What can we do?

[Alzael]

That is because it does not seek to identify the existence of a specific creator. I do not mean to come across as condescending but if you had any genuine knowledge about IDT, you wouldn’t even make a comment like that.

Again, an outright lie. I showed you where every major proponent of ID says it is the Christian god specifically.

Could you stop lying just once? It won't kill you, really.

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.[35]
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".[36] 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",[13] while "creationists" was changed to "design proponents" or, in one instance, "cdesign proponentsists". [sic][35] In June 1988 Thaxton held a conference titled "Sources of Information Content in DNA" in Tacoma, Washington,[23] and in December decided to use the label "intelligent design" for his new creationist movement.[37] Stephen C. Meyer was at the conference, and later recalled that "the term came up".[38]
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.[39]

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?

[jetson]

If intelligent design employed the scientific model, it would be demonstrable through the scientific method.  Yet you have argued that the decision on whether intelligent design is valid is a personal one, implying that it isn't demonstrable through the scientific method, which in no way depends on personal decisions.  There's one blatant and gross contradiction on your part.  Shall we continue, or are you willing to concede that you have blatantly and grossly contradicted yourself on this subject?

So, people are not permitted to decide on their own if they will pledge allegiance to the ToE? They are expected to just buy it hook-line-and-sinker because YOU think it is valid? Do you understand the implications of what you are suggesting ? This is a rather ludicrous assertion you are making here.

Accepting a scientific theory is not a "pledge of allegiance".  It is an acceptance of the theory, based on it's supporting evidence and merits.  That some people refuse to accept it is not the problem.  The problem is that they completely refuse to even try to understand what the theory claims.  And then they turn around and make assertions that attempt to show holes in the same theory they obviously do not even understand.

The implications of accepting any form of ID hypotheses, or ideas, are utterly impossible to even describe.  Some intelligent agent caused life, and caused it to evolve.  Thank you for listening. 

Seriously?

[BibleStudent]

Just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean you get to fill in the blanks with whatever stupid idea appealsto you

In other words, we shouldn’t be making up stuff like this:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228404.300-life-began-with-a-planetary-megaorganism.html

[BibleStudent]

If intelligent design employed the scientific model, it would be demonstrable through the scientific method.  Yet you have argued that the decision on whether intelligent design is valid is a personal one, implying that it isn't demonstrable through the scientific method, which in no way depends on personal decisions.  There's one blatant and gross contradiction on your part.  Shall we continue, or are you willing to concede that you have blatantly and grossly contradicted yourself on this subject?

So, people are not permitted to decide on their own if they will pledge allegiance to the ToE? They are expected to just buy it hook-line-and-sinker because YOU think it is valid? Do you understand the implications of what you are suggesting ? This is a rather ludicrous assertion you are making here.

Accepting a scientific theory is not a "pledge of allegiance".  It is an acceptance of the theory, based on it's supporting evidence and merits. 

I agree with you but that's not what jaimehlers seems to think. He claims that we don't really have a choice in the matter.

[Astreja]

Please stop calling {Intelligent Design} "Theory".  It is in NO way a theory, at very best it is a hypothesis, IDH.

This is correct.  In order to be a theory in the scientific sense, it must be structured in such a way as to make accurate predictions about physical phenomena.

"Something happened in the distant past, and we think some sort of intelligent agent was responsible" is doomed to remain hypothesis (at best) until it can make accurate, consistent predictions about events in the real world.

[BibleStudent]

Please stop calling {Intelligent Design} "Theory".  It is in NO way a theory, at very best it is a hypothesis, IDH.

This is correct.  In order to be a theory in the scientific sense, it must be structured in such a way as to make accurate predictions about physical phenomena.

"Something happened in the distant past, and we think some sort of intelligent agent was responsible" is doomed to remain hypothesis (at best) until it can make accurate, consistent predictions about events in the real world.

