3
Joseph
August 23, 2011 at 7:46 am
Elizabeth:
Gil, are you saying that the vast numbers of scientists who do accept the Darwinian theory of evolution are “not involved in real science”?
If it is untestable, scientifically, is it science?
Dr Behe asked:
Let’s turn the tables and ask, how could one falsify the claim that, say, the bacterial flagellum was produced by Darwinian processes?
We are still waiting for an answer…
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey joe-boi, is the so-called 'ID theory/inference' NOT science, if it is untestable, scientifically? It must be, since it is untestable, scientifically. I'm glad that's settled.
Scientists, and other rational people, are still waiting for something in the 'ID theory/inference' that is actually scientifically testable.
Joseph
August 23, 2011 at 7:46 am
Elizabeth:
Gil, are you saying that the vast numbers of scientists who do accept the Darwinian theory of evolution are “not involved in real science”?
If it is untestable, scientifically, is it science?
Dr Behe asked:
Let’s turn the tables and ask, how could one falsify the claim that, say, the bacterial flagellum was produced by Darwinian processes?
We are still waiting for an answer…
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey joe-boi, is the so-called 'ID theory/inference' NOT science, if it is untestable, scientifically? It must be, since it is untestable, scientifically. I'm glad that's settled.
Scientists, and other rational people, are still waiting for something in the 'ID theory/inference' that is actually scientifically testable.
