A Scientific Law (sometimes a Principle) is a description of how something behaves. Newtons’ Law of Gravitation describes the mathematical pull between two objects. It is a description. It does nothing to explain why gravity pulls the way it does.

Theories are explanations – explanations that match the data and provide a framework for why the Laws work. Theories are built around laws. Newton’s Gravitational Theory had to do with body forces. Gravity theory now is based upon Relativity and curved spacetime. Relativity replaced Newtonian gravity. Newton’s Law is still valid for most applications – only in the extreme conditions does Relativity differ.

Example: the Germ Theory of disease – that bacteria and viruses are the causes for many diseases. That’s still a Theory, even though we have confirmed the existence of bacteria and viruses and shown how they invade, how they spread, and how to prevent them and treat them. It is not the “Germ Law” of disease.

And I think you are thinking of Newton’s Laws of Motion. I’m not aware of a “1st Law of Gravity”.

Nowhere does evolutionary science say there isn’t a creator or an intelligence at work; evolution simply explains HOW the work is being done, not what’s doing it.

2. HDTV is not a contiguous chain of growth. Each TV set is a new build. Parts do not change in a TV set to make it work better. Rather, each design is independent, using the common principles but giving a unique component layout, etc.

It’s an interesting analogy and an interesting principle. A better example is the “reducible mousetrap” that uses one of Behe’s pet analogies for Irreducible Complexity and reduces it.
http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html

What I always wonder is why I never see anyone counter with the example of HDTV or a similarly complex yet familiar device. Here you have a complex system that no longer functions if you remove any one of a multitude of components. By the C/IDers’ arguments, this points toward a divine creator for this device. Yet HDTV has a very clearly defined and logically organized ancestry of hundreds of predecessor devices. These devices diverge more and more, becoming simpler and simpler, as you trace back along HDTV’s evolutionary tree, yet every single one of these devices was not only fully functional but considered top-of-the-line for its time.

So there’s a clear and familiar example of how a very complex system can develop from much simpler origins yet be fully functional along each step of its (human-directed) evolution. Or is this example trivial or not applicable in some way that I don’t see?

“Why are there 3 different nerves transmitting tase? These are also not limited to taste, they are carrying other information as well. And why are there three nerves dealing with ocular movment? And why does one only control one muscle while another controls three? This is unintelligent design.”

“You are unwise” is a description.
“You are a fool” is an insult.

See the distinction? It’s one of those hard to define, fuzzy gray areas that make up human interaction.

>Being called a fool is not the same as being told “your opinion does not matter because you are a sinner, a disbeliever and will burn in Hell�.

No, but it is very similar, because it is saying, “your opinion does not matter because you are a ___”. “Fool” is a value-laden term.

That doesn’t exist, does it?

I think we all agree we don’t want this thread to devolve (pun intended) into a mud-slinging session.

Idiot means “a fool”. A “fool” is “a person who behaves or thinks imprudently or unwisely”. It is clearly, and without any doubt, foolish, imprudent, and unwise to deny reason and cling to a line of beliefs that cannot be supported with evidence, whose veracity cannot be tested, and indeed will not allow testing (e.g. 1 Corinthians 10:9)

I submit, therefore, that it is not an ad hominem attack but rather an observation, a premise, a hypothesis. As a hypothesis, the statement is testable: As an experiment, we can test whether or not there are people who deny reason and logic in various ways. We can also test whether or not those people are considered fools. If people who deny reason and logic are considered fools, then the specific subject matter for which reason and logic are being denied should not matter.

Being called a fool is not the same as being told “your opinion does not matter because you are a sinner, a disbeliever and will burn in Hell”.

I am sorry if you cannot see the difference. I am not sure I can make it clearer.

[Bolding added]

>Naturally, when logic fails, they resort to that old stand-by, the Ad Hominem attack:

Oh, the irony!

“this all can be seen if you are impartial observer of what has been learned about nature up until now” (referring to evolution)

His specialty is nucleic acids, so he is referring to the mechanisms behind transcription, translation, and replication of DNA and RNA in particular, but these quotes are equally valid for many areas of biology. “We will see it is all very poorly designed. It is clear nature blindly picked a method which caused all sort of problems later on. These systems took the wrong or not ideal path but can’t change because it would kill the organism”

“All you need for life is the ability for a chemical to catalyze its own formaton. Life may look very complicated but only reason for complexity is to facilitate transmission of information from parents to children.”

When he refers to the genetic code here, he means which specific DNA triplets code for which amino acids: “The currently accepted theory, I would say it is pretty much undisputed now, is mitochondria were bacteria who formed a symbiotic relationship with other cells. The mitochondria started transferring their DNA to the cell’s nucleus. However, before it could finish the mitochondria genetic code changed, preventing complete transfer of DNA to nucleus. This absolutely unnecessary, completely stupid. No reason to stop with only a tiny bit left.”

“All DNA polymerase requires primer as well as template. It needs a 3′ OH group. It is not fundamental in biology or chemistry because RNA can do it without primer. This fundamental rule of biology happened in evolution and although it is a bad thing it is too late to change it. This is often how evolution works”

Of course, she wasn’t as bad as another grad student who was studying supernova remnants and had written papers saying that some of them were tens of thousands of years old. It turns out he was a strict fundamentalist and believed that the Earth was only several thousand years old. When his advisor found out about it, the advisor asked him how he could believe that when he dated a supernova remnant to be 20, 000 years old. The grad student replied “God made it look that way.”

Unfortunately for some people, faith is just too powerful.

America has a lot of things to be proud of.

[Its] foreign policy is not one of them.

True enough. Our record abroad since the beginning of the Cold War is not something to be proud of. And more and more, we seem to be assuming a paternal role, as if we know better than other countries because we’re the USA.

Lately we’ve shown a great deal of disdain for the international community, and much of our relations with the outside has exhibited a great deal of hubris (read: pride). That’s ironic for an administration that places such emphasis on Christianity: someone in Washington really needs to read up on the Seven Deadly Sins.

The US invaded a country on the basis of evidence that most of the world knew was false.

Please understand, I like the US, I like it a lot. You are a great bunch.

You are also THE SINGLE MOST POWERFUL NATION ON EARTH.

I don’t like Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, North Korea or the English. I like them a lot less than the US. However none of them is capable of a large scale invasion of a country on the other side of the world.

If I hated you I would not be throwing mud on a largly US blog. I’d be doing it privately, while decanting saltpetre.

>It is a shame that all the good that is done by the US is being completely >ignored (e.g., billions of dollars in international/humanitarian aid every >year, shared advances in science and technology, etc.).

Thank you for reminding me! Due to unfair trading practicies and debt repayment, every dollar in aid spent is matched by 5 coming back again!
Much of the ‘aid’ is tied to requirements that are detrimental to the economy of the recipient country.
Many charitable organisations are fronts for religious or corporate agendas (I will admit this is a ‘western’ rather than solely US problem).
The US screamed blue murder in the WTO about the UK favouring 3rd world suppliers over (subsidized) US suppliers, only 2 years ago.
As for sharing science and technology, the US is one of the great champions of intellectual property, especially in pharmaceuticals (which you pretty much own).
You don’t share, you sell.

America has a lot of things to be proud of.

It’s foreign policy is not one of them.