I agree. IDT can fulfill this requirement:
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1156

[Emily]

I agree. IDT can fulfill this requirement:
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1156

Alzael already dealt with this:

This does a good job:
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1154

Fails. It assumes that just because something seems designed (which is very vaguely defined by them, might I add) that it automatically must be designed.

It also provides no way to measure or verify their supposed "CSI".

Also irreducible complexity is a notoriously failed argument already debunked repeatedly.

Also it says that this "CSI" can only be produced through ID but does not provide an evidenced or logical reason why that is. It is merely an assumption that is being made. You see,BS, just because it says that it's producing something testable doesn't mean that they are. Nothing here actually supports their claim of testability.

Nothing here demonstrates any testability, BS. It would help if you had even basic knowledge of......well anything.

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/resources.php

Notably none of those sources are legitimate scientific organizations.

In addition, I recently read that there are now more than 50 published peer-reviewed papers !!!

Then link them. You've been asked to do that for a very long time and have always failed pathetically. Go ahead and let 'er rip.

EDIT: If you fail to realize how that link is wrong, BS, that's your own problem. But just because of your ignorance doesn't mean your right.

[jaimehlers]

Intelligent Design Theory does not posit any specific creator. It simply points to evidence that suggests an “intelligence” of some kind was responsible for the origins of life as we know it. People are free to attribute that evidence to any god they so choose.

You are projecting a scenario that does not harmonize at all with IDT and could be extinguished by any capable teacher.

First, intelligent design is not a theory, and you cannot make it into one by constantly calling it "Intelligent Design Theory".  Furthermore, this strategy of calling it a theory in order to get it considered to be one is fundamentally dishonest; it falls under the category of "repeat something often enough, and people will accept it because otherwise, you wouldn't be repeating it so often".

Second, you say that intelligent design doesn't posit any specific creator, and that people are free to pick whichever deity they want.  This is more dishonesty.  We both know that you are referring to a specific deity, because you do not believe that any other deities exist.  So saying that people are free to pick whatever god they want is disingenuous, because you are not going to consider that their god of choice might actually be "The Creator".

Third, you have made it clear that you do not consider anything besides a god as a suitable candidate to create life.  This makes it abundantly clear in conjunction with the last point that when you say "Intelligent Design Theory", you mean "Christian Creationism".

Fourth, this illustrates why you say that velkyn's scenario does not harmonize with intelligent design.  Because someone who actually advocated what you say intelligent design is, rather than what you really mean, would have to consider which potential creator was actually responsible, instead of simply saying, "everyone's free to pick the creator they want".  So by claiming to be inclusive, you actually undermine the "validity" of intelligent design.

Also, I'm waiting for your response to the "interesting comment" I made.  Since you said you were anxiously awaiting it, I figured that you would hop right to it if you were going to respond at all.  So the longer you wait, the more obvious you make your deception.  Especially as you've responded to a tiny little part of the same post I put it in.

If intelligent design employed the scientific model, it would be demonstrable through the scientific method.  Yet you have argued that the decision on whether intelligent design is valid is a personal one, implying that it isn't demonstrable through the scientific method, which in no way depends on personal decisions.  There's one blatant and gross contradiction on your part.  Shall we continue, or are you willing to concede that you have blatantly and grossly contradicted yourself on this subject?

So, people are not permitted to decide on their own if they will pledge allegiance to the ToE? They are expected to just buy it hook-line-and-sinker because YOU think it is valid? Do you understand the implications of what you are suggesting ? This is a rather ludicrous assertion you are making here.

No, what's ludicrous is your assertion that the nature of reality is subject to personal beliefs.  You claim (wrongly, I might add) that evolutionary theory is something that people "pledge allegiance to", as if it's a religion or a belief.  This suggests that if they don't "pledge allegiance to" it, then it somehow becomes false, ala, their personal belief affects reality.  The fact is otherwise; reality doesn't change based on what a person believes to be true.

