Barbara Forrest on dKos

Interesting interview. I'm glad DarkSyde had an opportunity to interview Barbara. Now I'll have to go buy a copy of her book!

Dr. Forrest provided the most succinct definition of a scientific theory, as well a description of the process, I've seen yet, all in one sentence:
"A scientific theory is a well-established scientific explanation of natural phenomena using abundant data acquired through rigorous scientific testing and research."

This is off-topic, but I thought I'd post it anyway:

The Governor's Prayer Breakfast in Alaska this morning featured, of all people, Carl Baugh.

The guy even AIG can't stand was invited to give a one hour lecture to the Last Frontier's movers & shakers, and was seated next to no less than Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski (a Roman Catholic, I might add).

I was pretty pathetic. No one bothered to question the glaring inconsistency in Baugh's speech (and indeed, his entire career): how can trackways that prove humans coexisted with trilobites & dinosaurs have survived the cataclysm of Noah's flood, which supposedly laid down all the geologic strata in the first place?

That, and his asserting that atheism = hopelessness, which I know from personal experience is a lie.

For anyone who has some time on their hands, Barbara Forrest will be at the annual meeting of the Georgia Academy of Science next month where she will be signing copies of her book as well as giving a talk on intelligent design.

Er, it was pretty pathetic. Not I.

DarkSyde did a great job with the Barbara Forrest interview. I hope he interviews more of the good guys.

Barbara Forrest is not a scientist, and yet the evolutionists promote her routinely...and then they cry when a non-scientist argues for ID.

Its the old "what applies to YOU does not apply to US" scam.

You people are a scream!

Emanuel Golstein: At least in my case, who presents the arguments in favour of ID doesn't matter - they are all bogus. If we want to know why they are being presented, then it helps somewhat to know what where someone is coming from, intellectually speaking.

You know, if you're going to grab your username from the most over-referenced book in history, you could at least make an attempt to spell the name right.

Barbara Forrest is not a scientist, and yet the evolutionists promote her routinely...and then they cry when a non-scientist argues for ID.

I don't see your point. If you bothered to read the interview, you would know that Forrest testified about the history of the Intelligent Design Creationism, not the "science". Also, since ID is not science, but is religion, (which is now backed by legal precedent) Forrest, as a philosopher seems perfectly well qualified to comment on it.

I don't see how this compares to mechanical engineers and lawyers commenting on the probability of biological phenomena.

What you might not have noticed, Golstein [sic], is that bogus science is criticized and refuted as such, regardless of source. Lack of qualifications might be suggested as an explanation for ignorance and inept reasoning, but make no mistake: it is the the defective arguments and lack of factual support which is attacked, not mere credentials.