Home » Intelligent Design » Visigoths at the Gates

Visigoths at the Gates

Extracts from the introduction to Intelligent Thought: Science versus the Intelligent Design Movement, edited by John Brockman, Vintage Books (go here for an earlier report about this book on this blog):

Religious fundamentalism is on the rise under the rubric of “intelligent design.” ID imperils American global dominance in science and presents the gravest of threats to the American economy.

This book is a thoughtful response to the bizarre claims made by the ID movement’s advocates.

In actuality there is no debate, no controversy. What there is, quite simply, is a duplicitous public-relations campaign funded by Christian fundamentalist interests.

The intelligent-design movement has made collective fools of large segments of the American public. Educated Americans are dumbstruck by the attempt to redefine science to include the supernatural. Europeans cannot believe that such an argument should be raging.

Judge John E Jones III has halted ID in it’s tracks.

Readers can rely on the writings of the scientists in this volume, and on Judge Jones when he says; “while ID arguments may be true, ID is not science. ID violates the rules by 1) invoking and permitting supernatural causation; 2) irreducible complexity employs flawed and illogical contrived dualism 3) IDs negative attacks on evolution have been refuted. ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, has not generated peer reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.”

Two words will go down in history — “breathtaking inanity.” “ID cannot uncouple itself from it’s creationist, and thus religious antecedents”

All of science and reason is on the side of evolution. Questions have been raised providing scientists with a broad public platform to explain how natural selection answers those questions. Scientists should seize every opportunity to present their personal view of the issues and of the fact, power and beauty of the Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection.

Some essays deal with “self-organization” in biology, the “intelligence” of the universe itself, and the natural selection of bio-friendly universes.

The ID movement will be seen for the giant step backward that it is.

There are examples in history of the collapse of great civilizations. The Visigoths are at the gates. Will we let them in?

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

30 Responses to Visigoths at the Gates

  1. YAY! Yet another alarmist book replete with Straw Men, which are conveniently propped up and then knocked down. As Gil said in another discussion, “with enemies like this, who needs friends?” :)

    Please ID opponents, please keep producing nonsense like this so that ID will continue to grow. We thank you.

  2. Did Brockman really twice write “it’s” for “its” — “it’s tracks” and “it’s creationist.”

    If so, I happily concede my Visigoth status to him.

    Hoping it’s a typo, and not a mistake that made it past Brockman himself, any friend of his who read the chapter, and lastly the Vintage copy editors,

    Barbarian Paul

    [I was sent these excepts by a friend, so I've not personally checked them. --WmAD]

  3. As I recall, the Roman empire collapsed not because of the visigoths, but because the empire was so rotten to the core (corruption, infighting, lead poisoning) that it could not guard itself against those it conquered in the first place. Also they overextended their reach. Applying similar critierion I believe our present day intellectual “Roman Overloards” will suffer a similar fate.

    “” Two words will go down in history — “breathtaking inanity.” “ID cannot uncouple itself from it’s creationist, and thus religious antecedents” “”

    I think a more correct translation of the above would render:

    “” Two words will go down in history — “Unprecedented Bigotry.” In my mind I cannot uncouple scientific ID from those @#$%@#$^@$ creationist, religious fundamentalist fanatics. I will not try, I don’t want to try, because I’m so convinced I’m right – I cannot concieve that I’m wrong, about anything ever–period “”

  4. Dr. D – where might I find the strongest relevant attack on specified complexity on theoretical grounds? I doubt sincerely it would be found in that book.

  5. The only harm that is being done to science and science education is teaching students that they must accept, unquestioningly, propositions for which there is no credible evidence and which defy all common experience and common sense. Science and reason are not on the side of the notions that inanimate matter spontaneously generated life on its own, and that random mutations and natural selection turned a bacterium into Mozart with the available probabilistic resources. Yet, science students are taught this breathtaking inanity as established fact, and are told that it cannot be questioned or challenged in the public schools under penalty of retribution for violating the provisions of the US Constitution.

    This message is as anti-science as it gets: accept theories that don’t make sense on the basis of authority, imaginative storytelling, extravagant and unsubstantiated extrapolations, and pure speculation. This will surely help nurture the next generation of great scientific minds.

