Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Try to open up your mind long enough to see that because (what you call) IDers...are full of ****...IS NOT EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS NO INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

THE ******* INTELLIGENT DESIGN MAY BE EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE GOT.

Why are you assholes so ******* blind about this?????

I explained that Frank. It's a psychological need. Comprehend your argument and they cannot find an outlet for their bottled up rage which won't rage back at them apart from the tolerant who they can easily bully.

Anyway--they've lost the argument.

Nobody is going to buy an educational system from this lot. The whole population would end up as daft as they are if it happened. And it wouldn't just be American science that went down the tube. It would be America.

The NCSE rushed representatives from their northern city enclaves to insult and try to overturn the local elected people down south. They never mentioned that the rush was for an expenses paid holiday in the sun with their secretaries. Their handouts never mentioned that. And this lot of anti-IDers swallowed those handouts because they wanted to. It is a system for avoiding the drudgery of laboratory work which is what we have educated them to do and what we pay them for. They don't do science. They talk about it. Just like they would rather talk about education that actually get on educating the kids. The kids are the last thing on their minds. Shoving their fissogs onto the idiot box and their names into the paper is what they do. Media loves it because its cheap filler.

Why has nobody answered my post about the blue bottomed monkey?

But obviously not what Frank got !

I see "intelligent design" as an oxymoron; for a loving god, he "creates" two-headed humans. ID indeed!

Not concerned with what problems? Discovery Institute? Atheists? Catholics?

Ah, but the theist might say "designed to test the faith of its parents".

Since I've established that god is dead as apparantly it was Walt Disney, the we are living in a giant Disneyland with some unwanted worlds that weren't properly imagineered stuck in there: Unwarranted War World, Ponzi Bank World, Back-up-against-the-Wall Street World, OPECking Order Oil Well World, Asian Sweat Shop World and the daffiest (sorry, Daffy): Lack of Capitol World.

Never mind the parents; how about the child? Putting different values on the parent vs child is a ridiculous one.

Well, you just don't understand the Old Testament -- the Earth and the Universe were designed based on Murphy's Laws. It's passed off as free will, but that's what you think -- the designer was so intelligent it decided to plop everything down a la ID's bible "Of Pandas and People" and then let everything take off and go through time with a built-in sabotage mechanism. It happens to every human designer or engineer, but certainly not by choice or on purpose. The head designer (yes, it also does toilets) drank too much of that blue drink on Star Trek, got very woozy, and then started tinkering.

I think Frank is writing about a pure ID unfettered by all the trappings of the Discovery Institute charlatans, mostly tailored to slip it into our education system. That's all too obvious if you watch the NOVA program on the Dover affair -- as the court proceeded and the ID advocates and tricked-out scientists were on the stand, his subtle expressions were priceless. He really attempted to keep a straight face and the frame of questions wasn't much different than were given to the advocates of the opposing side including the educators and scientists. The Discover Institute testimony was a stumbling, bumbling travesty.

Well, I for one am waiting for you to totally disappear up your own rectal orifice from whence cometh all your best stuff.

This thread has gone down a rabbit's hole. I may be back in a few days to see if anything's happening.

Who do you think you are? The Mad Hatter?

Wassamadder boys? What is frightening you? All this bluster and silly tomfoolerly is just something you are distracting yourselves with. It's a form of Ignore and exactly the same considerations apply to it as do to the bald act of resorting to the Ignore function on here.

You want to use reason to undermine faith, which has nothing to do with reason, and I have called reason itself into question for you, citing Hume, and shown it as subjective. And yet you carry on undermining faith using reason without bothering yourselves answering the argument that reason is suspect as if nothing has happened.

Something has happened. The colours of the rainbow, the cold of the ice and the sound of the plucked guitar string have nothing, nothing, to do with the rainbow, the ice or the guitar string. You are talking about yourselves. Again. And you showed your impulsiveness to do that so readily in your tales of your heroic miltary exploits only yesterday.

You are nothing but snobs looking down on the simple and practical faith of the commonality which you so evidently despise and go to great pains to distance yourselves from in your fatuous belief that by this simple and easy strategy you have risen above it.

The Earl of Shaftsbury said that the common man can only be made "good" by the agencies of superstition and fear. Take away the superstition and only fear remains as I have been pointing out for so long. You are, I presume unwittingly, as complete fools are usually unwitting, ushering in Orwell's world of tight regulation enforced with terror.

