Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@spendius,

Its interesting that the IDjits started out as the "CREATIONIST RESEARCH INSTITUTE" (among other groups of incorporation) and since theyve remorphed after 1989 theyve been busy trying to infiltrate the ed process with their claptrap. If they are so easy to dismiss (in your mind), why not come over to the US and try to displace them. Id venture that you too would run from the fray with your brave tail tween your legs. The creationists and the IDers are convinced that they speak common sense and good science, and just by saying otherwise or even by real science providing evidence wont sway their missions of mind control.
The fact that you are unaquainted with our culture "wars" (except from what you here herein) breeds a sense of confidence borne of ignorance. We may be at this for another century or more.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Much longer, farmerman; religion will not disappear no matter how much evidence is provided that ID is a fraud. They have staked their lives on their god and religion, and that's too much of a sacrifice to admit they are wrong.

There's also the "fear" thing called hell. If not, it's their hope that there's is some life after death - also based on "faith."

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

yeh, probably right. Its a real pain in the ass though.

Ive seen the "Highland Baptist Church" having a "CREATIONFEST" to counter the materialist aetheism of Darwin and his minions. MAn, sounds like a Salem witch hunt doesnt it?

This week theyve got 2 dentists who are gonna preach the lies of EVOLUTIONISM. Creeps me out that theyre gonna fill a hurch basement with kiddies and parents with MT minds.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

This week theyve got 2 dentists who are gonna preach the lies of EVOLUTIONISM. Creeps me out that theyre gonna fill a hurch basement with kiddies and parents with MT minds.

It does feel creepy doesn't it. The cult of the mis-informed.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I always liked Frank. Still do. Sorry he took it so personal.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Writes the head "kiddiewink." Since that was all a parody of what is in the texts of Discovery, I wrote it on the same level they are writing on. After, all they are addressing a lot of middle American hicks, not even trying to communicate to those who actually have a high IQ. If you want to put yourself in the former class, just keep typing nonsense such as the next sentence in your little dull pointed barb.

0 Replies

The Creation Museum by The New Yorker, featuring their depiction of Adam and Eve, both with fashion models or movies stars. The diorama of the Grand Canyon and the explanation of how it came to be in 6,000 years:

www.newyorker.com/.../06/a-few-miles-sou.htmll]

0 Replies

@farmerman,

FM,

Any comments on the following from Daily Telegraph article of 2006 entitled "ID is not Creationism"

Quote:

What signs of intelligence do design advocates see?

In recent years, biologists have discovered an exquisite world of nanotechnology within living cells - complex circuits, sliding clamps, energy-generating turbines and miniature machines. For example, bacterial cells are propelled by rotary engines called flagellar motors that rotate at 100,000rpm. These engines look like they were designed by engineers, with many distinct mechanical parts (made of proteins), including rotors, stators, O-rings, bushings, U-joints and drive shafts.

The biochemist Michael Behe points out that the flagellar motor depends on the co-ordinated function of 30 protein parts. Remove one of these proteins and the rotary motor doesn't work. The motor is, in Behe's words, "irreducibly complex".

This creates a problem for the Darwinian mechanism. Natural selection preserves or "selects" functional advantages as they arise by random mutation. Yet the flagellar motor does not function unless all its 30 parts are present. Thus, natural selection can "select" the motor once it has arisen as a functioning whole, but it cannot produce the motor in a step-by-step Darwinian fashion.

Natural selection purportedly builds complex systems from simpler structures by preserving a series of intermediates, each of which must perform some function. With the flagellar motor, most of the critical intermediate structures perform no function for selection to preserve. This leaves the origin of the flagellar motor unexplained by the mechanism - natural selection - that Darwin specifically proposed to replace the design hypothesis.

Is there a better explanation? Based on our uniform experience, we know of only one type of cause that produces irreducibly complex systems: intelligence. Whenever we encounter complex systems - whether integrated circuits or internal combustion engines - and we know how they arose, invariably a designing intelligence played a role.

3 Replies

Let's try that again -- Google's algorithms somehow got sidetracked in cyperspace.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker/2007/06/a-few-miles-sou.html

http://mtblog.newyorker.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/06/28/adam_eve.jpg

3 Replies

@fresco,

If it were so, it would be a problem. However, just as Ken Miller stated:
"Natural selection allows for something that youve already got to be used in an entirely new way"
The flagellar motor has been tracked in an evolutionary sense to several microscopic organisms that have cilia, cnidaria (Stinging cells) and non rotatory cilia. The structures seem to advance along a n evolutionary advantage gage. Fist the cilia within a column of basal cells, then a cnidaria where the basal cells can actually eject the cilia , then the most complex structure of rotatory flagella. This is photographed and presented in Millers book :In Search of Darwins God". Its the flagellar equivalent of the emergence of the eye from a light sensitive surficial cell of the mollusca and echinoderms.

