<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
Michael et. al.<BR>
<BR>
More on the Intelligent Design/Creationism debate, referring to published "scientific" papers on Intelligent Design, charging Darwinists with censorship, and referencing Behe:<BR>
<BR>
<A HREF="http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXXIV/Issue_8/Opinions/Opinions3.shtml">http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXXIV/Issue_8/Opinions/Opinions3.shtml</A><BR>
<BR>
Please remember that my requirements for a scientific theory to be taught as established science is not just a paper or two that gets published on a given theory, but a rigorous verification of the theory by empirical methodology over time by a number of scientists. <BR>
<BR>
Recall cold fusion? This received quite a lot of attention as though the theory was solid science, backed by empirical testing. Yet over time, with scientists trying to replicate the results of the scientists who thought they really had something, cold fusion remains on the list of theories that may result in validation, but require more exploration, though many scientists insist it is laughable:<BR>
<BR>
<A HREF="http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041129/pf/041129-11_pf.html">http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041129/pf/041129-11_pf.html</A><BR>
<BR>
Consider though, that cold fusion has a set of experiments that can be empirically investigated to continue to explore this theory. There are charges that bias or ethical problems in the scientific community are leading scientists to ignore the facts that cold fusion may still be a workable theory, resulting in a usable method of deriving energy:<BR>
<BR>
<A HREF="http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue35/ethics.html">http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue35/ethics.html</A><BR>
<BR>
But what are the empirical experiments that scientists can replicate and continue to test to determine the validity or falsehood of Intelligent Design/Creationism? It is easy to point to problems with evolutionary theory and say the theory is flawed. But this does not automatically mean that any other theory must be then viewed as valid science, minus empirical evidence gathered by rigorous testable and replicatable means to support an alternative theory.<BR>
<BR>
I could point out gaps and problems with the Theory of Gravity, and then insist that we should consider the theory that what attracts mass to other masses is the intelligent intervention of a supreme being who does not want life to drift off the Earth into space, but how could such a theory be tested? And should such a theory be taught as a scientific alternative in Physics classes?<BR>
<BR>
Ted Moffett</FONT></HTML>