced human beings willing and able to accept the kind of odds you are likely to come up with?

Again, a simple denial of Ben Stein’s examples, or any other instances (which are incredibly easy for any honest person to find, by the way) requires only a brief counter, which I shall do again: Nope, you’re wrong.

And yet another diversion… according to most evolutionists, man is simply a somewhat more sophisticated animal, not a special creation of deity. Therefore I ask again, if humans are the result of undirected forces, there is no logical reason to prevent the dispensing of “unworthy” specimens, is there?

Please, do not obfuscate again.