All that harkens back to the argument that Design components have been traced back to their elemental roots .
Fortunately for the IDers , they argue the next line that we cant see any of this in the fossil record. Until the guys from Saskatchewan reported on several microfossils from the preCambrian that can be thin sectioned to the submicron level to see the cilial cells. It seemed to be true then as well as now.
Its tough being an IDer because their argumenst are so focused. Actually the Craetionists can shuck and jive more easily, just as long as they dont push too hard on the Biblical sequence too much.

0 Replies

@Lightwizard,

Lightwizard wrote:

The Creation Museum by The New Yorker, featuring their depiction of Adam and Eve, both with fashion models or movies stars.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker/2007/06/a-few-miles-sou.html

Oh look, white people in the garden of eden. How convenient (as ChurchLady would say). Wink

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Id venture that you too would run from the fray with your brave tail tween your legs.

What makes you think that you who have have run from this fray a few times. When have I shown the slightest sign of that?

The whole point of the internet is that we join debate from where we are.

Once again though you betray your circularity. Of course it is "claptrap" from where you start. Similarly I am "ignorant". These are pointless things to say. Do you really think that such assertions win the argument? We can all make such assertions once you grant them validity unless you insist on your assertions being the only ones that have.

As I have shown, it is your side that will need mind control and terror. Why do you evade that point. Without them and without superstition how would anarchy be prevented?

What does the CREATIONIST RESEARCH INSTITUTE or its morphings have to do with me? If I read Veblen aright it will be a business venture.

I'm not trying to infiltrate the US educational process. I am simply making an argument. What people do with it, if anybody does, is not my affair. I'm an intellectual. I have no axe to grind. I could make a better job of the atheist/science case than you lot will ever have a hope of doing. But I have no wish to destroy the fond illusions of the devout. I find them very attractive people in the main. It is your wish to destroy their illusions I take issue with.

I've not seen any creationists or IDers speak common sense and good science. Do you think I have?

Your culture wars will be forever if both sides just shout assertions at each other. Most atheists in Europe, as far as I can tell, are content to just let the religionists of all stripes do what they want. They try to get their kids into Catholic schools though.

0 Replies

@fresco,

ID is not creationism, but they keep stepping on themselves when they try to separate it.

0 Replies

@Lightwizard,

The real funny thing about the Adam and Eve story in the bible is that god used Adam's rib to create Eve. Why did he have to do that? Didn't he just create earth and light?

1 Reply

@fresco,

So fresco, I assume you are not answering my post. I cannot refrain from thinking it likely that you can't. Or daren't.

effemm didn't answer your Telegraph quote although I would guess he thinks he did with his "blind 'em with science" routine.

The flageller motor could have arisen spontaneously but I can't see how arts could have or the emotions they generate or the binding together of individuals with animal urges into a coherent culture. Whence shame and laughter?

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendi wrote:

Quote:

The flageller motor could have arisen spontaneously but I can't see how arts could have or the emotions they generate or the binding together of individuals with animal urges into a coherent culture. Whence shame and laughter?

Translate that into English now.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

The real funny thing about the Adam and Eve story in the bible is that god used Adam's rib to create Eve. Why did he have to do that? Didn't he just create earth and light?

It's meant to be funny you silly, stuck-up po-faced presbyterian twit. He didn't have to do that. He didn't need to take seven days over it either. We were engaged in bottling up the matriarchy, no small task, due to its hopeless contribution to progress. He could have made Eve from one of Adam's turds but I presume it was felt that that was going too far.

Dearie me!!

1 Reply

@spendius,

Since you are wiser than all the theologians concerning the bible, why don't you start a thread to teach all them christians the correct interpretation of the bible.

That should be a "gas." (The kind that comes out of animal's rear ends.)

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

The flageller motor could have arisen spontaneously but I can't see how arts could have or the emotions they generate or the binding together of individuals with animal urges into a coherent culture. Whence shame and laughter?

That nasty stuff called evidence sure does make spendis attempts at clarity look like a fine New England Clam Chowder. He "wishes " the flagella could have arisen spontaneously (so did the IDjits as theytried their hand at perping their fraud)

1 Reply

@Lightwizard,

Wvw looks like Tracy Ullman

1 Reply

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know