As currently formulated, Intelligent Design is not science.

Researching I ran across the following articles. In the first one, Ross
and Rana argue that ID as currently formulated is not science.... Their
recent press release also has a comment by Richard Smalley which took me
to William Dembski's blog where Dembski somehow seems to reach the
conclusion that because of Flew and Smalley, evolution may be a theory
in crisis after all. I then return to Richard Collings who addresses the
wishful thinking of some of his fellow Christians. Oh yes, I wonder if
Dembski is aware of Flew's latest comments on his ignorance leading him
to make some silly mistakes?...

I am still curious about this 'scientific theory of creation though' by
these 'internationally respected' and 'world renowned astrophycisists'
::roll-eyes::

Sometimes its hard to detect whether this all is said and done tongue in
cheek or not...

Pim

http://www.earnedmedia.org/cpr1006.htm

Has the theory of evolution met its nemesis? Internationally respected
biochemist Dr. Fazale 'Fuz' Rana, and world renowned astrophysicist Dr.
Hugh Ross think so. These two scientists have developed a creation model
that is testable, falsifiable, and predictive. For the first time in 80
years, this innovative approach catapults the evolution/creation debate
from science vs. religion, to science vs. science.

"As currently formulated, Intelligent Design is not science. It is not
falsifiable and makes no predictions about future scientific
discoveries," says Dr. Fazale Rana, one of the world's leading experts
in origin of life research.

...

Has evolution finally met it's match? Many in the scientific community
would agree. After reading Dr. Rana's books, Nobel prize-winning chemist
Dr. Richard Smalley had this to say: "Evolution has just been dealt its
death blow. After reading Origins of Life, with my background in
chemistry and physics, it is clear evolution could not have occurred."

Dembski reported on Smalley's comments, did he comment on "As currently
formulated, Intelligent Design is not science."

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/107

I reported last month at another blog on Richard Smalley’s doubts about
evolutionary theory (go here
<http://www.idthefuture.com/index.php?title=richard_smalley_on_evolution&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1>).
Smalley is a Nobel laureate in chemistry. Just the other day I ran
across the following endorsement by Smalley of Ross & Rana’s book
/Origins of Life/
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1576833445/qid=1117427628/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/103-5230384-8759003>:

    Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading /Origins
    of Life /with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear
    that biological evolution could not have occurred.

What’s going to happen as scholars and scientists of the highest caliber
— like Antony Flew and Richard Smalley — keep dumping evolution? Perhaps
evolution really is a theory in crisis.

Or perhaps Dembski has missed Richard Collings' wise words

Professor Richard Colling, author of the book “Random Designer: Created
from Chaos to Connect with Creator
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0975390406/>” is quoted
by Sharon Begley in *Tough Assignment: Teaching Evolution To
Fundamentalists*, Wall Street Journal, December 3, 2004; Page A15

    Prof. Richard Colling wrote:

    In his new book, “Random Designer,” he writes: “It pains me to
    suggest that my religious brothers are telling falsehoods” when they
    say evolutionary theory is “in crisis” and claim that there is
    widespread skepticism about it among scientists. “Such statements
    are blatantly untrue,” he argues; “evolution has stood the test of
    time and considerable scrutiny. [1]”

    (Sharon Begley in *Tough Assignment: Teaching Evolution To
    Fundamentalists*, Wall Street Journal, December 3, 2004; Page A15 )

Smalley on the burden of proof
http://www.tuskegee.edu/Global/story.asp?S=2382961&nav=CcWvRbj5

Smalley mentioned the ideas of evolution versus creationism, Darwin
versus the Bible's "Genesis." The burden of proof, he said, is on those
who don't believe that "'Genesis' was right, and there was a creation,
and that Creator is still involved.
Received on Sat Oct 8 19:29:24 2005