One thing they like to say is that "lots" of scientists support the theory. It simply isn't true: Discovery Institute has few scientists and even fewer biologists.
This prof. Behe they refer to is a biochemist, but he teaches at a university few have ever heard. Of the few Phds (it's mostly a technical college) that it offers, none are in Science.
The other advocate, this Dembinski guy is a complete freak. If you go to his blog there's almost no attempt to scientifically back his claim, it's mostly just badly argued creation science and talk about how the scientist are godless.
Pathetic stuff. Google it yourself!
2006-09-13 01:23:15 · 11 answers · asked by Brendan G 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
indeed, some of the stuff 'answers in genesis' and 'creation research' come out with is pseudoscience to the extreme. However, those not trained in science can not tell good from poor scientific method, analysis and reasoning
2006-09-13 01:27:31 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Hypothesis is an educated guess, so my guess is that they are insecure in their intellect on the subject content and too lazy to support their own content with a factual basis resulting in an unsupported advance that will be discovered as you have. In other words they are lazy idiots.
2006-09-13 01:27:22 · answer #2 · answered by distalbicept 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why should I look up something that will prove that point of view wrong? I'd rather continue oblivious and ignorant and believe whatever I want without any knowledge of the how or why.
2006-09-13 01:30:45 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They do it in a quest for making themselves look better. Trying to get awards, power, money, whatever that drives them to be something they aren't. It's the same as when we say "Everybody, nobody, somebody" etc. It's generalizing folks into mass form.
2006-09-13 01:27:15 · answer #4 · answered by Hebrews 11 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it rather is worse than basically dogma. it rather is dogma that Christians have feebly tried to cover as technological know-how utilising a million/2-truths, incorrect good judgment, and unsupportable assumptions. If Biblical Creationism is easy actuality, then one ought to ask your self why they have long previous to such lengths to gown it up as a scientific concept extremely of basically rather offering it because it stands... with the aid of fact the basically precise actuality it rather is meant to be? possibly it rather is with the aid of fact rather everyone seems to be becoming to be too knowledgeable and state-of-the-paintings to maintain procuring into millenia-previous superstitions to respond to all the great questions.
2016-11-07 05:48:02 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i guess you took a poll and know that most scientist don't believe in intelligent design. you seem too ignorant to realize that it's not the politically correct thing to believe today in Harvard.
2006-09-13 02:24:30 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why are the greatest evolutionists minds afraid to debate intelligent design
2006-09-13 01:31:52 · answer #7 · answered by chris r 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why are you trying to discredit them? They merely use the nescientific method (from the Latin nescio) as opposed to the more commonly used scientific method (from the Latin scio).
2006-09-13 01:38:04 · answer #8 · answered by Nerdly Stud 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why do evolutionist lie to support their theory?
2006-09-13 01:26:40 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because they will have to change there life style.
2006-09-13 01:26:22 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