My Photo
Mobilise this Blog

Google

InvestigateDaily

INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.TV

Kiwiblog

New Zealand Conservative

InvestigatePodcast

AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] investigatemagazine.com and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« The "educations" of Sheryl Crow | Main | Breaking News - Sir Ed hospitalised »

Comments

fugley

Just like the rest of ID, the UNDiscovery Institute provide no evidence, no proof, not even reasonable suspicion that the change was made by an "evolutionist".

For all we know, the change may have been made by Michael Egnor himself.

peter

This is the best definition:

"Reverse engineering … is the process of discovering the technological principles of a device or object or system through analysis of its structure, function and operation. It often involves taking something (e.g. a mechanical device, an electronic component, a software program) apart and analyzing its workings in detail, usually to try to make a new device or program that does the same thing without copying anything from the original. The verb form is to reverse engineer."

I don't see any reason to link it to "scientific method". I don't see any need to reference physics or biology.

What is the small sensation here?

Psycho Milt

Gosh. Somebody altered a definition in Wikipedia! Unheard of! It must have been one of those dirty, stinking Darwinists!

Some kind soul really should mention to Mr Egnor how Wikipedia works. I also feel a sense of sadness picturing him looking at a series of exposed rock strata and "reverse-engineering" them to prove a designer must have laid them there.

Roger D

That's all you've got? Pathetic. I love how the Internet brings all these loons to the surface.

Fletch

If it was me, I'd change it back again.

usabikes

A couple fo years ago I attended a debate in our town between a literal seven-day Creation Scientist and three proponents of the Evolutionary standpoint. One of those supporting the evolutionary position was Dr. David Penny, New Zealand's leading evolutionary scientist and winner of the Rutherford award for Scientific achievement. Dr Penny impressed me as being a man concerned with the facts rather than defending an ideological position - a real, live scientist.

After the debate I approached Dr. Penny and asked him what his views were on the ID theory of Irreducible Complexity. He surprised me by saying that ID scientists and evolutionary scientists had a lot to share together that could help us all get closer to the truth. This is because Evolutionists have real problems in explaining the problem of the "gaps" in the believed progress of evolution from one genus to another and ID has something to offer in this area. He went on to say that each form of life fulfills its designed purpose. At this juncture I was genuinely surprised and pointed out to him that he just used the word "design", to which he said "yes, that's right". So here is New Zealand's leading evolutionary scientist stating that there is design present in the universe and that Evolutionary theory has problems explaining the one thing that is commonly taken to be its given - how things evolve from one type of life to another! I hope you find our exchange as enlightening as I did.

peter

Maybe he was telling you what you wanted to here USA Bikes. Were you carrying a large spanner at the time?

Mike

Hey!
There is nothing complicated at all about life ... those that want to put it down to 'intelligent design' are clearly wrong ...

All higher life, such as eukaryotic organisms share a common organelle based architecture ...

God got lazy ... very very very lazy ... nd we are just starting to understand how cells work ...

Mike

Hey!
There is nothing complicated at all about life ... those that want to put it down to 'intelligent design' are clearly wrong ...

All higher life, such as eukaryotic organisms share a common organelle based architecture ...

God got lazy ... very very very lazy ... and we are just starting to understand how cells work ...

peter

USA Bikes

You should read what Judge Jones had to say about "Irreducible Complexity" in his judgement in the US. Very embarrassing for Michael Behe.

Basically irreducible complexity is irrelevant because reducible complexity is a concept without any apparent application in nature.

usabikes

Thank you Peter - we all know about the papal infallibility of US courts :)

If I rememebr rightly the ruling made some unsubstantiated links between ID and some sort of "back door" method of involving religion in the area of science in schools - like it was some sort of Creationist plot of something. This is really off and I'm sure the judge exceed the available evidence on this as ID is both a response to the perceived inadequacies of Creationism and Evolution, there simply is no "plot".

I'm no scientist but I found the opinion of our top evolutionary biologist to be one that should be dismissed lightly.

peter

Judge Jones found three grounds upon which one could exclude Intelligent Design from a genuine Science syllabus.

And yes. I believe he and many others have seen Intelligent Design as a devious plot to get Creationism back in the classroom.

peasant

Science and Religion: When Does a Conflict Take Place? by Rev. Robert Evans OAM

The comments to this entry are closed.