    I wonder when they’ll start teaching students that “the natural selection of bio-friendly universes” is also established scientific fact that cannot be challenged. That will represent yet another great leap forward for science education.

  6. A quick bit of internet research yields the facts that the Visigoths were literate, with their own distinctive styles of art and architecture. They were not sub-human brutes. lucID makes a good point that the Roman Empire collapsed from within. Christianity, however, has survived the rise and fall of various nations and political fads.

  7. Re #2. I have the book in front of me. The grammatical errors are not in the book. The quoted excerpts have been heavily edited and I guess the errors were inserted when this was done.

  8. *sigh*
    Yet another “the sky is falling” kind of Darwinian rethoric.

  9. “…while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position…

    I’m dumbfounded. There were no ID arguments that ID is science?

    This book is currently being discussed over at ARN here

    So far the book appears to be more anti-creationist than anti-ID, lol. I guess the authors either cannot see the distinctions or don’t care to. I’ve already read a couple of the essays that deal with topics that ID has absolutely no issue with. I have no idea why they are in the volume other than the hypothesis mentioned above, that they think they are dealing with creationism.

  10. Dr. D – where might I find the strongest relevant attack on specified complexity on theoretical grounds? I doubt sincerely it would be found in that book.

    I don’t see yet that any of the chapters deal with Dr. Dembski’s arguments directly, a rather strange state of affairs if you ask me. Dennet’s essay does mention that both Dembski and Behe have been refuted, but I don’t see where this book actually makes that case. Of course, I haven’t read it all yet, but just looking at the essay titles gives me a good idea I think. Regarding Wm. Dembski, Dennett references an article by Fitelson, Stephens and Sober, one by Daniel Wolpert, and one by Tom Schneider.

    We can’t read this book for the refutation of ID arguments, but they are out there! How very Darwinian, lol.

  11. quote>Dr. D – where might I find the strongest relevant attack on specified complexity on theoretical grounds? I doubt sincerely it would be found in that book.

    I don’t see yet that any of the chapters deal with Dr. Dembski’s arguments directly, a rather strange state of affairs if you ask me. Dennett’s essay does mention that both Dembski and Behe have been refuted, but I don’t see where this book actually makes that case. Of course, I haven’t read it all yet, but just looking at the essay titles gives me a good idea I think. Regarding Wm. Dembski, Dennett references an article by Fitelson, Stephens and Sober, one by Daniel Wolpert, and one by Tom Schneider.

    We can’t read this book for the refutation of ID arguments, but they are out there! How very Darwinian, lol.

  12. Regarding Wm. Dembski, Dennett references an article by Fitelson, Stephens and Sober, one by Daniel Wolpert, and one by Tom Schneider.

    What! No mention of Perakh, Elsberry, and Shallit? I guess the ID crew on the net has succeeded in discrediting those supposed “refutations”. Shallit spent three months of his sabbatical writing a refutation of Dembski’s work, and he doesn’t even get a mention by Dennett?

  13. Mung:

    “So far the book appears to be more anti-creationist than anti-ID, lol. I guess the authors either cannot see the distinctions or don’t care to.”

    I admit that I have difficulty seeing any distinctions, especially on this blog. Would anyone be ambitious enough to do me a favour and come up with a quick list? Thanks in advance.

  14. Some essays deal with “self-organization” in biology, the “intelligence” of the universe itself, and the natural selection of bio-friendly universes.

    I suppose the universes are reproducing now and that is supposedly natural if one can imagine it so. In fact, given the epistemic standards of those who include their own imaginations as evidence it is probably yet another settled “fact.” Yet I still wonder, what selects natural selection? And just how “natural” are these other universes that seem to be outside of Nature as we know it physically? Perhaps if one can be bigotted enough towards “religion” then imagining an infinite series of Natures is more reasonable than one infinite God.

    The ID movement will be seen for the giant step backward that it is.

    There are examples in history of the collapse of great civilizations. The Visigoths are at the gates. Will we let them in?

