Cambrian Explosion - Explained, Graph and preliminary info.

The Theory Of Intelligent Design now explains the "Cambrian Explosion". See in the middle:

Here is the preliminary text:

If you are going to steal a title under false pretences, why do you steal that one?

It is already taken for a theory that a pre-existing independent entity created life on Earth.

and you still have to define intelligence.
That shoudl be good because you think objects can have intelligence but not be intelligent.

I made your answer a new topic:

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=25417

Thus the theory is named what it is because that's what it is. and there's nothing I can do about it.

You'll just have to get used to the "Theory Of Intelligent Design" taking over science, like I had to.


This post has been edited by Gary Gaulin on Mar 31 2009, 01:03 PM

Intelligent Design people talk about the exact opposite of what you are talking about.

They say first there was the Intelligent Being then creation.
You say that intelligence emerged. That first there were atoms and molecules then structures and intelligence came from them.

You say the intelligence comes from the structures they say structures come from intelligence.
Why can you not see the difference between what they say and what you say?

That's 'cuz Gary's real goal is to MARKET to people who want to hear the words intelligent & design.

But those people will think him a wolf in sheep's clothing because he uses their title but says the opposite of what they say.

I've tried telling him that he's underestimating his audience, be he seems to think they're stupid enough to fall for it.

Sometimes I get the feeling he thinks he's agreeing with them.

He sends mixed messages, he links articles and makes it sound like he agrees with them but then says the exact opposite of them.

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=305638

I'm getting quote-mined again! Considering how it goes with the territory, I'm doing good.

It's also hard to tell whether that came from the theory or not, considering how the struggle for "control" of things is a feature of intelligence.

And it is a shame that a whole movie gets made on this theory yet the only one that had a chance in science had to be completely ignored. I'm sure the rank and file in the ID movement would have liked to know about it and other developments that the Discovery Institute does not seem to want to discuss.

I don't want to be accused of taking anything out of context.

Please read the entire thread I linked to. Our marketing dweeb makes his motives quite clear.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=20058&st=0


This post has been edited by gmilam on Mar 31 2009, 08:47 PM

I think you did a fine job of proving that my concern is not getting rich off the Texas book market selling books with no theory in it. That's what the Discover Institute does.

My concern is a teachable theory they were promised but money and politics denied them. There is not even anyone left at the Discovery Institute who can write a theory. From what I understand even Mike Behe has had enough of the politics and is now doing other things. But the ID movement was not told about that and many things including the fact that there is a teachable theory already entering the classroom. My experience with them has shown that if they can't "control" the theory for financial gain then they don't want it. I give it away. Which is why I'm broke while others (including some scientists) make tons of money selling junk-science.

GG do you understand that "ID" is purely a "hidden watchmaker" story trying to look scientific?
It's not about the science it's about promoting the hidden watchmaker idea.
they don't want to control the money, they want to control belief, they want everyone to believe in a hidden watchmaker.
That's why they exist, that is their purpose, that is their raison d'etre.

You are on the opposite side of the hidden watchmaker debate, so of course they will have nothing to do with you.

In the traditional method the science comes first, then after it's accepted it gets put into a textbook.

The GG/DI marketing approach is to bypass peer review and go straight to the classroom. Science be damned.

You people no longer amuse me.

This post has been edited by gmilam on Apr 1 2009, 12:36 PM

The "scientific community" has already publicly stated that their strategy is to completely ignore all intelligence theories. And most did a good job keeping their blinders on, as they were told. Now their credibility is almost zero because of their own "science be damned" strategy. So the rest of the world is moving on without them, and that is not my fault. I'm just making the best of the situation, as are educators with the same problem who are responsible for making honest decisions for their students.