I don't expect them to "buy it hook-line-and-sinker", because that defeats the purpose of scientific methodology.  I don't want people to simply accept what I say, I want them to learn about what the theory really says and to determine and understand why it's true, not simply accept it because someone tells them to.  If they disagree, then I want them to be able to explain it in a way that can be demonstrated to be valid and rigorously tested by others.  Because then, everyone benefits, no matter who ends up having the right of it.  Compare this to your idea of intelligent design, where you say that you want it to be taught side-by-side with evolutionary theory, and you want people to pick and choose which they want to believe based on what they want to be true.  Nobody benefits in that case, because you have people choosing to believe in an idea not because it has evidence to support it, or is demonstrably valid, or is testable, but based on how they feel about it.

I agree with you but that's not what jaimehlers seems to think. He claims that we don't really have a choice in the matter.

Somehow, I'm not surprised by this statement.  It would sure be convenient for you if this is what I actually thought, rather than what you think I seem to think.

To put it bluntly (and to repeat what I actually said), the scientific method does not depend on what a person wants to believe.  If I were to concoct a hypothesis that did not stand up to testing and verification, it wouldn't matter how much I wanted to believe in that hypothesis, because it would have been falsified.  Sure, I could choose to disregard what I discovered by applying the scientific method and believe in it anyway, but then I would no longer be practicing scientific methodology, and furthermore, my belief could not be demonstrated through the scientific method because it would be falsified.  Therefore, my personal choice not to accept the results would accomplish nothing more than deluding myself.

[BibleStudent]

The only people making that claim are creationists,

This list does not seem to confirm that:

"I could prove God statistically; take the human body alone; the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen, is a statistical monstrosity" (George Gallup, famous statistician).

"The idea of spontaneous generation of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable even to the scale of the billions of years during which pre-biotic evolution occurred" (Dr. Ilya Prigogine, Nobel Prize winner).

"The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop" (Dr. Edwin Conklin, evolutionist and professor of biology at Princeton University).

"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that life’s complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did" (Dr. Harold Urey, Nobel Prize winner).

"One may well find oneself beginning to doubt whether all this could conceivably be the product of an enormous lottery presided over by natural selection, blindly picking the rare winners from among numbers drawn at utter random... nevertheless although the miracle of life stands ‘explained,’ it does not strike us as any less miraculous...." (French biochemist and Nobel Prize winner, Jacques Monod, Chance and Necessity).

"A further aspect I should like to discuss is what I call the practice of infinite escape clauses. I believe we developed this practice to avoid facing the conclusion that the probability of self-reproducing state is zero. This is what we must conclude from classical quantum mechanical principles as Wigner demonstrated" (Sidney W. Fox, The Origins of Prebiological Systems and of Their Molecular Matrices).

"Evolutionary biologists have been able to pretend to know how complex biological systems originated only because they treated them as black boxes. Now that biochemists have opened the black boxes and seen what is inside, they know the Darwinian theory is just a story, not a scientific explanation" (Professor Phillip E. Johnson).

[Alzael]

Just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean you get to fill in the blanks with whatever stupid idea appealsto you

In other words, we shouldn’t be making up stuff like this:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228404.300-life-began-with-a-planetary-megaorganism.html

BS, taking the phrase "lying ignorant bitch" to new lows. At least he's consistent.

[BibleStudent]

Just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean you get to fill in the blanks with whatever stupid idea appealsto you

In other words, we shouldn’t be making up stuff like this:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228404.300-life-began-with-a-planetary-megaorganism.html

BS, taking the phrase "lying ignorant bitch" to new lows. At least he's consistent.

Oh, Alzael. Sometimes I just have to shrug at your remarks and move on and then other times I can’t help but find humor in them. …and that one had me LMAO. You are definitely gifted in your craft of insulting people…I’ll give you that much.

[Historicity]

The only people making that claim are creationists,

This list does not seem to confirm that:
...

"Evolutionary biologists have been able to pretend to know how complex biological systems originated only because they treated them as black boxes. Now that biochemists have opened the black boxes and seen what is inside, they know the Darwinian theory is just a story, not a scientific explanation" (Professor Phillip E. Johnson).

