by GermanXJW 229 Replies latest jw friends
bona,
scientisits have all right to disregard religious believes. science is based on facts and logic whereas religions are based on myth, lies and faith. I concur. Did I say anything contrary to that? Am I speaking a different language here or something? Maybe it's that darn lisp...Sadie
except to say that the fact that we are able to discuss it on the internet proves nothing and lends absolutely no support to that statement, albeit be it a concrete description or not.
So you don't think the Internet exists because of science?
As if the Internet would exist if the scientific method did not create an environment agreeable to change. QED
rem
So you don't think the Internet exists because of science?
As if the Internet would exist if the scientific method did not create an environment agreeable to change. QED...
Okay, okay you got me there. I didn't really think of it from that angle.
What's QED?
Sadie,
QED is quod erat demonstrandum which means 'which was to be demonstrated' in Latin. It's kinda like 'Check Mate'.
rem
Thanks...now, I can add that term to my extensive list of Latin quotes
Sadie
hehe, a good old fashioned pissing contest...........
pistoff of the I-don't-know-how-we-got-here-and-don't-care-just-for-today class
From what I gathered Dr. Lönnig is not a JW. He is a highly
credentialed and published biologist, with a position at a major prominent research institute.
So that you are spared searching for the full information, here is
the private home page of Dr. Lönnig, established after the materials were
"removed" from his Max-Planck Institute home page:
http://www.we-loennig.de/
The controversy is described in a series of articles and correspondence
linked from:
http://www.vdbiol.de/debatten/evolution/evolution.html
His official home page at the Max Planck Institüt für Züchtungsforschung
(Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research):
http://www.mpiz-koeln.mpg.de/~loennig/
where he is a group leader in the Department of Molecular Genetics
(which obviously some people think is not relevant to evolutionary theory).
The review article he coauthored in Annual Reviews of Genetics sounds very
interesting. The Annual Reviews volumes are the most prestigious in each of
the many fields they cover; the articles are commissioned from the leading
experts, and I am sure are carefully reviewed by the prominent scientists
who serve as editors and are named on the cover of the volume. The article
cannot be dismissed as "not peer-reviewed".
A scientist friend wrote him as follows:
Lieber Herr Dr Loennig!
Gestatten Sie, daß ich auf Englisch schreibe, Blind-Kopien werden zu
gemeinsammen Mitstreiter geschickt.
I know about you from my involvement with Wort und Wissen und know Sigfried
Scherer well. I appreciate very much the stand you are taking!
We are very "encouraged" by prof. Kutschera's statements in NATURE 423
(2003): 116 8 May 2003. I wish I could agree with him, that Intelligent
Design is making solid in-roads in German academia, we both know this is a
brutally difficult battle accompanied by much prejudice.
There is a reason Dr Kutschera is overreacting in panic: Darwinism as a
theory only survives by demanding a monopoly on acceptable theories. As an
explanation for things like the origin of the genetic code or novel
metabolic networks the theory is worthless.
The fact that the MPI is refusing all possibility of scientific discussion
on this matter might be a big help: I will pass this news on to show others
why my (our) views are not being widely discussed in Germany: because it is
de facto forbidden!
Herr Dr. ____________
His private view is that young-earth creationism is the correct view of the origin of everything, but he's politically savvy enough not to promote such blatantly whacked-out views . I know Phil and have followed his work for years. He has always been openly very critical of YEC but recently has softened his position against them somewhat (but would not be described as a YEC).
jerry,
did you read kutschera's rebuttals at all?
by the way...intelligent design is not a scientific theory by definition. you attribute phenomena which are at present hard to explain to a ghost or god instead of trying to find rational non supernatural explanations.
just as a sidenote ... intelligent design does not take solid in-roads in German (or european) academia.
PS: blatantly whacked out ideas like young earth....in comparison to what you believe???
What happened to all the material that I posted on here?? It is now gone. Was it censored???
