Title Author Date

rebuttal of bembski Lucas, Scott Feb 01, 2006

I apologize, I can't resist.

Come on, where's the math?

using a fisheries and wildlife professor's comments as a rebuttal to a mathematician.

I think we can all agree that the detection of design, I wont say ID, but design detection will be a useful science someday, but now it is in its stages of infancy. However, it will rest on mathematics, stat mech and information theory.

Evolution has yet to explain the complexity and the tiny machines that are awash at the microbiological level that physics has made possible to view. These tiny living automatons have yet to be made in fulfillment of performing functions, storing info and reproducing themselves. If you or I could do that we would be wasting our time discussing evolution. Yes, you biologists and we physicists are different but we have a lot in common. For the biological community to explain chirality in terms of math, which would be a good first step, first take a good look at a thermo book, I suggest "Modern THermodynamics" by Prigogine, chapter 19 is a good place to start for orgin of life and chirality.
The problem with the three levels of evolution at the micro level (I call it ecological adaptation and predators 101), the macrolevel and the chemical orgins of life level is the lack of ID in terms of mathematics. If we ever do make life it will be ID, in the lab and not in the warm little pond as Yockey has demostrated won't happen. This dogmatic insistence by evolutionists that thay have explained it all and can rebut it all is begging the question with no answers. If you guys are this smart please start from scratch and make life, I sure would like to see it. The best you have to show is Urey Miller, which did not work for weeks until a non-eq machine, a cold trap was used to collect amino acids, wasn't that 50 years ago? Where are the living automatoms you guys have made from that experiment?

The only constant in science is change, a 100 years from now when Design Detection is a science and high school seniors take quantum mechanics and stat mech as required courses, the questions against evolution will be even harder to fend off, so you had better make life in the next hundred years and the only way you are going to that is with math, physics and chemistry, noy fairy tales at present.

But, come on, using a wildlife and fisheries professor's letter who never does anything more than the usual rebuttal, answers no questions. Please, go take some physics classes on "Fission", not "Fishin".

Title Author Date

rebuttal of bembski TalkReason , Feb 01, 2006

We have posted this letter from a "physicist" as one more example of the impossibility of outparoding the ID advocates' self-parodies.

Talk Reason