Anyone who has learned anything about the Intelligent Design movement can't help running into the name of Philip E. Johnson, a professor of law at Berkeley.  He's one of the founders of the Discovery Institute.  He is the author of Darwin on Trial, Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, Reason in the Balance, The Wedge of Truth and "The Wedge Breaking the Modernist Monopoly on Science".

He is the inventor of the Wedge Strategy.

It is impossible you didn't know that.

I'm calling you a direct liar.

[Alzael]

Oh, Alzael. Sometimes I just have to shrug at your remarks and move on and then other times I can’t help but find humor in them. …and that one had me LMAO. You are definitely gifted in your craft of insulting people…I’ll give you that much.

More's the pity that what  I said was entirely accurate.

Did you have a non-stupid point to make?

[jaimehlers]

This list does not seem to confirm that:

Your list also doesn't "confirm" what you want it to.  It is quite obvious that you pulled these quotes verbatim from a list on some creationist website such as http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/what-are-the-seven-most-ridiculous-claims-of-evolution.html.

"I could prove God statistically; take the human body alone; the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen, is a statistical monstrosity" (George Gallup, famous statistician).

The only thing this quote proves is that Gallup didn't know much about evolutionary theory.  Given that he's a statistician who made his fortune advising corporate clients as to the effectiveness of ad campaigns, this is not surprising.

"The idea of spontaneous generation of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable even to the scale of the billions of years during which pre-biotic evolution occurred" (Dr. Ilya Prigogine, Nobel Prize winner).

This comes from quote mining.  The context of this quote clearly shows that Dr. Prigogine was setting forth a problem to solve (that the existing theory of evolution didn't account for biogenesis), rather than drawing a conclusion.  In fact, he and his colleagues demonstrated in the paper this quote came from that it not only was the spontaneous generation of life not improbable, it was highly probable.

"The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop" (Dr. Edwin Conklin, evolutionist and professor of biology at Princeton University).

It is extremely ironic that during his life, Dr. Conklin was attacked by creationists who claimed he supported racism due to his arguments in favor of evolution.  Yet you cite a "quote" from him which argues the exact opposite.

Here's something Dr. Conklin actually wrote which should clarify what he really thought:

Man in his entirety is regarded by science as the product of evolution. His actual origin goes back not to Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden...but to more primitive races of men, and then to prehuman ancestors, and in the end to the earliest forms of life upon the earth. Between us and these earliest forms there has been an unbroken line of descent, an uninterrupted stream of life, through all the ages.

"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that life’s complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did" (Dr. Harold Urey, Nobel Prize winner).

This was a response to a statement by Dr. Carl Sagan discussing panspermia v abiogenesis.  Dr. Urey was agreeing with Dr. Sagan, that abiogenesis was a better explanation than panspermia.  The "faith" he refers to is his understanding of physical laws.

"One may well find oneself beginning to doubt whether all this could conceivably be the product of an enormous lottery presided over by natural selection, blindly picking the rare winners from among numbers drawn at utter random... nevertheless although the miracle of life stands ‘explained,’ it does not strike us as any less miraculous...." (French biochemist and Nobel Prize winner, Jacques Monod, Chance and Necessity).

I think I'll let Monod speak for himself here.  But to pick one particular quote out from the same book:

Chance alone is at the source of every innovaton, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, only chance, absolute but blind liberty is at the root of the prodigious edifice that is evolution... It today is the sole conceivable hypothesis, the only one that squares with observed and tested fact.
Stating life began by the chance collision of particles of nucleic acid in the 'prebiotic soup.'

"A further aspect I should like to discuss is what I call the practice of infinite escape clauses. I believe we developed this practice to avoid facing the conclusion that the probability of self-reproducing state is zero. This is what we must conclude from classical quantum mechanical principles as Wigner demonstrated" (Sidney W. Fox, The Origins of Prebiological Systems and of Their Molecular Matrices).

