Intelligent design is creationism. As we state-the-obvious _ Yes of course it is! Points all around people, theists and atheists...yay.
Sure Christians use the term. It doesn't have to be according to Christianity does it, especially if people are pondering on the hypothesis of ID? Ah but then that gives license to the theists to insert their God in the mix, I get it now. Keep the Christians out of the dialogue then I say, and let the investigations for the curious minded commence (further).
Once more, neither ID nor creationism are science. So long as anyone, Christian or not, shows up at the door of science claiming otherwise, they will be rightly kept out of the dialogue. Period.
The real curiosity is - why the hell do they want their tropes to be scientific, or for their leaders to sound sciencey, when at the end of the day they always end up having to say science is WRONG? They want to be wrong? Why do they want to be wrong?
They should take a lesson from Trump: When you’re wrong, don’t cozy up to people who disagree with you, just double down on your wrongness. Eventually, with sufficient repetition, the truly faithful will come around and agree with your wrongness. It helps keep subversives out of your camp and avoids those embarrassing moments when your wrongness is put on display for all to see.
For God’s sake do NOT go appealing to science! Science WORKS, and you don’t want that fact brought to light unnecessarily.
/advanced creo 101
The real curiosity is - why the hell do they want their tropes to be scientific, or for their leaders to sound sciencey, when at the end of the day they always end up having to say science is WRONG? They want to be wrong? Why do they want to be wrong?
They should take a lesson from Trump: When you’re wrong, don’t cozy up to people who disagree with you, just double down on your wrongness. Eventually, with sufficient repetition, the truly faithful will come around and agree with your wrongness. It helps keep subversives out of your camp and avoids those embarrassing moments when your wrongness is put on display for all to see.
For God’s sake do NOT go appealing to science! Science WORKS, and you don’t want that fact brought to light unnecessarily.
/advanced creo 101
Well, of course, for many it's a scam they are running. They have to keep the flock together and giving money. For others it's a cult, with all the cult-based motivations. Anyone that actually understands any science at all must, but definition, just be pretending.
You mortal fools, there already is evidence of Intelligent Design, it was presented to the court in Dover vs Kitzmiller and found to be a deliberate rebranding of Creationism, which is a theological doctrine. Period.
"Intelligent Design" is a religious view, not a scientific theory, according to U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III in his historic decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover. ACLU of Pennsylvania attorney Vic Walczak discusses the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area Schools case with the plaintiffs at the 2006...
www.aclu.org
This ought to be every reply to any post referencing Intelligent Design, period, end of thread. But nobody knows me, or history.
It's as if I never existed or made ID proponent Michael Behe slam his laptop shut and storm of the PA House Education Subcommittee hearing on legislation that intended to force the theological doctrine of Intelligent Design Creationism be "taught" in Pennsylvania public school science classes, on that day that I waved a copy of The Wedge Document around and read from it, during that hearing. And yes, Larry Frankel's memory IS a blessing.
It's as if Dr Barbara Forrest never existed or testified in that case or wrote a whole entire book, published in 2004, called Creationism's Trojan Horse, that clearly provided the factual evidence for what Intelligent Design really is, and how it got to be that way.
Okay, I am not going to try to edit this formatting mess. You can click a Wikipedia link.
But! THIS Wiki article IS INCOMPLETE! Because it lacks the ONE most important piece of evidence for Intelligent Design!It was a transitional fossil called Cdesignproponentsists.I don't need to look that up because I've known it by heart since 2005.
I learned it here! On IIDB!
It's funny to see the Google AI say that this is merely a "derogatory term for Creationists." It only became so because it IS the EVIDENCE of and for Intelligent Design.
You folks are all having your discussion as if this is not what actually happened in objective observable reality, and as if the evidence was not also some of the evidence in Dover vs Kitzmiller.
For years, "intelligent design" (ID) proponents denied that ID is just a new label for creationism. However, it is now well-known that the first intelligent design "textbook," Of Pandas and People, is just a revised version of a classic "two-model' creationism vs.
ncse.ngo
September 25, 2008
"Cdesign Proponentsists"
For years, "intelligent design" (ID) proponents denied that ID is just a new label for creationism. However, it is now well-known that the first intelligent design "textbook," Of Pandas and People, is just a revised version of a classic "two-model' creationism vs. evolution book named Creation Biology. As Barbara Forrest showed during her testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover, Pandas was remade into an intelligent design textbook in 1987, in a few months after the Supreme Court ruling against creation science in Edwards v. Aguillard came down.
