Joined: Jan. 2006
|Quote (qetzal @ Mar. 26 2006,13:38)|
|I was surprised to learn from Mrs. Barton that:|
|Natural selection clearly occurs within species as an adaptive mechanism. I.D. theory does not deny or even address this, nor does it address the question of whether natural selection could lead to the development of entirely new species. I.D. theory is concerned with the origin of life only.|
Has anyone told Behe? Dembski? The DI?
This is the thing about ID that's always dazzled me the most: no two ID followers ever tell the same story. They're completely incapable of getting on the same page. It seems to mean a different thing to each and every one of its followers, like snowflakes. However, given that ID has no research and no peer-reviewed literature, and that most of its advocates have probably never read most of the books written about it, this is what we'd expect. Sociologically ID really is more like some kind of folk religion which has gone off in a million different directions.
This is of course what people mean when they point out that there is no theory of Intelligent Design. Sigh.
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus