Your post presumes to know what I do and do not know. To suggest anyone is an idiot without having a solid understanding of what they have examined, researched, studied, and considered is the epitome of arrogance.
However we do all have a solid understanding of what you do and do not know. We have over a thousand posts spelling it out for us.
We have seen that you have no knowledge of how either evolution or science works. In fact we've seen that you don't even understand your own ID arguments very well, certainly not well enough to actually form them into your own words at least. You've repeatedly demonstrated that it's highly unlikely you have ever even examined a science book in anything but the most cursory manner. There is a mountain of posts which shows over and over again that you are, in fact, an under-educated buffoon that in any decently run world would be relegated to the coveted position of village idiot.
If you would like me to provide evidence of your utter stupidity and incompetence, feel free to ask and I will be more than happy to do so.
The bottomline however, is that the comment is eminently justified. If you want to actually demonstrate that it isn't accurate, I once again invite you to actually start making legitimate arguments and learn about the issues you are arguing about first.
The dispute arises when proponents of evolution starting stretching what we know and have observed into things like micro=macro. That’s where things start getting tangled up.
The proponents are not stretching anything. Micro and macro evolution are terms made up by IDer's. The term displays absolutely no understanding of how evolution works.
It's so wrong it's not even remotely close to being accurate, this is the problem with IDer's trying to attack evolution. You have so little knowledge of it that there's little point in even trying to correct you because your knowledge is even less than non-existent.
It's like if I looked at a baseball game and said "I don't get how people like this game. How can anyone enjoy watching those players run around in circles while hopping on one foot and wearing sailormoon costumes?"
The fact that such a question is asked displays such a fundamental lack of knowledge that it makes it nearly impossible to actually educate and just hearing it makes the brain start to scream in agony. This is where you fit in, BS.
Is it necessary that ID “works in application?
Of course it is, BS. If it doesn't actually work, then it's clearly wrong isn't it? I don't want to come at you with any of these bizarre ideas or anything, but what's the point to a method that can't actually accomplish anything. The reason we think of science as the "supreme ruler" is because it's the only method we have found so far that actually works. If you could actually demonstrate that ID was capable of doing anything useful then it might be worth a second glance. But from your question it's clear that it can't.
So by your own admission, science is the "supreme ruler". Glad to see we finally agree on something.
You really have not given much effort to examining ID science, have you.
By the way, BS. I'm still waiting for a response on the fact that ID clearly advocates a Christian theistic agenda and the Christian God. I provided evidence showing that you were wrong. Where is your evidence to the contrary, or do you concede the point?
And furthermore where is your evidence of an ad hominem that you backhandedly tried to claim that I engaged in?
While we're on the subject, I forgot to also point out that the courts don't seem to agree with you about it not being about god either. That's why it was rejected from being taught over and over again. That's why even in the Dover trial the conversative Christian
judge said that it was advancing a religious agenda and threw it out.
ID is based on the teleological argument, which is one of the three basic religious arguments for the existence of god. The same tired argument that Aquinas tried to use. It is an attempted redefinition of creation science after they realized that they couldn't get it past the courts. At the dover trail the lawyer for the evolution side pointed out that many of the old creationists documents had just had a find replace done to change a few words around. As Wikipedia says:The modern use of the words "intelligent design", as a term intended to describe a field of inquiry, began after the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), ruled that creationism is unconstitutional in public school science curricula.
A Discovery Institute report says that Charles Thaxton, editor of Of Pandas and People, had picked the phrase up from a NASA scientist, and thought "That's just what I need, it's a good engineering term". In drafts of the book over one hundred uses of the root word "creation", such as "creationism" and "Creation Science", were changed, almost without exception, to "intelligent design", while "creationists" was changed to "design proponents" or, in one instance, "cdesign proponentsists". [sic] In June 1988 Thaxton held a conference titled "Sources of Information Content in DNA" in Tacoma, Washington, and in December decided to use the label "intelligent design" for his new creationist movement. Stephen C. Meyer was at the conference, and later recalled that "the term came up".
Of Pandas and People was published in 1989, and was the first book to make frequent use of the phrases "intelligent design," "design proponents," and "design theory", thus representing the beginning of the modern "intelligent design" movement.
Or we can take the words from the Discovery Institute itself."Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions".
This is a statement from the infamous "Wedge Document". This outright states the Institutes every intention to use ID to promote Christianity. The document then proceeds to say this:""I have built an intellectual movement in the universities and churches that we call The Wedge, which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers this program of questioning the materialistic basis of science. [...] Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth? [...] I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves."
This very well indicates the nature of what ID really is. They are not interested in anything intellectual. Their stated mission starts off by just assuming that anything science says about evolution is false right out of the starter gate. They say that it's false and terrible logic but by their own admission they are taking that as the default position, with no mention at all of the evidence involved. They then go on to state that the only way to get the truth is to start from the position of the bible being true, and that anyone who doesn't use that position is automatically in delusion.
So where exactly in this so far is the evidence that ID isn't really about promoting Christianity? Why didn't you mention any of this when you were trying to tell everyone about ID? Did you just not know? You who claims to know so much about ID.
Let's move onto another ID proponent. The aforementioned Philip E. Johnson who also stated: "My colleagues and I speak of 'theistic realism'—or sometimes, 'mere creation'—as the defining concept of our [the ID] movement. This means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator, and that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology."
This man (who I remind you is one of the leaders of the movement) not only says that the Christian god is one of the defining concepts of ID, but also declares his god to be objectively real and that the reality of his god is tangibly recorded in science and biology. Funny how that evidence is never actually presented, but I digress.
He also defines realism itself along the lines of his theistic views.
I would also point out that he's clearly lying here when he says that god is 'objectively' real, as an objectively real god would be undeniable to everyone and we would not actually have over 40,000 different religions in the world. So not only is he wrong but he is obviously, stupidly, and easily verifiably wrong. More to the point we once again have rather clear evidence that ID truly is all about promoting the Christian God, despite what they might attempt to say in public.
So how exactly do you support your claim that ID is not at all about promoting a Christian agenda? Did you need more evidence because I can most assuredly provide it.
As an aside, I'm also curious about what you have to say about the words and testimony that Barbara Forrest gave during the Dover trial when she was asked about ID.""What I am talking about is the essence of intelligent design, and the essence of it is theistic realism as defined by Professor Johnson. Now that stands on its own quite apart from what their motives are. I'm also talking about the definition of intelligent design by Dr. Dembski as the Logos theology of John's Gospel. That stands on its own. [...] Intelligent design, as it is understood by the proponents that we are discussing today, does involve a supernatural creator, and that is my objection. And I am objecting to it as they have defined it, as Professor Johnson has defined intelligent design, and as Dr. Dembski has defined intelligent design. And both of those are basically religious. They involve the supernatural".
In light of everything that I have pointed out to you do you really disagree with her assessment of it? And if so why? Do you have an actual reason that you can articulate, or is this just another one of your inabilities to admit that your 'reasoning' has failed yet again?
I don't know, BS. It seems to me as though it's your knowledge of ID that is severely lacking since you don't even seem to know about these things.
Maybe that's why you have to rely on quoting other people rather than making your own arguments.
Just a thought.