WHY CREATIONISM WILL NEVER WIN

Im sorry, but they didnt consult with you when the DI composed their "wedge Document". As far as your other misunderstandings of the world as it is, you must learn to fully grasp the real.

The concept of intelligent design was in the air before America was born never mind the DI. You'll be claiming sport is baseball next and intelligence is what US IQ testers say it is. And that the real is your reality.

You're an egg whisk effemm.

I guess the "faith" seen in Science is apparent--at least as a tentative or working matter--in the construction of hypotheses which are MADE TO BE TESTED. Remember, a hypothesis that is not testable/falsifiable is not a hypothesis.

And you are but a plate of meringue.

Weall recognize that the "concept"f intelligent design underpins all Creationism (Dare I say duhhh spendi?). You seem to miss the point that the "movement" as a "scientific" and political force Owes its beginnings to a loss by Creationism under the decision of the US Supreme Court in the EWdwards v Aguillard case. That decision required the full retooling of the Creationist strategy that sought to infiltrate our school science programs . The seminal books of "Darwin on trial" and "Darwins Black Box" becamse, somehow, the textbooks of the newly constituted ID movement in the US. Now if you wish to mix the various nations in this pot and stress how each EU nation or Asia nation is revealing its antiscience minority position, you are free to do so. However, to misrepresent what is a clearly established movement with a clear historical timeline is screaming against the tidal bore. You may think you are making a valid point. All I can do is to remind you that you are so very incorrect.

...And because Creationism and ID are not tesatble and falsifiable , they cannot make PREDICTIONS, and thus are unable to produce any usable means to extend research into the medical field or exploration for eartn resource materials , or into the new areas of bio augmentation for such areas as agriculture,nanotech or even integrated pest management.

The only science that Creationism has involved itself with was to try to "rig" all the rules of chemistry, physics, and geology to comport with their Biblical legends. ID has only ONE area of science that interests it. That is to try to find, through biological mans , the evidence that life, when inspected at its most rudimentary biochemical foundations, shows evidence of "design". (Every time they announce a "breakthrough" some aetheist scientist reminds the IDers that there are even simpler forms that support an adaptive evolution ).


Creationism and ID will NEVER have any impact on science itself. That must really frost the hides of the spokespeople of the CReationist and ID movements. If, by some wild unimageanable twist of evidence, Creationsim or ID are shown to be true, we would have to re evaluate all the discoveries of medicine or hybrid ization in light of an entirely new series of heretofore unimageanable paradigms. Im not sure where wed even start in areas like mine.

SO far NO evidence or testable hypotheses have been forwarded by these movements and they keep trying to preoccupy us with diversions like "floods" and "2nd laws of thermodynamics" so that most informed people wouldnt call them out about their fundamental worldview.

That's a hypothesis.

Don't believe me? Then for ****'s sake test the "theory" of gravity by walking off a cliff.

Intrepid is convinced that there is an acceptable medial strip. He doesnt understand that this isnt a point between two reasonable tenets of science, instead, its a position of science as a "craft or applied art" versus a worldview that is centered totally upon a single document

You seem to miss the point in your pedantic search for certainty. Intellectual propositions are not dependent upon some court case however much they might satisfy your complacencies. In Darwinian time the USSC is hardly a blip.



Gerald Heard.

The ignoble shines forth in anti-IDer's posts as one can see just above.

The "movement" as you again pedantically call it is as old as linguistic mankind. It is the attempt to give dignity to a self-conscious being. Any attempt to present ourselves as dignified is a religious proposition.

My jocosity regarding such a ridiculous idea is the single thread that runs through all my posts, including Trivia, and the position I stated baldly in my first ever post on the internet in my A2k member's profile. It is the reason my posts are resisted so much by religious people such as yourself and your fellow travellers who go to great lengths, mostly quite impolite ones, to stress their dignity. In actual fact they give me the impression that they could run off at the mouth about it for ever and ever or until someone has the nerve to stick a sweaty sock in it.

When I say that I'm a well evolved microbe I am not claiming to be unique in any biological sense. I mean you are all well evolved microbes. Not as well evolved as me but I'm not as well evolved as others I could mention.

Are you up for Sir J.C. Bose's researches into plant sensibility being included in the school biology curriculum?

That's a bit like saying a motorist is centred on his Dodge Challenger rather than on his desire to motor. Or that a chap is chatting up a lady because of her persona rather than some other more atavistic characteristic she is thought to possess.

No, that would be the definition of ID as found by the courts.

This means either ID is tied to creationism or ID can't present a reasonable argument to show they are separate.

Being unable to present a reasonable argument in support of a thesis seems to be standard operating procedure for creationism.

ID does manage to accept acquired characteristics because the fossil record is omplete in the appearance of derived features within a specified TIMELINE of appearance. Creationists will never be able to refute the evidence that vertebrae preceded "jaws" preceded digits, precededand amniotic egg preceded hair (feathers) preceded placental animals preceded "opposable thumbs". The gradual occurence of these and several other features that Im sure Ive forgotten, all occur through time and while once a feature appears, it may persist in totally ancient body types (living fossils), but ,in all cases so far, such features have never been discovered to have appeared in an "all at once" or in a vertebrae and jaws occuring at the same time . ( Thats my old "we never see mammoths and dinosaurs together in the fossil record" argument).