This is actually a collection of the proceedings of a conference.  It was a discussion between several scientists, including Fox.  As expected, it quotes a tiny portion of the whole and ignores anything resembling context.  Unfortunately, I couldn't find any references to this online to establish that context, but given the fact that this is obvious quote mining on the part of creationists, I have to say I'm not worried about it.

"Evolutionary biologists have been able to pretend to know how complex biological systems originated only because they treated them as black boxes. Now that biochemists have opened the black boxes and seen what is inside, they know the Darwinian theory is just a story, not a scientific explanation" (Professor Phillip E. Johnson).

Historicity already explained the source of this.  You will have to excuse me for not taking what a Berkeley law professor says about evolution too seriously, especially given the complete ludicrousness of pretending that he is not a creationist.

So, in short, we have the two bookends, Gallup and Johnson, who were/are not biologists (and the latter of whom is clearly a creationist), and we have typical quote mining for the remainder.  So the only thing confirmed by this list is that you can't be bothered to check your sources enough to make sure you aren't leaving a land mine like Johnson's quote in.

[BibleStudent]

The only people making that claim are creationists,

This list does not seem to confirm that:
...

"Evolutionary biologists have been able to pretend to know how complex biological systems originated only because they treated them as black boxes. Now that biochemists have opened the black boxes and seen what is inside, they know the Darwinian theory is just a story, not a scientific explanation" (Professor Phillip E. Johnson).

Anyone who has learned anything about the Intelligent Design movement can't help running into the name of Philip E. Johnson, a professor of law at Berkeley.  He's one of the founders of the Discovery Institute.  He is the author of Darwin on Trial, Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, Reason in the Balance, The Wedge of Truth and "The Wedge Breaking the Modernist Monopoly on Science".

He is the inventor of the Wedge Strategy.

It is impossible you didn't know that.

I'm calling you a direct liar.

Yes, Phillip John should not have been part of that list. You’re right. My bad.

By the way, what is a "direct" liar?

[Alzael]

Yes, Phillip John should not have been part of that list. You’re right. My bad.

By the way, what is a "direct" liar?

He means that you're lying with full knowledge that what you are saying is a lie and every intention to lie.

[nogodsforme]

BS complaining that there are problems with the TOE and that we should look at ID is like a guy complaining about a splinter in his finger while ignoring that his other arm has been amputated.

The problems with the TOE are such that you can still use it quite well for a hundred different applications, just like you can still use your hand with a splinter in it to do a hundred different things. No human theory is perfect, but the TOE is certainly good enough for helping us to understand the world a whole lot better than we did 150 years ago!

Would BS rather live in the 1700's when bleeding, purging and leeches were the main treatments for illness and people still believed that mental problems were caused by demons?
 
Let's assume, like most people in past ages did, that there is a creator of life. Next step: Who is the creator? No way to know. Why did he/she/it/they/ make life so full of errors and mistakes? No way to know. What information do we gain by assuming a creator? None. Where is the evidence that supports this idea? None exists that we can find.

People did try that ID concept, for thousands of years all over the world and got nowhere. Every single attempt to find any supernatural or religious explanation for anything comes to a dead end. Why should we try that again? I still don't get that part.

The one big problem with ID is that, like the missing arm, you can't do anything with it because there is nothing there.

[BibleStudent]

Oh, Alzael. Sometimes I just have to shrug at your remarks and move on and then other times I can’t help but find humor in them. …and that one had me LMAO. You are definitely gifted in your craft of insulting people…I’ll give you that much.

More's the pity that what  I said was entirely accurate.

I am truly sorry that you feel that way. Have a good day, sir.

[BibleStudent]

I know I still owe a few people replies to their posts. Will try to dive back in tomorrow.

[Astreja]

As I was driving out to My Wednesday night band practice, I suddenly realized the problem with this whole "ID is science" business.

ID is equivalent to science as a little kid's plastic toolbox is equivalent to an adult journeyman carpenter's toolbox.

