[quote=DBT]A creationist site that talks about cherry picking....that's irony for you.
And one of the authors;
''William Dembski is one of the main pushers of the pseudoscience of intelligent design, specifically his unfalsifiable concept of "specified complexity".
Unusual for a creationist, he does in fact have some actual credentials: a Ph.D in mathematics from the University of Chicago, a Ph.D in philosophy from the University of Illinois at Chicago, and a Masters of Divinity from Princeton Theological Seminary. Now, if only one of those fine institutions recognized Intelligent Design as being anything but an absolute hodgepodge of nonsense, he'd be set
Dembski has written a bunch of convoluted books about intelligent design, including The Design InferenceWikipedia's W.svg (1998), Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & TheologyWikipedia's W.svg (1999), The Design RevolutionWikipedia's W.svg (2004), The End of Christianity (2009), and Intelligent Design Uncensored (2010).
Interestingly, none of his qualifications in any way relate to the natural sciences. He once held a non-tenured position at Baylor University but was fired for being an all-around jerk (he maintains that he was dismissed in order to discredit or censor the research of his newly-founded Evolutionary Informatics Lab). ''
You appeal to blind faith to make the statement about creationists not having credential. In order to participate at Institute for Creation Research one has to have either a masters degree in science or a doctorate degree in science.
Your charge of 'faith' is false. Creationists are free to publish papers, present their evidence just like anyone who works in the field and actually understands the subject matter, they are free to falsify evolution if they are able. But they are not able.
They are not able because their work is flawed. It is biased toward a preconceived conclusion that the world and life is created. So in order to make the evidence fit their assumption of creation they must engage in the way described in the articles I provided.
The creationist material is not aimed at the scientific community but theists who glance over it and get a sense of justification a sense of legitimacy where none exists.
Sorry if that sounds harsh, but that is the situation. Evolution is not in doubt.
Your answer is not harsh. It is silly. Again you make a bold assertion that is not supported by the facts. Evolution is in doubt by lots of people. Watch the video "Expelled! No intelligence Allowed." Don't read someone's opinion. Do it yourself.
Instead of attacking the work of ICR, how about picking one of their current topics of study and bring us your critique.
Scientific theories are supposed to be falsifiable, but Neo-Darwinism is not one of them. Why? Because it is a deduction from materialism, which for Darwinists is axiomatically true. Accordingly, something akin to ne-Darwinism must be true virtually as a matter of logical necessity. This is why, for example, Darwinists refuse to accept that notwithstanding that in all of human experience, information always proceeds from mind, and notwithstanding that the complexity of information necessary to instantiate and to change life could not possibly have happened by random mutation and chance, intelligent design is nevertheless ruled out of order. Why? Because it does not indulge the materialist philosophical prejudice that is axiomatic to the alleged truth of Neo-Darwinism and which disqualifies all competing non-materialist theories regardless of how well they are supported evidentiarily. In sum, evolution is not falsifiable because it is fundamentally a philosophical (viz. religious) system of thought, not an empirical one and any competing theory which does not indulge the underlying materialist prejudice is ruled out of order virtually by definition. And then of course, you have the related problem that competing theories are simply not permitted to set foot in the public square. Witness the sneering caricature of the "creationist" label applied to anyone who doubts the grand, unsupported claims of Darwinism, as if in merely doubting they magically become 6 day biblical literalists. This is the stock in trade of the defense of Neo-Darwinism. It has been on display in this thread in spades. It stands for the proposition that honest discussion of argument and evidence must not be permitted to occur and the reason it cannot be permitted to occur is because Neo-Darwinists are deathly afraid of that discussion occurring. That's why they don't want criticism of Darwinism even discussed in the public school. They know that if people hear the actual evidence and arguments the cultural power of the Neo-Darwinists will evaporate. What we actually have now in this country is a state religion----the state religion of materialism with its creation myth, Neo-Darwinism. The neo-Darwinian creation story has replaced the old theistic one and maintaining cultural power against the hated theists is all-important, the truth be damned.
You are setting your own terms and conditions. Evolution is based on observation, evidence and testing, therefore it is falsifiable. You may be thinking of faith and conflating the two.