The most striking example of the transition was discovered by Dr. Forrest as she compared the drafts of Creation Biology and Of Pandas and People. Not only had "creationism" and "creationist" literally been replaced, apparently via a word processor, with "intelligent design" and "design proponent" in passages that were otherwise unchanged, but she even found a transitional form between the two labels!
Scanned images of this passage, in its various versions, are shown below.
Mission Statement:The National Center for Science Education promotes and defends accurate and effective science education because everyone deserves to engage with the evidence.
I am still friends with my NCSE people. ANYONE with MONEY to host a speaker or panel of speakers from NCSE to come to your location to explain how the Creationists are still deceitful and dishonest, please contact me! I can help arrange it, no joke.
Why is anyone beating this dead Creationism's Trojan Horse? The case has been settled, there is no new argument that can be made without being wrong on purpose, and I mean on both sides.
There is no need to invoke Darwin or anything else. Every instance of use of the term "Intelligent Design" is exclusively a reference to "Biblical" Creationism, which is only a theological doctrine, and nothing else at all.
I do not understand why people who are science-literate would engage with this topic as if the science-not-literate person is not espousing some sort of disproven nonsense. Why don't you know? Why are you entertaining such an already-wrong assertion as if it is in some way a new thing? It's not, and it can never be. There can never be any new ideas about this. ID is not science and we do not need to invoke or use science to "debunk" something that was settled 20 years ago.
Intelligent Design is a term that exists to force Creationism into schools. Period. ID *is* Creationism and that is all it can ever be.
I read the transcripts and the court's finding of the trial after watching the NPR show "Intelligent Design on Trial". The transcripts and judge's opinion show that indeed ID is dead, intellectually vacuous. The Discovery Institute put up their best and on cross they were shredded, and called out by the judge.
Behe during cross: "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred."
More Behe during cross: "Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless ... would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and ... many other theories as well."
The key wording "logical inferences", he has to change the definition of science to slip that in, and he acknowledged that astrology would similarly be allow in.
Intelligent design is creationism. As we state-the-obvious _ Yes of course it is! Points all around people, theists and atheists...yay.
Sure Christians use the term. It doesn't have to be according to Christianity does it, especially if people are pondering on the hypothesis of ID? Ah but then that gives license to the theists to insert their God in the mix, I get it now. Keep the Christians out of the dialogue then I say, and let the investigations for the curious minded commence (further).
Intelligent design is creationism. As we state-the-obvious _ Yes of course it is! Points all around people, theists and atheists...yay.
Sure Christians use the term. It doesn't have to be according to Christianity does it, especially if people are pondering on the hypothesis of ID? Ah but then that gives license to the theists to insert their God in the mix, I get it now. Keep the Christians out of the dialogue then I say, and let the investigations for the curious minded commence (further).
You are right. The “logic” of your statement is only apparent. On even the most cursory scrutiny it falls apart.
Consider:
Once more, “Thor being an intelligent agent starting fires in the wild by hurling lighting bolts at dry leaves is not science.”
You: “Neither then by the apparent logic is a human being, an ‘intelligent agent’ who by the intention of his will starts fires.”
Hopefully this will help your grasp how stupid the line of argument your are employing is, although, alas, I’ve already adumbrated this counterargument. Perhaps my repeating it will help you?
Science is indeed the opposite to creationism or intelligent design, until such time as creationists or IDiots come up with some scientific evidence for their claims, which they never have and never will.
Intelligent design is creationism. As we state-the-obvious _ Yes of course it is! Points all around people, theists and atheists...yay.
Sure Christians use the term. It doesn't have to be according to Christianity does it, especially if people are pondering on the hypothesis of ID? Ah but then that gives license to the theists to insert their God in the mix, I get it now. Keep the Christians out of the dialogue then I say, and let the investigations for the curious minded commence (further).
Science (system of methods) itself, doesn't 'know' if Intelligent Design exists or not.
Regarding Human logic i.e. what makes sense within human comprehension, it doesn't know either. With the combined Human logic and the method of science - what are those "elements" or the 'lack of' in nature you notice under the microscope that suggests to you (generally those who make the claim) that nature is unguided?
Once more, “Thor being an intelligent agent starting fires in the wild by hurling lighting bolts at dry leaves is not science.”You: “Neither then by the apparent logic is a human being, an ‘intelligent agent’ who by the intention of his will starts fires.”