Someone who does carpentry for a living spends years learning the proper way to do things, and takes meticulous measurements to tolerances of 1/8", 1/16" or even finer.  They know if a drill bit needs to be sharpened.  They know where to put the saw blade so that the kerf falls on the desired side of the cut line.  To check if something is properly vertical or horizontal, they use plumb bobs and spirit levels rather than trusting their eyes.

They measure twice, cut once.  They know how to work with allied trades such as plumbers, electricians, roofers and stonemasons.  They can read blueprints and put the right things in the right places, and the really good ones can see when something is wrong with the blueprint itself.

The little kid playing at being a carpenter?  He pulls out the measuring tape just because it's fun to watch it roll back into the case.  Read the numbers?  Doesn't know how.  Measure?  Holds up his hands and says "Close enough."

She hammers the ground, the wall, perhaps her little brother if he gets too close or too pesky.  If it's a "real" metal hammer, it's too small and light to do any real carpentry, or it came with miniature nails which will end up tacked into a coffee table or the back porch railing.

The screwdrivers don't drive screws except into a pre-molded plastic box; the saw makes Real Saw Noises but can only cut pretend boards;  The plumb bob was deemed a safety hazard for children under 3 and is no longer shipped with the toolbox; and the giant drill bit goes around and around but never so much as starts a hole.

Kiddie toolboxes build lovely castles in the sky, but they're fucking useless for doing real work.

But just as a child can become a professional carpenter if he or she takes the time to learn the proper skills, ID proponents can become scientists if they learn and practice proper science.

[monkeymind]

I know I still owe a few people replies to their posts. Will try to dive back in tomorrow.

Just don't dive in headfirst, don't want you getting hurt!

I'm starting to understand IDiots. Looking at the head IDiot's creation ...all I can think is... this guy's a bumbling IDiot.

He refuses to use the metric system. Instead he uses something called cubits, to build a boat that couldn't possibly float. He rounds everything off, like Pi, anyways.

He gave giraffs the same number of neck bones as a human, men nipples, everyone gets a useless apendex and a tail bone.

Meh! What a maroon! NO WONDER IDiots DON'T WANT TO CLAIM HE'S THEIR GOD!

[screwtape]

In other words, we shouldn’t be making up stuff like this:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228404.300-life-began-with-a-planetary-megaorganism.html

I have to invoke Grey's Law here.  This is not part of the theory.  It is an idea that has been reported on in a magazine.  It uses all kinds of qualifications like "suggests" and "may not" and "probably" and "he thinks" - which you seem to have conveniently ignored.  Or how about this corker:

"It's a plausible idea," agrees Eric Alm of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. But he says he "honestly can't tell" if it is true.

Nobody is saying this is The Truth of What Happened.  This is a hypothesis.  You have to have a hypothesis to test in science.  It will be tested.

 

 

[monkeymind]

^^^The thing that I am noticing, at least in BS' case, a tendency to only read Christian or religious sources.  No one could be explained theory and hypothesis as many times as he has and not understand the difference. It's willful ignore-ance, simply ignore anything that does not conform to one's preconceived IDeas.

[velkyn]

One thing that BS seems unable to understand (and there are many) is that if one teaches creationism/ID even as a simple idea (something intelligent and powerful created life/man/the universe, depending on the variant), it becomes a comparative religions course plus aliens.   Do we teach all creation myths?  To be fair, we would.  Every bit of ridiculousness would have to be looked at to see just who the creator was responsible. 

Oh teacher, I see the hand of Tezcatlipoca in creation!  I see the hand of Q'uq'umatz and Tepeu!  I see YHWH!  I see Allah!  I see the Goddess!  I see the reptiloids, Teacher!

Well children, let's go out to the altars and you can each call upon your god so we see which one is true!  Jimmy, you'll have to go get Queen Elizabeth and have her give a talk on how her lizardy species created man.   

I admit I'd love to see a class like that.  It'd be a great way to have kids realize just how willfully ignorant humans can be and how being an adult doesn't guarantee that you know anything.

