Tue, 12 Feb 2008
Benjamin C said: "I have nothing to fear from Stein’s ideas or anyone else’s, but what I do fear are those who unthinkingly ignore evidence, artificially contrive a controversy as a public relations tool, and try to foist their own narrow religious interpretations on me, the scientific community, and most sadly – school children."
Then the inconvenient truth of my posts (#158, #171) should make you uneasy, indeed. I have carefully considered and weighed each and every fact against the neo-Darwinian post-objectivist theories that have been presented - I do not UNTHINKINGLY ignore evidence; it is quite well considered before I throw it into the dustbin of NDPO theoretical structures that have not in ONE way enlightened the world of biology, medicine, morality or religion in the last 149 years since the reign Miescher-Darwin began. Yes, theoretical biology has not made one single, well-qualified advance in modern times beyond revealing the irreducible complexity of the cell's DNA - just as ID has predicted it. Please note that statistical thermodynamics guarantees that the complexity remains irreducibly represented especially when the nuclei are off shell - i.e., in all energy regimes including room temperature up to lightning strikes as is well-known.
It is unbelievable that you would promote your ideas of NDPO biology based on genetic change here much less transcribe them for all to see. No doubt your next attempt to enhance your standing and to promote your argument will begin by silencing me and the Institute of Theory!
Well, promote your genetic ideas here all you want, Sir!
You argument to raze the irreducibly complex is reducibly simple and not even logical: the irreducibly complex and can only be described by the application of the original yardstick - it is not clear that Big Science has the measure of this yardstick or will ever attain it.
As I have said before, Big Science can barely contain itself in its irrational attempt to foist itself on school children: it begins with numbers and counting. This unseemly practice always starts in the same way. [The Lord's way is outlined with crooked strokes - see Numbers 1:4-14 or Numbers 3:14-15 - but it is ALWAYS transcendent.] The same cannot be said of the slippery logical slope of Big Science-sponsored indoctrination that leads to the Post-Objectified neo-(Miescher-)Darwinist Empiricism, Sir!
If only Ben Stein has courage and fortitude to stand astride this issue in a veritable Rho-Chambeaulian dispute with Big Science, may his success be ordained and academic freedom of thought be secured.
Lastly, I take umbrage at your base attempts to promote Mr. Stein as a propaganda tool. Ben Stein is not a propaganda tool, Sir!
MGBBS!
Sincerely,
Mark E. Witt
(Provisional Founding Council Member)
Intelligent Design,
Institute of Theory
New Haven, CT
No comments:
Post a Comment