Hopefully this will help your grasp how stupid the line of argument your are employing is, although, alas, I’ve already adumbrated this counterargument. Perhaps my repeating it will help you?
Science is indeed the opposite to creationism or intelligent design, until such time as creationists or IDiots come up with some scientific evidence for their claims, which they never have and never will.
Science isn't an opposite to tarot reading, either.
Science is almost entirely unrelated to Creation or Intelligent Design. The latter nonsensical made up bollocks isn't big enough to stand in opposition to science. To suggest that they could be is absurd.
Putting Creation and ID up as "opposing" science is the equivalent of taking Einsteins seminal 1916 paper The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity, and "opposing" it by just saying "Nuh-Uh", and walking off.
Fairy tales do NOT constitute challenge nor opposition to science. Science crushes this nonsense like a Main Battle Tank crushing an earthworm - only the earthworm even notices that anything happened.
'Intelligence' is hopelessly human centric. Physically we are a mass of cells incineration wit each other.
How does the Sun 'know' how to make nuclear fusion generating energy?
How does tghe moon know how to orbit the Earth?
Philosophical determinism has had lengthy debaates on philosophy forum. Are you predestined to do somethng or are you an independent agent?
Yes Learner, scince can not disprove ID, which is an out for religion, a loophole. God as envisioned by Christians can not scientifically be disproven. Supernatural claims of existence of god can and are disproven, for example YEC.
But then science can not disprove leprechauns in Ireland.
ID fails logically not scientifically. ID theory does not explain whee the designer came from. Designer is an obvious code word for god.
And Learner, why are there no biblical reports of dinosaurs with humans in the bible r anywhere else??
Those ancientt hums must have been able to run really fast.
We can see that dinosaurs still existed during the time of Noah’s Flood because we find dinosaur fossils today that were formed when conditions were right during the global Flood. Dinosaurs could have gone extinct any time after the two of each kind got off the Ark, just like many other animals have gone extinct since the Flood.
Intelligent design is creationism. As we state-the-obvious _ Yes of course it is! Points all around people, theists and atheists...yay.
Sure Christians use the term. It doesn't have to be according to Christianity does it, especially if people are pondering on the hypothesis of ID? Ah but then that gives license to the theists to insert their God in the mix, I get it now. Keep the Christians out of the dialogue then I say, and let the investigations for the curious minded commence (further).
Science (system of methods) itself, doesn't 'know' if Intelligent Design exists or not.
Regarding Human logic i.e. what makes sense within human comprehension, it doesn't know either. With the combined Human logic and the method of science - what are those "elements" or the 'lack of' in nature you notice under the microscope that suggests to you (generally those who make the claim) that nature is unguided?
Once more, “Thor being an intelligent agent starting fires in the wild by hurling lighting bolts at dry leaves is not science.”You: “Neither then by the apparent logic is a human being, an ‘intelligent agent’ who by the intention of his will starts fires.”
Hopefully this will help your grasp how stupid the line of argument your are employing is, although, alas, I’ve already adumbrated this counterargument. Perhaps my repeating it will help you?
Science is indeed the opposite to creationism or intelligent design, until such time as creationists or IDiots come up with some scientific evidence for their claims, which they never have and never will.
Mate, it's not impossible that I will win Gold Lotto tonight, but it would be utterly stupid for me to believe that it will happen, and to act on that belief.
So far, you not only have failed to make the slightest progress towards presenting ID as reasonable or scientific; You also have managed to demonstrate beyond doubt that you have zero clue what "natural law" means, and equally little idea what "impossible" means.
Intelligent Design, as an explanation of how complexity came about, is not a logically possible answer, because it demands as a premise the existence of that which it seeks to explain.
The Theory of Evolution is an answer to the question "How could intelligence, which is really complicated, come into being?"
Answers to this question either have to say that such complexity can just spontaneously happen, in the same way that heavy stuff will just spontaneously fall down; Or they have to start with simple stuff that we can accept the spontaneous existence of, and show how that stuff can get more complicated.
The third option - that something more complicated made the complicated stuff we see around us - makes the problem worse, not better.
Humans are amazing. If they couldn't just happen, then to explain how such an amazing thing came about, we need to start with something less amazing.
If humans could just happen, then we don't need an explanation.
And if humans are too amazing to just happen, then Gods are even more amazing, and even less likely to just happen. So by adding a God (or "Designer") you not only don't answer your original question; You also create a brand new and even more difficult question.
