So what do we have left...
So all those articles were whittled down to .. lets see .. six.
Lets take a look at them.
1. Maddox, John. ''A Further String to the Believers' Bow." Nature 398 (1999) 766-767.
This is not a scientific letter it is a book review. The book is called The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene Jonathan Cape: 1999. 428 pp. £18.99 . Again, this is a book review and provides absolutely no evidence for ID. The book itself does not support ID. Maddox mad a joke in his book-review intro about agnostics. I’m sure the ID proponents jumped on that one word and so it ended up here on this list – wasting my time.
2 Maddox, John. '' The Unexpected Science to Come... Scientific American 281, 6 (1999) 62-67.
This has nothing to do with ID. It’s a fun review article (not scientific letter) in SA about the sorts of stuff that may be discovered in the future.
3 Richards, Jay Wesley. ''Many Worlds Hypotheses: A Naturalistic Alternative to Design." Perpsectives on Science and Christian
Faith 49, 4 (1997) 218-227.
This is not a scientific letter. As discussed, the “Many Worlds Hypotheses” actually runs counter to the Anthropic Principle.
4 Sober, Elliott. ''Testability." Proceedings and Addresses of the APA 73, 2 (1999) 47-76. A philosophical exposition of the recent controversy on design hypothesis by Behe and Dembski.
The APA is short for the American Philosophical Association. This a philosophical debate concerning testability. Which is fine. This is not a scientific argument for ID.
5 Squires, Euan J. ''Do We Live in the Simplest Possible Interesting World?" European Journal of Physics 2, 1 (1981) 55-57.
This was published in 1981. It is a review article. Not a scientific letter. Interestingly, physics has made some gains in last 22 years. Regardless, it does not support ID.
6 Tegmark, Max. ''Is 'The Theory of Everything' Merely the Ultimate Ensemble Theory?" Annals of Physics 270, 1-51 (1998).
This is another review article. It concerns “The theory of everything” which is a hot topic in Physics. It is not a scientific letter. Despite that, it still does not support ID.
So all those articles were whittled down to .. lets see .. six.
Lets take a look at them.
1. Maddox, John. ''A Further String to the Believers' Bow." Nature 398 (1999) 766-767.
This is not a scientific letter it is a book review. The book is called The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene Jonathan Cape: 1999. 428 pp. £18.99 . Again, this is a book review and provides absolutely no evidence for ID. The book itself does not support ID. Maddox mad a joke in his book-review intro about agnostics. I’m sure the ID proponents jumped on that one word and so it ended up here on this list – wasting my time.
2 Maddox, John. '' The Unexpected Science to Come... Scientific American 281, 6 (1999) 62-67.
This has nothing to do with ID. It’s a fun review article (not scientific letter) in SA about the sorts of stuff that may be discovered in the future.
3 Richards, Jay Wesley. ''Many Worlds Hypotheses: A Naturalistic Alternative to Design." Perpsectives on Science and Christian
Faith 49, 4 (1997) 218-227.
This is not a scientific letter. As discussed, the “Many Worlds Hypotheses” actually runs counter to the Anthropic Principle.
4 Sober, Elliott. ''Testability." Proceedings and Addresses of the APA 73, 2 (1999) 47-76. A philosophical exposition of the recent controversy on design hypothesis by Behe and Dembski.
The APA is short for the American Philosophical Association. This a philosophical debate concerning testability. Which is fine. This is not a scientific argument for ID.
5 Squires, Euan J. ''Do We Live in the Simplest Possible Interesting World?" European Journal of Physics 2, 1 (1981) 55-57.
This was published in 1981. It is a review article. Not a scientific letter. Interestingly, physics has made some gains in last 22 years. Regardless, it does not support ID.
6 Tegmark, Max. ''Is 'The Theory of Everything' Merely the Ultimate Ensemble Theory?" Annals of Physics 270, 1-51 (1998).
This is another review article. It concerns “The theory of everything” which is a hot topic in Physics. It is not a scientific letter. Despite that, it still does not support ID.
