Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Why is it that those attacking Evolution must always invent new terms that on the surface either make it look as if they missed the irony bus or are generally superfluous?

I distinctly remember hypernaturalism being spouted once, along with Gunga's Evolutionites (but then again, if he isn't coining new terms, he's using derogatory ones) and now Spendi's Essdeeoids.

What's next? Superhyperultramegagiganaturalistic intelligent supermegadesign?

If the religious fanatics get their way, they'll just fall back on old standards such as infidel or heretic.

Spendi is Gunga with a Joycean flair.

Although I can actualy remember agreeing with Spendius over some issues. Maybe they were political issues instead of religious ones. Or maybe I'm confusing him with someone.

Anyway, since Evolution IS science, ID isn't and science isn't meant to dictate how our lives are run, I don't think it should be dropped.

not that theres anything wrong with that.

To further labor in the Seinfeldian vein, I think it obvious spendi is master of his own domain; clearly, he's stiffened his resolve and taken matters firmly in hand.

timber, You're wit is only exceeded by your good looks. LOL

:wink:
unquestionably.

Yet, wasnt the first draft of the "domain concept" more Castanzian? I will defer to your more perfect knowledge of the arcane philosophies.

I believe Costanzian well might be more precise - but I was using Seinfeldian more or less generically, encompassing the entire canon within the reference, not really meaning to identify any particular one of the worthies as auteur of the concept presented

Ah, I remember the Seinfeldian/Newmanian epistemological rift. Those were exciting times.

Re: Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?


And what would you call a black hole or the Big Bang?

I'll set the record straight.

In the beginning we all had cause to use expressions like "Intelligent Design".So I coined the phrase "Scientific Design".

Now these are long words so I started abbreviating them to ID and IDers and SD and SDers.

This went smoothly for a while.Everybody understood it and were probably relieved no longer to have to type out the full expression.I was.

Then some ungentlemanly person began calling Intelligent Design proponents ID-iots.I objected but he persisted and it caught on like WOGS did for Worker On Government Service in Egypt in the good old colonial days which Americans were so envious of they ended up were they are now.

Everybody started using it.

I felt,to maintain the dignity of IDers,that it was incumbent upon me to trade punch for punch although I didn't do it right away because I thought Essdeeoids would see the error of their ways and revert to the more mannerly IDers.When they stubbornly refused to do so,and Essdeeoids are noted for being stubborn bigots,I hit back.

S=ess,D=dee and oid as in Android or typhoid or haemorrhoid.Take your pick.The scientific method mindset does come from another planet than the one 2 million years of human evolution comes from,it does cause fevers and it is a pain the arse.

Basically an Essdeeoid is anti Intelligent Design.

Okay Wolf?Join the club.

Your ego runs away with you--"ID" was in use long before you sobered up long enough to become aware of the movement.

Until I saw wande's inspired thread I had never heard of it.How would a sensible bloke like me ever hear of something so daft as Intelligent Design.

An Intelligent Designer would have given women an insane urge and men the means to reluctantly satisfy it in return for bribes and impressive displays of prowess.

Never miss an opportunity to parade your virulent misogyny, do ya? I'll bet that if you were ever laid at all (by a woman), it hasn't happened since there were 240 pennies in a pound.

spendi still can't relate to the real world; his proposition from his post above mine shows how confused he is. He prolly never heard of the "oldest profession."

Wolf wrote-



By heck Wolf-you have soon picked up the Essdeeoid dialect.

You could try reading the posts properly instead of jumping to fast conclusions after a quick skim which is another Essdeeoid mannerism.If you did that you might then be in a position to suggest an answer to the questions I've posed instead of this sort of thing which is meaningless because it is posited on the idea that what you say is bullshit actually is bullshit which is a bit girly and profoundly unscientific.

Guhnga wrote:

that God created each species separately,
presumably from the dust of the earth

RexRed comment: That is NOT what the Bible says... And for a scientist, they cannot even read...

God FORMED man from the dust of the ground.. Forming something takes more "time" than creating something...

The question is... HOW MANY "FORMS" DID MAN TAKE BEFORE GOD WAS DONE FORMING?

I'm reminded of the last line in The Bridge on the River Kwai.





"Madness. Madness."

Rex, Why does god need to form man from the dust of the ground? If he created the universe out of nothing, what's the problem of creating humans? From dust? LOL