God (or any other "Designer"), as an explanation for complexity, is as useful as cutting a foot off the end of a rope, because it's currently a few yards too short.
Intelligent Design or advanced Aliens isn't Tarot reading.
If the bible is opposed to tarot reading (and magic) then it is a biblical concept you don't understand. Your argument is misplaced. You're debating with the wrong believer.
Science is almost entirely unrelated to Creation or Intelligent Design. The latter nonsensical made up bollocks isn't big enough to stand in opposition to science. To suggest that they could be is absurd.
Putting Creation and ID up as "opposing" science is the equivalent of taking Einsteins seminal 1916 paper The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity, and "opposing" it by just saying "Nuh-Uh", and walking off.
Fairy tales do NOT constitute challenge nor opposition to science. Science crushes this nonsense like a Main Battle Tank crushing an earthworm - only the earthworm even notices that anything happened.
I agree it ain't.. but If you think Santa and snow white can be portrayed as an equivalent or an analogy to the writings of the Gospels, as the best line of argument to come up with, then unfortunately you're argument is a flawed and wasted endeavour. Finding truth,or any truth about the bible is not based on your personal opinionated view on fairy tales.
If you think Santa and snow white can be portrayed as an equivalent or an analogy to the writings of the Gospels, as the best line of argument to come up with, then unfortunately you're argument is a flawed and wasted endeavour. Finding truth,or any truth about the bible is not based on your personal opinionated view on fairy tales.
Claiming truth, or any truth about the Bible, is exactly equivalent to finding truth in fairy tales.
That's not an opinion; It's an observation. Truth cannot be arrived at merely by reading stuff.
You can read scientific papers, and find out what someone else thinks is true, and (far more importantly) what you can do to find out if it's actually true. But it's not true until you test it yourself.
The difference between a scientific document and a fairy tale is that the former outlines in detail the method by which you can confirm the story for yourself. The Bible not only doesn't include a detailed methodology for testing the claims made in the Bible; It actually claims that you shouldn't attempt to test those claims (which is the hallmark of a scam).
The Bible is a book of fairy tales.
Nullius in Verba, as they say at the Royal Society.
To be honest I think I do have a problem with listening to some people's logic. I have always thought I was cursed (or blessed, depending) with too much on the 'spacial reasoning' side, when viewing things. A trait I've had since a kid that has been both either an advantage or a hindrance.
The Bible not only doesn't include a detailed methodology for testing the claims made in the Bible; It actually claims that you shouldn't attempt to test those claims (which is the hallmark of a scam).
That point alone forces theists into the “but what if it’s true?” corner. It has ended more than one discussion of the Bible’s verity or lack thereof. I think it’s fine to find value in reading it* but mistaking it for a magic book written by a tri-omni sky daddy, is just loony tunes.
* whatever … I like sci fi, but I know what fi stands for.
If you think Santa and snow white can be portrayed as an equivalent or an analogy to the writings of the Gospels, as the best line of argument to come up with, then unfortunately you're argument is a flawed and wasted endeavour. Finding truth,or any truth about the bible is not based on your personal opinionated view on fairy tales.
If in contrast 'exactly equivalent' regards the searching for the truth, regardless of what one believes in... then that intention to find truth is a valid noble quest! There will obviously be a few disappointments - some will give up never finding the answer, losing their faith but its not problematic to make as a strong argument.
You can read scientific papers, and find out what someone else thinks is true, and (far more importantly) what you can do to find out if it's actually true. But it's not true until you test it yourself.
The difference between a scientific document and a fairy tale is that the former outlines in detail the method by which you can confirm the story for yourself.
But you see, what you describe here would apply to pretty much all the writings of antiquity. Because of your given criteria: none of writings including all those outside the bible are 'scientific papers'.
The Bible not only doesn't include a detailed methodology for testing the claims made in the Bible; It actually claims that you shouldn't attempt to test those claims (which is the hallmark of a scam).
If you understand the attraction of scifi you understand the traction of Christianity.
Back in the 90s I was talking to a Christian at work, an educated engineer. It was then I realized it was not just bliefs and rituals, Christians are living the supernatural reality with a cast of charters.
God, angels, evil spirits, demons.
Imagine telling a life long Star Trek fan the old TV shows will never be shown again.
When the original ST went off the air fans monnted a lobby effort to get it back.
In a 80s SNL spoof of a Star Trek convention Shatter told Trekies to get a life. A fan reaction ensued. I think he walked it back.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
