Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

He's got it so twisted up in his mind that no amount of research and evidence supported by fact will open the window and let in the light. He gets his by the artificial light of the pub and, occasionally as I doubt he goes to church each Sunday, the concept of an imaginary, supernatural super being.

They are both houses of delusions. That explains where he's coming from.

I'm obviously a numbskull. I'm the opposite to you lot and as you're all so intelligent and all only numbskull is available for me.

It takes really, really intelligent people to say those things about restaurant meals and really, really, really intelligent people to quote them.

We often express our wonder at the creative intelligence which provided pint pots full of foaming amber nectar which magically transform a dull and lustreless world into one suffused with a rosy glow and in which ladies are transformed into creatures of enchantment.

One such "pub" is on BBC1 tonight in the Strictly Come Dancing finals. In my youth I often visited the Tower Ballroom in Blackpool. If you watch the programme, which I'll admit is a bit silly, and clear away the idiots from your mind and re-people it with 18 to 22 year olds practicing proper eugenics it will give you an idea of just how scientific the imaginary supernatural being actually is.

Did you do "dating"? I've read about that institution.

Your interpretation of the "pub" is an artificial one that has nothing to do with intelligence. That amber liquid that you imbibe in daily is your way of escaping the realities of life. It softens the grey matter in your brain to think you're in paradise. That's the reason why it's addictive.

Well it would be. Paradise is not to be sneezed at as the puritannical, presbyterian prohibitionists discovered.

Is your grey matter hard ci? Does it clunk as you walk?

It clunks only because of my age, but it still operates pretty well.

Do you never tire of blurting assertions which have no validity ci?

You'll have to spell out what those 'assertions' are, and why they have no validity?

That your clunking hard brain operates "pretty well". That's the assertion that hasn't been validated yet.

I'm sure my fellow a2kers would agree that my posts make more sense than yours - as evidence. Is that "validation" enough for you?

You do not even understand what this debate is about ci.

That is perfectly obvious from your assumption that your side is right and that the other side are "stupid", "moronic" and "idiots". The other side, larger than your side, and much larger in some communities, is self evidently none of those things and cannot be dismissed with the infantile platitudes and cliches you use about them just as you do on politics threads where, I gather, a number of A2Kers, find you so tiresome and useless as to have you on Ignore and thus invalidate that silly contribution which is another self-serving assertion.

"The other side, larger than your side", another fantasy which is right up there with Ardi being presented by scientists a the "missing link" when they stated exactly the opposite. I hate to have to bring this 2006 chart again on A2K, from an extensive study of the world wide acceptance of evolution, but PSXXX is in the minority, not a "much larger side." Notice he is basing his fallacious argument on what is going on here in the US, obviously not in the UK, and he's still wrong:

We are not debating acceptance of evolution Wiz. We are debating its usefulness in organising society. I accept evolution. It is so obvious that anybody over 10 can understand it.

Science can be applied to the organisation of society and not just to inanimate objects and non-human organisms neither of which have the slightest possibilty of inventing science.

What would you say if a 100% disavowal of all variations of intelligent design led to catastrophe as many people, including some scientists, think it would? Unless you can offer some description of a world with a complete rejection of the idea of intelligent design you are playing at it.

The graph means that anything of a medical or biological nature will have to be accomplished by the 40% who arent buffaloed by the Brain dead IDjits and Creationists. SAD really, not being much more enlightened than TURKEY.

Brain dead IDjits are the most prone to setting up strawman argumenat which have no answer of yes or no. The chart does not show what part of those who don't believe in evolution are Creationuts and who are IDjits. By the way to study was organized, it's the grey "don't know" which are the most like to accept a concept of ID and leave it at that. They aren't embarking on their own personal detailed study of the concept. So the fools who still believe there's any real argument leading toward any acceptance of the ID warped scientific approach to the supernatural will still be rollin' along towards the ultimate falling off a cliff.

The graph means nothing unless we know how the figures were arrived at. An "extensive survey" of what? City people? Megalopolitans? Readers and viewers of megalopolitan media?

Show an anti-IDer a picture, like with Ardi, and if it flatters his sense of the superiority of his abstract urban "intellect" he swallows it like a tuna fish will swallow an unbaited hook when the shoal has been wound up into a feeding frenzy.

