Comments on: Intelligent Design’s Legal Status after Dover https://gregladen.com/blog/2010/04/02/intelligent-designs-legal-stat/ Wed, 07 Apr 2010 20:21:48 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.8 By: William O. Romine Jr. https://gregladen.com/blog/2010/04/02/intelligent-designs-legal-stat/#comment-516748 Wed, 07 Apr 2010 20:21:48 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/04/02/intelligent-designs-legal-stat/#comment-516748 By the way – I have no questions about the theory of
evolution. It is simply that I am an existentialist and
not an atheist [I know it is politically correct among many
scientists to be atheist].

]]> By: William O. Romine Jr. https://gregladen.com/blog/2010/04/02/intelligent-designs-legal-stat/#comment-516747 Wed, 07 Apr 2010 20:15:58 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/04/02/intelligent-designs-legal-stat/#comment-516747 I normally do not remark on my SAT and MCAT scores but when
someone who made three 800’s on his SAT’s is accused on not
grasping the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle [and a 795/800
on his SCIENCE MCAT] it is a little bit irritating.

]]> By: Stephanie Z https://gregladen.com/blog/2010/04/02/intelligent-designs-legal-stat/#comment-516746 Sun, 04 Apr 2010 21:49:03 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/04/02/intelligent-designs-legal-stat/#comment-516746 William, you’re only willing to argue your idea with the already credulous? What’s the point?

And what does my credulity or lack thereof have to do with your understanding of quantum physics?

]]> By: D. C. https://gregladen.com/blog/2010/04/02/intelligent-designs-legal-stat/#comment-516745 Sun, 04 Apr 2010 21:46:26 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/04/02/intelligent-designs-legal-stat/#comment-516745 And he’d probably be right that is was a hallucination.

]]> By: William O. Romine Jr. https://gregladen.com/blog/2010/04/02/intelligent-designs-legal-stat/#comment-516744 Sun, 04 Apr 2010 20:00:01 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/04/02/intelligent-designs-legal-stat/#comment-516744 Greg. It was obvious that I was arguing with someone who
if something supernatural happened in front of him the person
would decide it was a hallucination.

]]> By: Greg Laden https://gregladen.com/blog/2010/04/02/intelligent-designs-legal-stat/#comment-516743 Sun, 04 Apr 2010 00:34:08 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/04/02/intelligent-designs-legal-stat/#comment-516743 Well, I’m certainly glad that we had this little discussion.

]]> By: William O. Romine Jr. https://gregladen.com/blog/2010/04/02/intelligent-designs-legal-stat/#comment-516742 Sat, 03 Apr 2010 16:14:21 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/04/02/intelligent-designs-legal-stat/#comment-516742 I close the discussion other than to note that I meant &x &p,
not &x &t.

]]> By: Stephanie Z https://gregladen.com/blog/2010/04/02/intelligent-designs-legal-stat/#comment-516741 Sat, 03 Apr 2010 15:58:27 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/04/02/intelligent-designs-legal-stat/#comment-516741 I think it’s more likely that you’re confusing words that have a very specific meaning in quantum physics for those same words with different meanings outside of quantum physics. Pretty much every claim made for what quantum physics tells us about the world we live in relies on those confusions. And confusions of scale.

]]> By: William O. Romine Jr. https://gregladen.com/blog/2010/04/02/intelligent-designs-legal-stat/#comment-516740 Sat, 03 Apr 2010 14:30:00 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/04/02/intelligent-designs-legal-stat/#comment-516740 Perhaps we have a different understanding of indeterminacy
and uncertainty and what &x&t > h means.

]]> By: Stephanie Z https://gregladen.com/blog/2010/04/02/intelligent-designs-legal-stat/#comment-516739 Sat, 03 Apr 2010 12:08:38 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/04/02/intelligent-designs-legal-stat/#comment-516739 No, William, it doesn’t.

]]>