Help me understand Intelligent Design

Dr J, I mean just wait for another generation. It is superlatively clear to me that I can not do my work in this generation. Given 911 it will only be more of this same kind of 40yrs of my life time and some other non-Christian group will realize the maths, besides it was arabs who got a lot of western civ up to Pascalian math inducation gambling on its past, not future. If you seperate "foundation" and "irrefutable" then in fact I would disagree with you. There is no reason to disagree as most evcers seem indeed to realize. I happen to think that creationism might even change its focus on (against) evolution if terrorism causes the status quo to change rather than what little legally creationists themselves can create. They are just too small a population base. Other religions are not. It only takes to show them how the form of the Gospel as a vehicle was analogically replacing the Kantian organon in the sources of Creationism in America. They will figure the rest out if we dont first.You say you know (it) to be false but if you had to worry about anthrax in your email you might find a change of hear acoming if they and other religious nations end up chaning our view of disease in the process of eradicating terroism. There is no design for the effect ofs terrorism. It is only destruction. Non-design will never get you there.

I suppose Ramoss that you would be ok with this paragraph in Science (16 Sept. 2005 Vol 309 p 1796)

quote:

---

Darwin's critics make much of the a distinction between "teaching the controversy" - that is, highlighting what they see as scientific descrepancies in Darwinian theory and - teaching ID. "We oppose any effort to require teachingabout ID. .... WE think that simply politicizes [intelligent] design," says West, adding that Discovery is keen on teaching "scientific" criticisms of evolution. But Miller calls this point " a distinction without a difference...ID is nothing except these arguments against evolution."

---

then?

& if none(big T word) arises in the next fiver years ...then I'll agree with you (then).
There is some superfludity among "theory", "hypothesis", "postualate(ation)."Figenbaum left Cornell for NYC because despite there being good physics in Ithaca the people were not doing what was really going on.Figenbaum made it superlatively clear that if clouds were then kinematics needs be decripted before dynamics are writ. The events ostentibly within range of ID are not this domain of mechanics. They would be if ID was not only arguements but reason against any rate of change in evolution.I think so, Miller is however mistaken to have thought there never will be another bigger T lept by superIDman. That is just his belief against mine say. It is mathematically clear to me that there is not but "a distinction without a difference" Miller can read EVC if he wishes. So the statement "ID is nothing except these arguments against evolution.", if it refers to really "nothing" must only be speaking in the same tone that Gingerich did when seperating big I and other i. It is clear that Discoverers are not "selling" ID(strange thing about 'merica is that if it gets into the courts or the politics, if it is to survive, it must "sell" advertising"". If one holds a particular indiviudalism in evolution theory no thinking is necessary at that point. Now if Derrida's death was applied to ID where Derrida DID refer to sourced US creationism then there is no way Miller could be correct about what I could write in the next 5 years.What is not clear to me is if a canon necessitates ID. To state ONLY that ID is a distinction without a difference is to fail to observe any averge posting cycle on EVC. That's the difference. I see how biology might be IDistic without being constructed only "against" evolution. If evolutionists think that is going to work this time around to say the changes in creationism are only responses to evolutionary changes and thought, they would be not only sorely mistaken but only listening to Wolfram tones on th
WolframTones
eir Ipod. That's a joke. I hate being serious all the time.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLI think it was Gould who made the quip that(THE) tower was not made to strech the paint at it's tip!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-30-2005 02:12 PM

Rupert Sheldrakecuriously thought something like this.In my teens I had rejected everything associated with "morphic resonance" sensu stricto and thinking I had thought something Roger Penrose said, I made up my own version of a single-wave that not only could in effect cutout an entire valley but also change the chemical makeup of creatures given the relative long permanence of forms over geological time.Seeing that Larson insisted
Review of Edward Larson's Evolution : The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory (Modern Library Chronicles) - BrothersJudd.com
the Fisher "shout out" against Wright was simply that the population genetics are subject to continual continental changes and it has only recently been possible to do causal analysis where Wright used "back variables" to trace back paths of inheritance(Shipleyread it for free @) whereas Wright said that path analysis of forms (size,homologous organs, individual organs, measurements) IS NOT even in effect of the cause lik psychological measures of IQ, it seems that ID might have struck a new nerve chord, regardless it is clearer than day that Croizat inverted Wright's vision in any thought Sheldrake might have had cellularly. We know on EVC that there is no evidence it is new. I just say it might be trying to say something probabilistically where ID is not like IQ but more like ANATOMICAL PATH ANALYSIS of HEIRIBILITY contra Shipley's economic prescription.I have not reviewed Shipley so this is hardly fair but I think the thought of an idol picking out the "resonance" is not impossible if various uses of infinite math were instructing current science. Granted they are not but it has always seemed to me a logical possiblity. I would have then have said that a "correlational shadow" is case by the Intelligent Designer. This could become part of the sources of instruction but I still do doubt that Sheldrake's specific idea will be found within it.I tend to disregrad all of this becuase I think that more thought is needed on Boscovich's "ATOM" Page Not Found - MacTutor History of Mathematics
in the frame of determinant "genetic atomism" but hey that is just me in the small.

Tis true about the drake but I was only a teenager then.What I do not understand is how Will Provine can sleep at night knowing that I, BSM, however am not to be taken seriously.This possible purpose = function lay behind an extensive attempt of me to materialize population genetics before his eyes. I even PUT the paper copy IN his Cornell Mail Box. He will give Johnson an ear but not my dear... me!
http://EvC Forum: All species are transitional -->EvC Forum: All species are transitional
There seems to be a disconnect between intuitive and discursive cognitions going on.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 10-11-2005 11:51 AM