    This whole notion of the collapse of civilization/language is absurd given that those with the urge to merge are reliant on the pollutions of language like “evolution” which can mean anything from a change in the size of finch beaks to universes giving birth to each other. Besides, we already have a record of a Western civilization collapsing. I.e., an example of a whole Herd of Christian apostates falling into technically proficient babarianism. This example is from something I posted to the blog of a little fellow engaging in Kulture Kampf, so it drew forth the sweaty little hands of the censor. Revised from here:
    I listed numerous examples of such comparisons being made by prominent ID advocates like Jonathan Wells, William Dembski, John Calvert, Mark Hartwig and Phillip Johnson.

    Anyone opposed to the usual Darwinian attempts at “biological thinking” (instead of thinking through and about biology) should make such comparisons for sound historical reasons, lest history repeat itself. For example, biology as a mask for the urge to merge:

    Biological thinking in Nazism:

    “And they were all doctors like me, who tried to think biologically, biology as the foundation of medical thought. . . . We didn’t want politics—we were critical of politics—but [concerned} with the way human beings really are—not just an idea or philosophy.”

    National Socialism as Applied Biology:

    The nation would now be run according to what Johann S. and his cohorts considered biological truth, “the way human beings really are.” That is why he had a genuine “eureka” experience—a sense of “That’s exactly it!”—when he heard Rudolf Hess declare National Socialism to be “nothing but applied biology” (see page 31). Dr. S. felt himself merged…

    (The Nazi Doctors: Medical
    Killing and the
    Psychology of Genocide
    By Robert Jay Lifton :129) (Emphasis added)

    Is it really a brute “scientific fact” at issue or did the little fellow just like feeling merged to overcome the “Jewish influence” of alienation brought about by conceptual thinking? It seems that all that is essential and conceptual is alienating for some little fellows. They are the true believers in so-called “natural selection” that want to believe that their Mommy Nature makes all selections, including their own way of thinking.

    As one put it:

    Our whole cultural life for decades has been more or less under the influence of biological thinking, as it was begun particularly around the middle of the last century, by the teachings of Darwin

    (Hitler’s Professors: The Part of Scholarship in
    Germany’s Crimes Against the Jewish People
    By Max Weinreich
    (New York:The Yiddish Scientific Institute, 1946) :33) (Emphasis added)

    All these who only think that they are thinking about biology often begin running with the Herd, naturally enough. Darwinists simply cannot seem to engage in conceptual thinking because they are usually trying to engage in “biological thinking” instead, leading to a scholarship of this form:

    The scholars whom we shall quote in such impressive numbers, like those others who were instrumental in any other part of the German pre-war and war efforts, were to a large extent people of long and high standing, university professors and academy members, some of them world famous, authors with familiar names and guest lecturers abroad…
    If the products of their research work, even apart from their rude tone, strike us as unconvincing and hollow, this weakness is due not to inferior training but to the mendacity inherent in any scholarship that overlooks or openly repudiates all moral and spiritual values and, by standing order, knows exactly its ultimate conclusions well in advance.

    (Ib. :7)(Emphasis added)

    The Herd has “impressive numbers,” yet does not seem to understand the symbols and signs of design that numbers reveal. The reasoning of those trying to prop up the Darwinian creation myth these days matches the apt summary of this historian. Such reasoning is often based more on a repudiation of the spiritual than actual evidence, thus we supposedly ought to imagine a sort of infinity of Natures rather than one infinite God. Indeed, Darwinists sometimes say that their repudiation of the spiritual in negative theology is their best evidence. That’s probably because most Darwinians seem to be Christian apostates.

    On the other hand, anyone comparing those who tend to oppose those supporting Darwinian “reasoning”/imagining or “biological thinking” to Holocaust deniers has probably never debated a Holocaust denier. Darwinists should try it sometime, it’s probably more useful when it comes to knowledge to deal with textual history than to engage in imagining little histories that degenerate into mythological narratives of naturalism.

  15. “ID cannot uncouple itself from it’s creationist, and thus religious antecedents”

    Genetic logical fallacy. Nice to see it again. I missed it so.

