Double Edge
"That which is"... so now you're saying what? "that which is" according to whom? ... because again, you can find credentialed people taking opposing views.
By saying 'that which is' I am merely pointing out two people in a room could have a different opinion about what is on the table in the middle of the room, but there is only one accurate definiton of what is on the table.
An opinion is WORTHLESS for determining fact unless it is defensable. Einstein's opinion in this is not defensable; there is no proof of it, it is only an assertion.
Oh really? thanks.... I never said that Einstein was a biologist.
No, but you assert he believed in ID, which requires he have an opinion about evolution, a biological process. As a mathematician and physicist he would not claim to be qualified as a biologist.
But before you can discuss the beginnings of 'life forms' on this planet, you need to discuss the beginnings of the planet and universe themselves, and that is where the opinions of Einstein, the mathematician, seem to hold more weight than I dare say most any poster on this board.
On this I agree with you, but believing god put the bang in the big bang and detrmined the rules which theerafter resulted in what we see now is NOT the same as Intelligent Design.
Intelligent Design ALSO normally insists that intelligent design of organisms is also neccesary. I see nowhere that Einstein claims organisms were designed, which is why funky is rightfully critical of you asserting he believed in ID. Unfortunately the sloppiness of your assertion is redolent of the sloppiness that typifies Creationist and ID-movement thinking and literature.
I don't know. But are you saying that there are no well-known biologists who don't consider I.D. a possibility? hmmmmm
Well known : Credible = Different
Geology & the History and Philosophy of Science : Biology = Different
Hmmmmm.... yourself - you've not even quoted a biologist!
Meyer originally graduated with a degree in geology in 1980 from Whitworth College and worked in the oil industry. After attending a creationist conference however, he became increasingly interested in origins and rejected the evolutionary creationism in which he had previously believed.
Meyer won a scholarship to Cambridge University in the United Kingdom to study the history and philosophy of science. Meyer earned his Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University in 1991. His dissertation was on the history of the origin of life and the biology and the methodology of the historical sciences.
Meyer formerly worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield Company and is now a Professor of the Conceptual Foundations of Science at Palm Beach Atlantic University, a Christian University, where he teaches a course on Christian apologetics in its School of Ministry. He was previously on the faculty of Whitworth College (which has links to the Presbyterian Church (USA) in Spokane, Washington for twelve years.
In 1990, Meyer, Bruce Chapman and George Gilder, formed the Discovery Institute as a non-profit educational foundation and think tank based upon the Christian apologetics of C.S. Lewis and opposed to materialism. It was founded as a branch of the Hudson Institute, an Indianapolis-based, conservative think tank and named for the HMS Discovery, which explored Puget Sound in 1792.
In 1993, Chapman secured seed money in the form of a grant from Howard Ahmanson, Jr. and $450,000 from the MacLellan Foundation which underwrote the earliest nucleus of intelligent design authors who titled themselves "The Wedge" [1]. Meyer had previously tutored Ahmanson's son in science and Meyer recalls being asked by Ahmanson "What could you do if you had some financial backing?" It is from these beginnings that the intelligent design movement grew.
Meyer has recently co-written or edited two books: Darwinism, Design, and Public Education with Michigan State University Press and Science and Evidence of Design in the Universe (Ignatius 2000). He has published over 70 articles and papers.
Meyer has been described as "the person who brought ID (intelligent design) to DI (Discovery Institute)" by historian Edward Larson, who was a fellow at the Discovery Institute prior to it becoming the center of the intelligent design movement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer
Again, showing the sloppiness of the ID and associated movements, and the unprepared nature of its supporters, you cite an article that was subsequently repudiated by the journal it appeared in;
On 7 September, the publisher of the journal, the Council of the Biological Society of Washington, released a statement repudiating the article as not meeting its scientific standards and not peer reviewed. [3] The same statement vowed that proper review procedures would be followed in the future and endorsed a resolution published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID. [4] The journal's reasons for disavowing the article were denied by Richard Sternberg, the managing editor at the time the article was submitted and who subsequently left after its publication. [5] Critics of Meyer's paper believe that Sternberg himself was biased in the matter, since he is a member of the editorial board of the Baraminology Study Group, an organization with a creationist agenda. The Baraminology Study Group's official position is that Sternberg is not a creationist and acts primarily as a skeptical reviewer. [6] A critical review of the article is available on the Panda's Thumb website. [7]
(same source as first quotation)
Not mentioning this either means the source you got this from decieved you, or you were intentionally trying to decieve us. From experience I say you were the one that was fooled, not the one that was doing the fooling.
Sorry to be critical and skeptical, but this is what happens ANYTIME there is a discussion of ID or Creationism. The 'professional' ID-ers and Creationists end up being shown to be partial, selective, unethical, misrepresenters, omitters of critical evidence that damages their claims, and frequently operate well outside of their specialism (and as people don't normally have plumbers do their teeth you'll understand why the equivalent in science is a red flag for bad science).
Their supporters typically compound these errors.
By all means prove me wrong...
