Comments on: The Broken Time Machine http://www.idscience.org/2008/05/31/the-broken-time-machine/ Scientific Educational Materials That Support The Existence of God Tue, 07 Sep 2010 13:25:18 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3 By: Eric http://www.idscience.org/2008/05/31/the-broken-time-machine/#comment-1057 Eric Wed, 12 Nov 2008 06:19:48 +0000 http://www.idscience.org/2008/05/31/the-broken-time-machine/#comment-1057 <strong>baby scorpions...</strong> Not everyone will agree with your views expressed in this article, but thats their loss not yours.... baby scorpions…

Not everyone will agree with your views expressed in this article, but thats their loss not yours….

]]> By: RedPolygon http://www.idscience.org/2008/05/31/the-broken-time-machine/#comment-518 RedPolygon Sun, 01 Jun 2008 19:08:13 +0000 http://www.idscience.org/2008/05/31/the-broken-time-machine/#comment-518 So what is the intelligent design explanation for this discovery? How is this finding relevant to intelligent design? Intelligent design creationists seem to think that just re-interpreting the discoveries of others, or simply raising questions about the findings of others, somehow makes intelligent design legitimate or plausible. It doesn't. If you want people to believe that intelligent design is science, then do the science and report what you've discovered. But a steady stream of questions about legitimate scientific findings doesn't prove one single thing about intelligent design. I urge critical readers to watch these kind of blogs and press releases. Over time, you'll notice the pattern of starting with an interesting scientific finding, then using it to raise semi-rhetorical questions. But their statements never include any sort of relevance to intelligent design. In other words, if the author feels that this finding calls evolution into question, then it's entirely reasonable to ask "What better explanation is offered by intelligent design?" But that element is typically missing from these kinds of press releases. Where are the intelligent design headlines? So what is the intelligent design explanation for this discovery? How is this finding relevant to intelligent design? Intelligent design creationists seem to think that just re-interpreting the discoveries of others, or simply raising questions about the findings of others, somehow makes intelligent design legitimate or plausible. It doesn’t. If you want people to believe that intelligent design is science, then do the science and report what you’ve discovered. But a steady stream of questions about legitimate scientific findings doesn’t prove one single thing about intelligent design.
I urge critical readers to watch these kind of blogs and press releases. Over time, you’ll notice the pattern of starting with an interesting scientific finding, then using it to raise semi-rhetorical questions. But their statements never include any sort of relevance to intelligent design. In other words, if the author feels that this finding calls evolution into question, then it’s entirely reasonable to ask “What better explanation is offered by intelligent design?” But that element is typically missing from these kinds of press releases. Where are the intelligent design headlines?

]]>