Home| Letters| Links| RSS| About Us| Contact Us

On the Frontline

What's New

Table of Contents

Index of Authors

Index of Titles

Index of Letters

Mailing List

subscribe to our mailing list:


Critique of Intelligent Design

Evolution vs. Creationism

The Art of ID Stuntmen

Faith vs Reason

Anthropic Principle

Autopsy of the Bible code

Science and Religion

Historical Notes


Serious Notions with a Smile


Letter Serial Correlation

Mark Perakh's Web Site


[Write a Reply] [Letters Index]

Title Author Date
Excellent Point Strumfels, David Sep 28, 2005
Very much enjoyed this essay, which demonstrates a critical point: if IDers truly were interested in science, they could formulate their ideas into a set of testable, scientifically meaningful hypotheses. The fact that they do not do so, that they are only trying to hide (their particular) religious beliefs under a pseudo-scientific cloak, needs to be stressed more, especially in court cases.

Only quibble is with the conservation of mass-energy being a genuine natural law. As I understand quantum mechanics, violations of this law are allowed, albeit over only very short time spans -- this follows from the Uncertainty Principle. Hence the "quantum foam" of classically empty space. Which actually illustrates another point: scientists can and do revise their doctrines about how nature works, when and if the evidence warrants it. They are not, ID accusations and insinuations to the contrary, blind dogmatists. If IDers really were onto something, scientists would modify or reject evolution accordingly. Relativity and quantum mechanics show this openness in action.
Related Articles: No supernatural causes