Intelligent Design Theory does not posit any specific creator. It simply points to evidence that suggests an “intelligence” of some kind was responsible for the origins of life as we know it. People are free to attribute that evidence to any god they so choose.

You are projecting a scenario that does not harmonize at all with IDT and could be extinguished by any capable teacher.

that's such a pathetic lie, BS.  No one believes it so repeating it will not help.  We know that ID was created intentionally to disguise creationism as part of the "wedge strategy" by the Discovery Institute: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy  Poor creationists, their lies have already been found out and documented. 

I love how you also claim that the "scenario" isn't "harmonious" with this intelligent design nonsense of yours.  Show how it isn't "harmonious", which should be fun since you'll actually have to explain in detail just how "intelligent design" can be proven with real evidence and stuff. What happens when people dispute the claims that there is any evidence for creationism at all?  And what happens when each sect claims that only their god could have done it? 

Again, nope, not a theory at all.  I am curious on how you think that the disputes on which deity or alien is the creator could be "extinguished" by a "capable" teacher.  Please do demonstrate on how that would work, BS. 


still wiating for that scientific evidence, BS.  YOu've failed so far, is your new strategy which seems to ignore such request now, going to fail like the one from the Disco'tute?

EDIT: and still waiting for you to support your claim made here

(Interestingly, I asked in another thread for people to give me examples that demonstrated how theist efforts to promote an agenda were interfering with their life. I got limited answers and even the ones that were offered did not hold up under closer examination. They were unsubstantiated perceptions.)

[albeto]

Here's an example of why, in my opinion, religion creates more damage than it addresses.  The idea that personal experience is more valuable than a compilation of data of hundreds of thousands of examples of personal experiences, or that personal emotions are more valuable than objective data, is an idea that religion not only introduces but constantly validates.  So long as BS or MM or any theist believes their faith is accurate because they feel it deep in their bosom, the scientific method and all it uncovers will forever be out of reach.  It isn't the character of yahweh that holds them back, even BS admits ID will accept *any* god or goddess or superhero.  It's the idea that personal experiences and the emotional reaction to those experiences are somehow more valid than objective data collection and analytic evaluation as a means for interpreting reality.  Religion specializes in this by encouraging one to ignore objective data and focus instead on the emotional response to subjectively interpreted experiences.  When Christianity becomes the minority of any society, unless there is an increase of education and logical thinking skills, the next superstition will simply replace it.  Neo-paganism is on the rise in the US because the idea of yahweh is as silly and foolish as ever, but the idea that there is "something more" to the universe is innate to the human animal that evolved to assign some form of purpose between unrelated events.  Without the skills to think rationally, our neolithic brains make neolithic connections.

[Alzael]

I am truly sorry that you feel that way. Have a good day, sir.

Actually you aren't. If you were you would take steps to correct it, instead of continuing to lie and behave like described.

When you get back you still have quite a few points I've raised against you to answer for. At least try to do it like someone with integrity and a sense of shame.

[BibleStudent]

I’ve reviewed this thread and my impression is that no one here really wants to give ID any serious consideration. I’m not going to make any further comments on it in this thread. Maybe it will come up again somewhere along the way.

[One Above All]

I’ve reviewed this thread and my impression is that no one here really wants to give ID any serious consideration. I’m not going to make any further comments on it in this thread. Maybe it will come up again somewhere along the way.

I've reviewed this post and my impression is that you are illiterate. People have stated several times that they would give ID serious consideration, if provided with evidence that it's true.

[monkeymind]

I’ve reviewed this thread and my impression is that no one here really wants to give ID any serious consideration. I’m not going to make any further comments on it in this thread. Maybe it will come up again somewhere along the way.

YOU haven't given ID any serious consideration. If you did you would understand how it fails miserably as any sort of hypothesis, let alone an alternative theory.

I've asked you repeatedly to define ID. Here's your explanation for ID. Evolution can't be true. You didn't even try to make a case for ID.

You get the Darwin Award for stupidity.  Good riddance IDiot.