Joshua Rosenau spends his days defending the teaching of evolution at 
Many moons ago, I presented my theory on Intelligent Falling to the scientific community in the only way recognized as valid: I posted it on the internet without any supporting evidence. Important journals like The Onion picked it up later, but it has taken longer to fulling infiltrate the ID movement.
In a discussion at Bill Dembski's blog, "bornagain77" writes:
I Find it very interesting that materialism had to invent hypothetical particles to keep the equations of Gravity working properly when Theism would of predicted Gravity as a primary cause and would not have seen a need to invent them. Are not atomic particles the result of various forces acting on energy anyway?And later adds:
The mathematical problem with the hypothetical particles (Dark Matter/Energy)that had to be invented to keep the equations of Gravity from falling apart, may very well be intractable because, “How in the world do you put a number on an indivisible force that very well may arise from indivisible God in the first place?”At last, Complex Specified Pushing can join its brethren in the IDolators' pantheon.
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
Comments
For someone who believes in an invisible being that supposedly exists outside of our space-time continuum, he should be careful about using the word "invent" so sneeringly.
Posted by: Ex-drone | April 30, 2007 6:45 PM
"Theism would of predicted Gravity as a primary cause and would not have seen a need to invent them"
Have you noticed in discussions of ID/creationism you never see the word predicted without "would of/have" in front of it.
Posted by: Chris Hyland | April 30, 2007 8:58 PM
[Sniff] That brings back memories! I was there when Jeff Stubbs and Elf Sternberg first proposed Intelligent Grappling back in 'ought two.
Those were the days when men were men ... and horses were nervous.
Posted by: John Pieret | May 1, 2007 5:43 AM
Not to be a nit-picker or grammar police, but is it now commonly acceptable to say "would of" instead of would have? "Have" is a "helping verb" followed by another verb - "predicted" in the above quote. "of is a preposition, usually followed by an object - a noun or pronoun. I think the confusion arises from the contraction "would've" which sounds like would of, but it seems to me a person with any education (i.e, high school) should know better. Off the subject, I know, but I feel better.
Posted by: Marge | May 1, 2007 11:18 AM
No, Marge, it has not become acceptable. It is common, alas.
Posted by: Josh Rosenau | May 1, 2007 11:32 AM