This month’s Scientific American is another example of evolution’s influence on science. Read more
Comments
Your article contemptuously dismisses the authors' hypotheses regarding abiogenesis. For all the scorn you heap on their theories, though, is your work any more reliable? Do you have anything else to show that makes your theories more credible?
The differentiating factor between ID theorists' work and that of scientists seems to be something you gloss over in passing. In your own words, "In most cases evolutionists working in the laboratory have been able to devise experiments that produce many of the key players."
Have ID theorists managed to generate the zero-wavelength information beam that Dembski proposed, or shown supernatural intervention creating any key players? Is there any ID research program we could look to for experimental results such as those generated by empirical scientists? I don't keep up with scientific literature, but it appears that all that ID can muster up in response to the experiments being done by scientists is rhetoric.Learned Hand