I should be ashamed of how pleased I am that "Hungry Like the Wolf" just popped up on my iPod.

Is it a lunchtime thing or a Duran Duran thing?

Oh, btw, the new episode of that thing has popped up. And I never asked if you got to see the other ep before Thanksgiving.

My eBay seller wrote back, and yes, of course, she had two identical pairs. Phew!

I seriously don't think anyone would notice if I just took a nap right here, so maybe....

The problem with ID is that it has been conclusively debunked and yet its proponents still persist in claiming it is a valid scientific theory. At the time it was proposed, it was interesting and took a while to bring down. But now many, many people have shown the flaws in the theory. The people behind ID still don't acknowledge those criticisms. At that point they're no longer doing science.

ETA: here's an overview of some of the scientific stuff in ID: [link]

Thanks, bon bon. It's funny to see that again, because I read that article when it came out (or thereabouts), and re-read it, within the last month or so (and just re-read it, now). I think Orr does a good job, in it.

Of course, and it's right around where both sides lose me (because I don't have much scientific curiosity—and know that's a flaw in my personality). There are then rebuttals of much of what Orr says, including one by Dembski [link] and another by some college ID club (or whatever) [link] It then all gets over my head, and I start feeling like everyone is probably twisting, turning, and spinning, because of their biases.

I'm not a huge fan of Gould's NOMA, because I think it's leaning toward cop-out, and yet, it's (practically speaking) where I end up, when things get over my head.

I'd be going outside my domain to decide if string theory is really a string hypothesis, Cindy.

I think String theory is probably not better termed String hypothesis, because of the maths. I didn't realize that's specifically what you were referring to, in previous comment.

Call it faith (and if you call accepting unproven theories as axioms faith, there certainly is faith in science--but it is faith that's kinda waiting to be verified or falsified, which separates it from religious faith) if you will.

Eh. I'm waiting for my religious faith to be, if not verified, then proven. I just think it will happen after, and a lot of cool science I'm waiting for will probably happen, too, like the discovery of how transplanting some of my body fat will cure someone's cancer, AIDS, and road rage.

Yes, but they're lying about it. ID makes no predictions, and there's simply no experiment or observation that can be done to confirm or disprove "...or maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster did it."

I just don't think that's what they're (all) claiming (in all cases). I think that's an oversimplification that's above the subject, which is pretty much what kept me from posting, "The FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER WAS BOWLING," in response to whoever's link about parallel universes colliding or whatever it was I read here, last week.

I pulled out a dusty Depeche Mode cd for the plane ride home. Probably still good driving music, but ...wow. Teenage angst! Or at least the first half was. I sleptish through the second (not necessarily the music's fault. I tend to listen to music to zen out on plane flights. Distracts from the distractions and annoying people. And looking at my watch.)

Is it a lunchtime thing or a Duran Duran thing?

Well, it's rainy and I chose poorly for lunch, and the shuffle on my iPod was being all emo when suddenly Duran Duran popped up and I was trying not to chairdance. Now it seems to have caught on and is giving me David Bowie and Tool.

Oh, btw, the new episode of that thing has popped up. And I never asked if you got to see the other ep before Thanksgiving.

I did see it, and right now I'm scanning my flist for places to grab the new one.

I have achieved cat #2, and am eating lunch. Next up, laundry.

Must pay more attention. I thought this said

"I have achieved cat #2, and am eating laundry."

Interesting.

[link]

"I have achieved cat #2, and am eating laundry."

Too much fiber.

I just don't think that's what they're (all) claiming (in all cases).

I've never read a single piece of ID propaganda that didn't boil down, at its core, to "This evolution stuff sounds really complicated. Maybe it was godaliens!" (Dembski in particular is brilliant at couching this in pseudoscientific language, but the man wouldn't recognize an actual biology text if it evolved teeth and bit him.)

I'm waiting for my religious faith to be, if not verified, then proven.

Other religious people I've talked about faith/science have been mostly unconcerned with proof, some saying it's beside the point, others saying the absence of proof is part of the point.

It all depends on the experience you're looking for/getting from your religion.