IDers search for "design" must, by definition, be therefore quite investigatorially limited because, while they accept truth of the fossil record , they heavily rely accept Paleys argument that a significantly complex structure presumes a conscious designer. Being an IDer is actually more difficult to sustain as a worldview, (unless and only if they can show that something just "popped up" and gave them a philosophical starting point to begin their beliefs. So far (and I submit that well be in the subatomic level before we see anything on which they can hang their hat)

As I quoted earlier-



Would you like me to do a series of posts placing the lowest meaning on the facts we observe? Or would you prefer something a bit more "middle-of-the-road"?

This "sentence" is just a loose stringing of words, with no ultimate meaning. Youre starting to read like Timothy Leary as he went insane.

Your comment is void of meaning.

You also seem quite incapable of distinguishing between an explanation for things you can't understand and the views of the person doing the explaining.

That is a hallmark of full-blown stupidity.

The reason I have never read anything by Mr Leary is that he seemed insane from the start. I don't read insane writers nor those who went insane later. I might read about them for health and safety purposes. Nuts grow from little nuts.

What is "ultimate meaning"?

Now you know how I feel, ya putz.

It is a simple enough explanation of why so many people (85% of Americans I gather) don't wish to let go of a Creator hypothesis that it represents to them a stab at nobility and embracing Darwin and atheism is a trip to uncouth vulgarity.

What difficulties do you encounter with the idea? Its meaning is easy assertions to the contrary. You're just saying it has no meaning so you can say it has no meaning. The egg whisk idea.

It is a lot cheaper and more environmentally friendly that dredging up a sense of nobility from an ocean-going boat with "sea-food" gumming up the bowthrusters and a chemical toilet in an aft cubicle where you skin your elbows on the wall wiping your arse.

Anyone can afford to put a penny in the offertory plate but only the big cheeses can afford a boat and its upkeep. Bit snobbish ain't it? Looking down your presbyterian nose at the pleasures of the poor.

[quote] Quote of the week: Jerry Coyne on the incompatibility of science and religion April 4, 2009

Jerry Coyne, a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago, reviews two books by theistic evolutionists in The New Republic:

It would appear, then, that one cannot be coherently religious and scientific at the same time. That alleged synthesis requires that with one part of your brain you accept only those things that are tested and supported by agreed-upon evidence, logic, and reason, while with the other part of your brain you accept things that are unsupportable or even falsified. In other words, the price of philosophical harmony is cognitive dissonance. Accepting both science and conventional faith leaves you with a double standard: rational on the origin of blood clotting, irrational on the Resurrection; rational on dinosaurs, irrational on virgin births. Without good cause, Giberson and Miller pick and choose what they believe. At least the young-earth creationists are consistent, for they embrace supernatural causation across the board. With his usual flair, the physicist Richard Feynman characterized this difference: “Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.” With religion, there is just no way to know if you are fooling yourself.

This disharmony is a dirty little secret in scientific circles. It is in our personal and professional interest to proclaim that science and religion are perfectly harmonious. After all, we want our grants funded by the government, and our schoolchildren exposed to real science instead of creationism. Liberal religious people have been important allies in our struggle against creationism, and it is not pleasant to alienate them by declaring how we feel. This is why, as a tactical matter, groups such as the National Academy of Sciences claim that religion and science do not conflict. But their main evidence"the existence of religious scientists"is wearing thin as scientists grow ever more vociferous about their lack of faith. Now Darwin Year is upon us, and we can expect more books like those by Kenneth Miller and Karl Giberson. Attempts to reconcile God and evolution keep rolling off the intellectual assembly line. It never stops, because the reconciliation never works.

As Coyne acknowledges, Miller is always devastating in his critique of intelligent design. On the other hand, I have always found him to be devastatingly inept whenever he is asked about his own theistic evolutionist views (which turn out to be, as Coyne shows in his review, a paler shade of ID), his defences of which are about as convincing as, say, Alister McGrath’s wet-tissue-grade apologetics. (I admit this is unfair, as I am only going by Miller’s on-air appearances where the topic has been raised; I haven’t read his books, and it is possible he does a better job there.) The only reason Miller (who rejects deism and pantheism) keeps it up, Coyne argues, is that if he didn’t, he would have to abandon his Christian beliefs. Coyne’s final point about the fundamental disconnect between theism and science being the scientific community’s “dirty little secret” was illustrated in two recent interviews with Miller, on the American Freethought and Declaring Independence podcasts, where I felt the hosts were a little reticent to draw too much attention to the elephant in the room.

It is very tempting to use theistic evolutionists like Miller as examples of Christians who accept evolution, in order to reach out to creationists whose fingers are otherwise firmly planted in their ears. I myself have done this recently in exchanges with a 15-year-old creationist blogger. But let’s face it: this is rank dishonesty (not to mention fallacious), commensurate with the Lying For Jesus I have so often highlighted and condemned in Christians. If empirical science is indeed incompatible with theism, what is the point of pretending that it isn’t?

[/quote]


Jerry Coyne takes issue with Ken Millers support of both evolution theory and religion. I tend to , while acknowledging the right of any belief to "try" to coexist with science, it is kind of silly to avert our eyes and close our minds in support of this coexitence.

Just an aside here, but the original word used to describe Mary actually translates better as "maiden", with a meaning that can also be "young woman" as well as "virgin".

I find a "young woman" giving birth a lot easier on the brain than "virgin".

Perhaps, however Mainstream Christianity goes for the word "Virgin". Who am I to get involved in a story that only the clergy gives a Cleveland Steamer about?