Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

There exists a number of theories about that matter fm.

What's an AMerican girl?

It is polite ci to delete these [1]s [2]s and [3]s when quoting off Wiki.

I don't need you to tell me that I come from the distant past.

What fm means is that the future Sir Winston Churchill was got out of a gold-digging American girl by an English toff.

Just wanted to show you that when you criticize your own country men/women, you are also talking about yourself. You "are" the product of all those influences from foreign lands - including the USA that has more billionaires than the UK. The gold digging would have to be the other way around. The UK comes in 8th after Hong Kong and Turkey.

Jennie Jerome, daughter of Leonard Jerome "The king of wall street" was courted by the then Lord Randolph Churchill, who's financial embarrassment was a common sign of the Edwardian period. So, actually it was your British nobelman who was the gold digger

That's because we share wealth more evenly. Something I thought you favoured. You sound like a fat-cat apologist ci.

I've read a bit about LJ. I meant gold digging for respectability.

All three of LJ's surviving daughters married into blood lines here. I assume they thought them superior. From robber baron to the Marlborough line is considered a step up I think.

And he died in England himself.

Anyway fm--what about my short dissertation on the attractions of evolutionism to the aspiring self-improvers? The coalition for evolution does seem a bit top heavy with the type which dedicates its life to being wonderful.

How many ID'ers does it take to make a light bulb... none.

I can tell igm that you have no idea how utterly, butterly silly that remark actually is, as a matter of scientific fact, based on the traditional scientific method of suck it and see.

IDers invented ******* light bulbs. Christian IDers I mean. Which come in a wide variety of manifestations these days. And how to string them up so they looked pretty in the night from the helicopter shot. IDers invented helicopters as well.

Explain to us if you will the cultural developments, the main stages will do, evolutionists do like main stages, they are so satisfyingly simple and thus highly conducive to the simple minds of anti-IDers who couldn't have invented a match, never mind what happened to light bulbs, while ever they had a hole in their arse.

Even if they had invented the match they would have burnt their fingers keeping the darkness at bay not thinking to set fire to the giant pile of straw they had harvested.

There is not a single, solitary sign in the whole canon of anthropology of a bunch of good folks making a machine on the pub wall which will play 3 hits from Top Twenties since 1960 for £1. I presume they cut off at 1960 because before that it was all crap. Have you ever seen a flat out anti-IDer trying to do The Twist? IDers invented rock n roll. What would we do without rock n roll? We would all be like our fathers for ****'s sake.

The thing I like about A2K is that you get to reply to foolish remarks in a way you often feel like doing in the pub but refrain to prevent a swinging left-hook.

We can tell spendi that Thomas Esdison was a noted atheist in the US.

I was going to say, before igm interrupted with what I assume is thought a witticism in anti-ID circles, that I am disappointed to find that my linking of Jacob's Ladder type of thinking to the general bourgeois experience and sense of up-swinging progress towards, presumably, some goal and which is incoherent if there is no goal apart from a coffin and a portrait in the hall, has failed to elicit any response.

And we all know what that means eh? Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more squire.

I thought it an interesting idea when I first came across it years ago. I had heard of Marx saying that the way we make a living influences our whole way of life so it seemed a possibility at least that habituation to the stages in the development of a bourgeois person could cause an affinity with theories suggesting life itself functions in a similar manner. Rising through the ranks.

But life, the real thing, is not like that despite that it might seem so to a man at the lecturn unveiling his life growth story to a selected audience containing a number of elegant ladies who had to be carried out and revived with smelling salts at quite an early stage. And only an Archbishop who understood why.

Seeing the monkeys at the zoo was a common enough occasional entertainment to have appraised those bonneted dames of what this man was saying.

Oh dearie, dearie me.

we know how you try to run fast and loose with facts and evidence spendi. Your sense of history and scientific knowledge is usually quite elementary and often just factually incorrect. We know that your run-on and unfocused responses are mere attempts to try to have us avert eyes from your many mistakes in logic and facts.

I know you think that you are the Lewis Caroll of A2K but youve got a long way to go hoss.

Yes, but ID'ers have an alternative... in that god created it all in one piece, as it's too complex to have evolved from parts...

P.S... I do realize that this is only 'a play on' biological evolution i.e. the post above. I also realize explaining jokes is not a good idea...

Supply some evidence to back up that squirt of gnat's piss.



And that.



Ditto.

I have never read a word of Lewis Carrol. So I have no idea what you are talking about. It would never enter my head to be the anybody of A2K. I'm just me. Any fanciful notions to the contrary you can safely dismiss from your mind and you'll be all the better for it imo.

as W.S Gilbert stated ,"you are a source of innocent merriment"

That's evidence!!!! ?????

Thanks a bunch. Your failure to rebut the logical flaw of entelechy theories which I posted recently is a real source of sardonic merriment.

A developmental series, like the tree of life, is not explained by the series itself. To explain it it is necessary to explain the nature of the causal connections between the stages in it. We can't explain you're going for a walk by listing all the objects you pass along the way. We only describe it by doing that.

If we do explain the causal connections the series becomes a list of successive conditions and thus pointless. If we don't know what causes each stride there's only a list of footprint positions. Assuming for ease of understanding that it is snowing.

It's only pointless logically. It may well have a point if it can be parleyed into money or power by whooing and aahing over some of them. That's snake oil ****.

If there is no explanation of how successive stages generate each other nothing has been said except "**** happens".

It might be fun or lucrative but it is hardly satisfactory as a way of validating a scheme of things and invalidating other schemes.

Such an obvious logical flaw has simply been obscured by other factors. An account of the series got mixed up with doctrines concerning the mechanics of the transitions. Natural selection is a doctrine and not an explanation. It should compete with other doctrines on a utility basis. Does it work better?

The story of the successive stages and the "explanation" of it, which is not an explanation at all but a circularity, are entangled, a dash of fancy words added to impress dopes, and, hey presto, before you know it, just like that, the illogicality of the story alone was hidden. A sort of verbal conjurer's cloth.

Your doctrine is that the same forces are propelling the upward, if they are upward, changes along the series. Like Marx's "class struggle", and once such a concept has been smuggled in excluding other causes, there is a temptation to fuse the doctrine that there is an upswinging series with another doctrine about how the series ticks into one psychologically inseparable belief. And thus to adore it. Particularly if it suits a purpose as well.

And describing a route with no explanation of the mobility dynamic has nothing to say about the future.

That the NCSE seems unaware of this well known argument is really inexplicable.

And there are many organisms which have not changed at all while the series was proceeding. I suppose the tautology would say they are perfectly adapted. Which gives the result that the series is imperfectly adapted and thus the microbe is the perfect being.

It not having to charm females to keep going is not an advantage to be passed up lightly.

When gunga gets out his **** shovel that's what he might mean.

From USA Today:

I think we should push for high-school students to soon earn credit for learning about the influence of atheism on science and philosophy or how atheist references are found throughout literature.