Comments on: “Signature in the Cell” Tampa: Part 3 http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2010/02/03/signature-in-the-cell-tampa-part-3/ Wesley R. Elsberry's personal weblog, talking about falconry, science, antievolution, computation, and the broken body he lives in. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:25:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Austringer http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2010/02/03/signature-in-the-cell-tampa-part-3/comment-page-1/#comment-312645 Austringer Sat, 06 Feb 2010 02:27:00 +0000 http://austringer.net/wp/?p=1948#comment-312645 I'll be listening to the recording they've made available, so I'll be on the lookout for that. I'd like to say yes offhand based on my attendance, but I'd like to confirm it in another listen. I’ll be listening to the recording they’ve made available, so I’ll be on the lookout for that. I’d like to say yes offhand based on my attendance, but I’d like to confirm it in another listen.

]]> By: R Hampton http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2010/02/03/signature-in-the-cell-tampa-part-3/comment-page-1/#comment-312642 R Hampton Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:03:50 +0000 http://austringer.net/wp/?p=1948#comment-312642 It occurred to me that the most glaring (lack of) evidence for Intelligent Design Theory is a relational map of life. Stephen Meyer, for example, often talks of different "body plans" that could not have naturally evolved and thus have no common ancestors. For want of a better term, ID theory implies a "corn field" model wherein rows of organisms stand unconnected to each other. Yet Meyer, Behe, et al. have never used ID to propose an intelligently designed map of life wherein irreducibly complex structures cleave branches off of the "Tree of Life". If ID is to have any scientific value (humor me for a moment) then it must be capable of predicting said organization with some meaningful specificity. Scientists should demand that ID theorists produce such a model. That is, make them put their balls on the table by either submitting an easily discredited model or admitting (in public) the incoherence of their theory. It occurred to me that the most glaring (lack of) evidence for Intelligent Design Theory is a relational map of life. Stephen Meyer, for example, often talks of different “body plans” that could not have naturally evolved and thus have no common ancestors. For want of a better term, ID theory implies a “corn field” model wherein rows of organisms stand unconnected to each other. Yet Meyer, Behe, et al. have never used ID to propose an intelligently designed map of life wherein irreducibly complex structures cleave branches off of the “Tree of Life”.

If ID is to have any scientific value (humor me for a moment) then it must be capable of predicting said organization with some meaningful specificity. Scientists should demand that ID theorists produce such a model. That is, make them put their balls on the table by either submitting an easily discredited model or admitting (in public) the incoherence of their theory.

]]> By: John Farrell http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2010/02/03/signature-in-the-cell-tampa-part-3/comment-page-1/#comment-312641 John Farrell Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:41:11 +0000 http://austringer.net/wp/?p=1948#comment-312641 Curious, has he also been parroting Gilder's nonsense about the "message" being independent of the medium? Curious, has he also been parroting Gilder’s nonsense about the “message” being independent of the medium?

]]>