  16. For you history buffs, The Roman Empire fell in 1453 when the Turks finally captured Constantinople. The seat of the Roman Empire moved east to Byzantium in the late 320′s after Constantine conquered his rivals. The main inroads to the empire took place over the next 1000 years, first with various Germanic tribes in the West, then Islam in the 600′s and the Turks after 1050. At the end it was only a rump on a small peninsula in the Bosporus. Even though the people of the Eastern Empire spoke Greek, they considered themselves Romans and this was on their coinage.

    Because most of us come from Western Europe, we tend to look at the Roman Empire from this prism but in reality throughout the so called Dark Ages, a magnificent if sometimes corrupt empire was flourishing in the East for a lot of that time. This is also a reason the DaVinci code is nonsense. Rome had no power at the time the conspiracy supposedly started. All the wealth and power of the Church was in the East and Rome had only 5 members at the Council of Nicea in 325.

  17. I suppose the universes are reproducing now and that is supposedly natural if one can imagine it so. In fact, given the epistemic standards of those who include their own imaginations as evidence it is probably yet another settled “fact.”

    … I have asked the contributors … to present essays on their personal view of the issues raised by the intelligent-design movement, and of the fact, power, and beauty of the Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection.

    Some of these essays deal with the bogus arguments put forward by the movement’s proponents.

    Others are imaginative takes on Darwinian evolutionary theory.

    Indeed. In fact, that’s about all one needs in the way of evidence when it comes to Darwinian evolutionary theory. A few facts, and a lot of imagination. What do these “imaginative takes” have to do with refuting ID or establishing “the fact, power, and beauty of the Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection?” Perhaps they show the power of the idea of natural selection to explain anything and everything and to some this is considered beautiful, but what does that have to do with facts?

  18. “‘While ID arguments may be true, ID is not science.’” Well, isn’t that the point, though? If ID is true, but the so-called rules of science preclude it from being considered, then doesn’t science become irrelevant? After all, the ultimate goal of science is to find out the truth, not protect its rules, right?

  19. Paul Nelson concerning it’s. It’s a typo (mutation)twice. It’s the thought that counts. Sorry John Brockman and Paul. I am the Visigoth.


  20. The “Great” Transition
    Neil H. Shubin
    evolutionary biologist

    This essay concerns itself with the transition from fish to tetrapod. Actually, according to the essay, some fish are tetrapods, or should I say some tetrapods are fish, or perhaps all tetrapods are fish. I guess this is what happens when you use a confused classification system as the basis for examining evolutionary transitions. All the essay really does is show how we were wrong in our classification of tetrapods and fish. Since ID has no issue with the alleged transition from fish to tetrapod, I fail to see the relevance of this essay to the subject of Science vs Intelligent Design.

    The essay makes no mention of intelligent design
    The essay fails to make any connection to intelligent design.
    This essay fails identify and deal with any argument put forward by the ID movement’s proponents.

    The essay makes no mention of natural selection
    The essay fails to make any connection to natural selection.
    This essay fails to make any case for the fact, power, and beauty of the Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection.

    I can’t even see how this essay qualifies as an imaginative take on Darwinian evolutionary theory.

    I have no idea why this essay is in this volume. The essay fails to meet any of the objectives set forth for the essays in this volume. Once again, this seems to be nothing more than an anti-creationist argument. Don’t these scientists understand that ID is not creationism?

  21. George Quoting Mung:

    “So far the book appears to be more anti-creationist than anti-ID, lol. I guess the authors either cannot see the distinctions or don’t care to.”

    George:

    “I admit that I have difficulty seeing any distinctions, especially on this blog. Would anyone be ambitious enough to do me a favour and come up with a quick list? Thanks in advance.”

    George, here’s a link with the relevant excerpt from an authortitative source:

    http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php

    4. Is intelligent design theory the same as creationism?

    No. Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations.

    Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text.

    Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he “agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement.” Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are “the easiest way to discredit intelligent design.” In other words, the charge that intelligent design is “creationism” is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.

    For more information read Center Director Stephen Meyer’s piece “Intelligent Design is not Creationism” that appeared in The Daily Telegraph (London) or Center Associate Director’s piece” Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren’t the Same”in Research News & Opportunities.

