Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Prognostications are meaningless.

You agreed with a person who made the nonsensical statement that homosexuality is a consequence of evolution... despite the fact that, hm... surely evolution would weed out homosexuality, because homosexuals wouldn't reproduce and spread their traits?

Your delusions are getting the better of you. Anti-ID =/= totalitarian movement.

Lies like de Sade and Marx invented an "anti-ID movement".

Lies like the anti-ID movement wishing to create a totalitarian government.

Spendi, you keep saying that everything would fall apart if evolutionism were embraced everywhere, but that's only true in the context of a sort of first order society, where there are only people and no structure. The fact is, that there is structure in our society, and that structure is not dependent on ID, regardless of whether or not it was at some point designed by an intelligent non-human creator.

Quote:

Your delusions are getting the better of you. Anti-ID =/= totalitarian movement.

I don't see how it could end up anywhere else.

What with your post, just this last one, containing words like nonsense, meaningless, nonsensical, delusions, rubbish, twaddle, bad, moron, strawman (the faithful standby) and lies, it's obvious that it's an assertion machine laying down the law and with power added you have totalitarianism. Maybe you think people with power are tweeting angels.

Quote:

Lies like de Sade and Marx invented an "anti-ID movement".

Who did then? It's here. It's good business.

Quote:

Lies like the anti-ID movement wishing to create a totalitarian government.

I never went that far and claimed they "wished" it so your statement is a lie. I just think it will be the outcome if they succeed in eradicating religious influence. I think they are too innocent and the ones who are not so innocent haven't got the bottle to come out and wish it in public. That's why they are so utterly silent on the social consequences of what I consider to be their affectations.

That visual aid is meaningless to you, because of your inherent inability to "see" what you're looking at. Your sense of reality has been diverted to the world of religion where life and death issues have been negated. Your heaven/life after death doesn't exist.

Then you, sir, must be blind, because in my last post I stated exactly what the anti-ID movement was about. I fail to see how they would result in totalitarianism.

After all, in society we must adhere to certain standards. One of those standards is that we mustn't teach children lies in school

Have any of the candidates on any side in your 2008 election declared their atheism and if not why not? If your statement is obviously a fact why would they not do and agree with you?

Why aren't atheists pandered too like the other minorties in America are.

Baptists take lead in opposing evolution-only standards

On evolution, case closed
(St. Petersburg Times Editorial, December 22, 2007)

Most Pinellas County School Board members say public school students should be taught about intelligent design, a supernatural explanation for the origins of life, alongside the scientifically grounded theory of evolution. Meanwhile, Eric Smith, the state's new education commissioner, curiously refuses to publicly say whether evolution should be taught in science classes or whether intelligent design should be included.

Against that backdrop, let's review the recent Pennsylvania court battle in which evolution and intelligent design were on trial. Guess which side prevailed.

In finding intelligent design is essentially repackaged creationism without scientific validity, U.S. District Judge John Jones rejected the arguments put forth by the intelligent design movement:

- Intelligent design is not religion, proponents say, but an alternative scientific explanation for the origins of life. Jones found it violates the "centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation."

- Intelligent design supporters claim "irreducibly complex" systems cannot be produced by natural processes. Jones points out this logic is based on a false dichotomy: presuming that any arguments against evolution are automatically arguments for design. But natural explanations for the evolution of biological systems are constantly being identified.

As to "irreducible complexity," the judge found its validity was not supported by the evidence. Irreducible complexity says there are systems in nature composed of interacting parts which make it operate. Take any part away and it won't function. The judge found irreducible complexity "depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur." He said exaptation is a well-established explanation for how complex biological systems with multiple parts evolved over time. Exaptation predicts these parts had different, selectable functions before combining to create a new function. To be sure, science is often able to trace complex structure and biochemical process to an earlier form or function.

- Intelligent design, proponents say, can be inferred from the "purposeful arrangement of parts." They assert that since humans can identify an object that has been designed, that reasoning can be applied to biological design.

As the judge noted, human-designed objects do not live and reproduce over time. They are not subject to natural selection. "The only attribute of design that biological systems appear to share with human artifacts is their complex appearance, i.e. if it looks complex or designed, it must have been designed."

As the judge found, "every scientific association that has spoken on the matter" has rejected the challenge to evolution mounted by proponents of intelligent design. Darwin's theory of natural selection has withstood the test of time because scientific testing has repeatedly affirmed its validity.

Any science curriculum that doesn't fully explore it, or puts it on a par with other claims of life's origins, would be seriously flawed.

Pinellas School Board members and the state education commissioner might reflect on the judge's comprehensive review and conclusions before they speak again about an accepted scientific theory they apparently know little about.