To: miraje who wrote (17913 ) 12/2/2007 12:36:53 PM From: neolib Respond to Why don't you look at the contributions which YEC have actually made to science, largely by being critics of the establishment? Why don't you note that creationists can legitimately point out that there are an astonishingly large number of unknowns in evolution and so clearly evolution should not be considered a fact? Instead you pick the idiotic examples. AGW bashers have plenty of idiotic examples as well, I've posted a few here. Guess what, you can find idiotic examples of AGW supporters as well as evolution supporters. That is human nature. I don't care about the idiot cases, I care about what each side puts forward as their best. That is where the AGW doubters and evolution doubters come up short, and in pretty much identical ways.His position with regard to the IPCC can be summed up with this quotation: "Picking holes in the IPCC is crucial. The notion that if you’re ignorant of something and somebody comes up with a wrong answer, and you have to accept that because you don’t have another wrong answer to offer is like faith healing, it’s like quackery in medicine – if somebody says you should take jelly beans for cancer and you say that’s stupid, and he says, well can you suggest something else and you say, no, does that mean you have to go with jelly beans?"[7] You're asking me to play a game: "Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position." ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC [irreducibly complex] systems that is what ID is discovering.