    —————

    George, here’s the link for the Stephen Meyer article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opi.....do2803.xml

  22. George,

    This is a little belated since you made you request yesterday. I do not consider myself a creationist but do accept ID. I do believe in God and believe He created the world but if that is the definition of a creationist, then so be it. I think creationist has more associated with it than just God created the world.

    There are major differences between creationists (as I understand the term) and many ID proponents. Right now I believe that science points to a universe that began several billion years ago (13-15 bya) and that life on this planet first appeared about 3.6 billion years ago give or take a couple hundred million years. Multi-celled animals appeared about 700-800 million years ago and a large proliferation of life appeared 525-540 million years ago. Science has also shown that evolution happened in the sense that numerous new life forms appeared over time and many of these life forms were more complex than what appeared before. By more complex, I mean more cell types and other functions such as mental and physical agility. All the life forms use the same basic structure (cells with DNA). This is simplified since things like viruses are somewhat different. I am not sure how many creationists would believe the previous.

    If you believe the above, the argument is over what is the mechanism for 1) the appearance of the first life form and 2) the progression of the complexity of these life forms. Few here believe there is any naturalistic method to explain either 1 or 2. The main theory for a naturalistic mechanism for 2 is Neo Darwinism and this fails miserably at every level except for a few basic phenomenon. But it is the only naturalistic game in town that has much of a following. There is no theory for 1 except wild speculation.

    Also many of us do not believe that the bible or any other ancient document explains this phenomenon. In other words as Russ has said we do not believe the account in Genesis is accurate and should be accepted as true. I believe creationism postulates that. If I am wrong, then I will stand corrected.

    Given that there is no naturalistic method to explain either the origin of life or its continued progression, many have looked elsewhere for an explanation (as I said creationist defend Genesis as an explanation which many of us do not accept). Looking at all possible explanationns would seem the sensible thing to do. One of those areas where we looked is the possible intervention of an intelligence in either creating the first life form and/or additionally creating more complex life forms over time. We as human beings may have this power sometime in the near future. So why could not some other intelligence in the past have created DNA based life.

    This always leads to the discussion of who is responsible for this intelligence. Where did it come from? What is the nature of the intelligence? The answer ID says is that we do not know who the intelligence is or anything else about it. Whether ID is a scientific discipline or just the use of scientific approaches in various disciplines, it doesn’t speculate on the nature of this intelligence or its motives. Maybe in the future, we can create hypotheses about the intelligence and test them out with science, but we are not there yet.

    Also you have ID people who are not Christians or Jews and thus do not believe in the bible. You have Christians who do not believe in the literal translation of all the bible, especially Genesis, but believe in evolution in the sense that life became more complex over time and also think that what is being offered by the ID proponents makes the most sense. I am one of these latter people and I assume there are many others. I have a science background and am looking for science but do not find it in Neo Darwinism. As the song “Show Me” from My Fair Lady says all you give me is “Words, words, words.” That is my impression of Darwinists. I haven’t met one yet that gives you substance that holds up but they are good at rhetoric. So to use an expression of a more recent film, “Show me the money.”

  23. The quotes from the book edited by John Brockman remind me of the sort of arguments used by the corrupt leaders of the Catholic Church to defend Ptolemaic Astronomy in the 16th century: all assertion and no substantiation.

  24. …in purging intentional causes, including supernatural agents, from science, great progress has been made not only in understanding nature but in amreliorating the human condition, as with modern medicine. Those who preach intelligent design would reintroduce intentional cause into science and so reduce science’s ability to serve. For society, that is an unintelligent design. – Scott Atran

    Finally! Someone who actually understands ID enough to intelligently describe an issue raised by ID. But notice how supernatural agents are a subset, so to speak, of intentional causes, and therefore intentional cause does not entail the supernatural.

  25. Thanks russ and jerry for your replies. Sorry I didn’t respond earlier, but I had a busy weekend.

    So if I understand correctly, ID supports an old earth and common descent (cf. the Meyer article)? Then I have a couple of questions:

    - Can ID accommodate some degree of evolution via natural selection (leaving aside the random mutation part of it for the moment), for example in speciation?