You are in denial of being common or garden little dicks. And your capacities of thought and expression, and your admitted preoccupations, define you as very ordinary little dicks. Perhaps science threads select for such deniers.

You can't even attempt to explain, never mind actually explain, why this debate is so long lasting. That is inexplicable if your simple assertions are true. You can't attempt to explain, never mind actually explain, why we accept monogamy as right and proper when it goes against the basic evolutionary principles. As does birth control, abortion, homosexuality, financial regulation and a whole raft of other stuff. You can't even explain lingerie shops.

And you are proven wishy-washy, limp-wristed wimps and anybody who buys an educational system off you has taken leave of their ******* senses. Fancy being so scared of a few lines of spendi's prose that you have to resort to putting your hands over your eyes.

You are into self worship and self-validation bigtime all the time. You are not just morons. You are dangerous morons.

It's a good job you're pissing in the wind. For yourselves as much as for anybody else.

I am the Terminator. "I'll be back."

Don't bother Ed. You have nothing to contribute. You never have had. You even think that your assertion about the thread having gone down a "rabbit's hole" is true simply on the evidence of you having said it. And it self-evidently has not done. It's just your excuse for running off.

And what bloody condescension too. "I may be back in a few days" Jeeze!! We are all trembling with nervous anticipation I'm sure.

And religion isn't a psychological need, Spendi.



I never followed it close enough to know, but I can't quite comprehend how you take solace in the fact one person believes there may be a god or gods.

It seems that the more important argument in all this hasn't yet come close to being lost, though not for lack of trying on the part of IDers.

Of course it is. And it can be practically useful. It has been. Between religions it is the survival of the fittest.



I don't understand what you mean.



I'm the only one supporting ID on these science threads. And I have never said that I'm an IDer. Just as I could support the right of a proprietor of a pub to allow smoking, or otherwise, on his premises even if I was a non-smoker, Or a right to social security even though I'm not a recipient.

People have lost the argument when they ignore contervailing arguments, resort to insult and assertions. Read the thread. There's nothing else from anti-IDers from the get-go.

. The evidence has nothing to do with IDjits being full of ****, fool. .
Clear evidence shows that life is neither leading to or from complexity,life forms parallel the geologic accidents that invade the earth periodically. Life makes great leaps at cosmic accidents and mankind was almost wiped from the earth several times.
You dont appreciate the sum of all the kinds of evidence that argue against "intelligence" or even an inept meddling force.
As the evidence mounts against such a force, you merely press the case that its "possible", similar to how you wallow in your agnostic position like its a feckless argument that hopes to be proven wrong .




Just because you say something doesnt bear any weight unless you press the details and the reasons for that position. It comes from nowhere unless you ground it TO someone or something else. You are no different than Mike Behe who tried to convince a judge that

1Modern biology accepts irreducible complexity

2Astrology is a valid science.
When pressed, he too stood firmly by his points(although with much greater decorum), and looked like a fool to the judge who pointed it out in his decision.

By merely screaming your points as if in a playground in E Orange and doing it with ill manners and profanity, sure doesnt make you look like Solomon.

He must shout it out, hoping for some comprehension of a fruitless endeavor -- convincing anyone who has other convictions to subscribe to his. You can't sell ID nor agnosticism like a used car (you can't make any money at it, either). I kicked the tires many years ago with the assistance of two Episcopalian Priests, and all the tires were flat. Although they didn't base sermons on their own conviction about the origins of life (this was the 60's when I was in college), they were good men who gave good advice. I helped one of them who was the priest at the beautiful Sierra Madre parish build a harpsicord in his home.

When anyone states and an ID is possible -- how, why, where, and when? You can't tell me they've read "Of Pandas and People" and digested it as real science text, so what is meant by their version of ID?

I'm sorry, thet all read like Shirley McClaine.

There speaks a man who thinks that Mahler's Song of the Earth is just a cacophonous mixture of vibrations with no meaning and no purpose.

Astrology is a valid science. He is choosing his astrologers like he chooses his anti-IDers for their sitting duck status so he can shoot them easy. That's why he has Behe in the frame. I could shoot Behe down whilst tootling on a piano and falling off a log and chewing gum. All at the same time. What Behe has to do with it I can't imagine. If his Ma had tickled his Pa's scrottlers ten seconds earlier he might have been a footballer. Or ten seconds later.

Biology is irreducibly complex. And then some.