    - Is design an ongoing process (tinkering) or was all the design activity done far back in the past in one go?

    Read the sidebar “ID Defined”. I believe that answers your questions. If it doesn’t let’s see if we can modify it so that it does. -ds

  26. George,

    I am not an expert on what everyone believes. But I think many of us believe that simple changes from one species to a very similar species is possible. For example, there are lots of different types of fish and birds that are considered separate species but are closely related to each other and which probably came about from natural selection and maybe some mutations. But as the differences between species get larger, I believe there is little evidence that natural selection is the cause. This does not say it is not the cause, only that there is no evidence for it other than speculation on similarities. I don’t think too many proponents of ID would argue that dogs, wolves, foxes, coyotes, jackals etc could not have happened by natural selection but I cannot speak for them. It wouldn’t amaze me if some day conclusive evidence is presented for this but so what. However, as you go up the traditional classification scheme, there is a lot less agreement on just what natural selection could accomplish even if given enough time and it reaches a point where you have to throw up your hands and say “no way” could Neo Darwinism explain it.

    Is design over? Is evolution over? These are interesting ideas. One of the many things that made me doubt Darwinism is the total lack of evidence of anything happening in recent times. According to Neo Darwinism, species are constantly branching out a little bit at a time. How else do you climb Mt. Improbable but in tens of thousands of little steps? But one branch does not mean the branch before it was eliminated. And granted this process takes a long time and a lot of species go extinct, there should be numerous examples of species and thousands of their predecessors in our current environment, taking different paths up Mt. Improbable. But there doesn’t seem to be any. If there were the Darwinists would be all over it. It is an obvious proof that somehow is not there.

    With humans and their intelligence, a new design event would solve the question forever. As I just indicated we have not witnessed any Darwinian events or progressions either, so the debate goes on. All changes of any consequence happened before human intelligence could witness them.

  27. Attempts to circumvent the process of natural selection not only of life but of ideas, are unlikely to succeed. The mills of science grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine. “Intelligent design” is not grist for that mill: It is chaff, and it will blow away. Let us hope that it blows away before it has too severely damaged the minds of the upcoming generation. – Seth Lloyd

    It seems to me that it is the anti-ID movement which is attempting to circumvent the natural selection of ideas.

    If intelligent design is chaff, how does one separate “the chaff” from “the wheat,” through the mills of science?

    I am more concerned about the possibility of brain damage caused by ID than mind damage. Can someone point me to some scientific studies of the damage to the brain caused by ID?

  28. Hi everyone. (It’s a conspiracy I tell you! Those fundamentalist atheists want to convert us!)

    Just joking. But presumably, I could say, “well, evolutionists have a naturalistic agenda, with no objectively verifiable evidences and coming from a methodological naturalist philosophy, and they just want to convert everyone to atheism, but they are just hiding it, using methodological naturalism as a cover, after all, most prominent evolutionists are also atheists and scientific naturalists” It would go to court, and it would be proven that atheism is indeed a form of religion (Torasco v Watkins, 1961), and atheism would just get some bad press, becoming lost in a sea of 2nd rate critics and diehard “fundamentalist” athiest splinter groups, while dialogue and studies increased in ever broadening fields of scientific inquiry. It would be interesting to see what would happen, if this was attempted. And it may be attempted someday.

  29. Hi everyone.. Hey, can somebody (or everybody) do me a favor? I made a pro ID/ anti evolution blog on Opera, and since I’m kinda new to ID, (but eagerly learning more every day!) I just need some people to critique what I have written there. Just leave a comment/message on the blog and I will be able to make corrections as needed. I just want to make sure my figures, logic, analogies..etc..are information rich! :) Thanx. Mike

    here is the link to my blog. http://my.opera.com/Bantay/blog/

  30. Actually, I think Im the ONLY person on the Opera community that has an ID blog. I also have a running debate going there…could use some help!! I’m having a hard time explaining the testability and falsifiability of ID, as well as other things.

    link to my ID blog is http://my.opera.com/Bantay/blog/

    link to the debate is http://my.opera.com/community/.....rscreen=25

Leave a Reply