There is no way of comprehending history until it is realised that the city, which sets out to oppose the country and nature, just as its very buildings are a defiance of gravity and its tarmac a boundary between itself and the soil, has come, through its monopoly of media, to foist its abstract ideas upon the producers of food. Its costumes and even its facial expressions are adjusted to the background of stone, mechanics and inorganic substances. Its artificial light outshines the stars and its noise blots out the sound of nature. Instead of springs it has fountains. Instead of pastures it has parks. It has concrete pools, pollarded trees, clipped hedges and straight lines instead of woods, meadows, ponds and bushes appearing in nature's form. It is anti-nature to the root of its being. It has dude ranches and dude boat building and thatched cottages on its greeting cards to express its deep yearning for another way of life.

Domination is all it ever thinks about. It even thinks that Fox News is conservative and I can hardly imagine anything quite so silly as that. Its ads show fat peasant women baking cakes which we all know are produced by the million in factories. It is totally and irredemiably schizophrenic. i.e, completely mad on any evolutionary perspective apart that that of flavour of the century. Or even the moment.

This compilation of surveys has been around for about three years, posted to A2K several times, and the chart comes from the National Geographic article published at the time:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-evolution.html

It would take a little time to research all the surveys and the method of compilation so either accept it as ture with a plus or minus of 3% (the usual accepted error in surveys) or research it yourself and debunk the results, if you have the resources

Otherwise, accept the chart as accurate enough to make the point or shut up and go get tipsy at the quaint little pub.

The same chart as the heading of the post by Robert Gentel (the owner of this site):

http://able2know.org/topic/121593-1

The updated figures I posted on that discussion:

http://www.livescience.com/history/080102-evolution-teaching.html

History
Survey: 61 Percent Agree with Evolution

By LiveScience Staff

posted: 02 January 2008 11:57 am ET


Americans would rather hear about evolution from scientists than from judges or celebrities, according to a new survey that finds a majority agree that evolution is at work among living things.

A coalition of 17 organizations reacted today to the survey by calling on the scientific community to become more involved in promoting evolution and other aspects of science education.

The coalition, including the National Academy of Sciences, the American Institute of Physics and the National Science Teachers Association, released this statement:

"The introduction of 'non-science,' such as creationism and intelligent design, into science education will undermine the fundamentals of science education. Some of these fundamentals include using the scientific method, understanding how to reach scientific consensus, and distinguishing between scientific and nonscientific explanations of natural phenomena."

Irony of reason

The statement was included in an article in the January 2008 issue of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology's FASEB Journal.

"In an age when people have benefited so greatly from science and reason, it is ironic that some still reject the tools that have afforded them the privilege to reject them," says Dr. Gerald Weissmann, the journal's editor-in-chief.

The article is based on a new national survey of 1,000 likely U.S. voters. Respondents favored teaching evolution over creationism or intelligent design.

Respondents also were more interested in hearing about evolution from scientists, science teachers and clergy than from Supreme Court Justices, celebrities or school board members. A key finding from the survey: There is a relationship between people's understanding of science and their support for teaching evolution.

Respondents were asked three science questions: one related to plate tectonics, one related to the proper use of antibiotics and one related to prehistory. Those who accurately answered questions on these subjects were far more likely to support the teaching of evolution in schools.

Skewed answers

The report points out that Americans' views on evolution vary depending on how questions are asked.

In a previous Gallup poll, people were asked to choose whether humans developed over millions of years, with or without guidance from God (as in one Gallup poll question). More selected evolution with guidance (38 percent) than without guidance (13 percent).

But in a previous Pew Research Center poll, respondents were first asked, without reference to a supreme being, if they thought humans evolved or were created in their present form. Those who accepted evolution were then asked if they thought it occurred through natural processes or with guidance. When asked this way, 18 percent reported that evolution occurred with guidance, and 25 percent accepted that it occurred through natural selection.

The new poll

In the new FASEB poll, researchers asked half of the respondents about their views on the evolution of "all living things" and found that 61 percent accepted that "all living things have evolved over time." Of those, 36 percent thought all living things "evolved due to natural processes such as natural selection," and 25 percent thought "a supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating life in the form it exists today."

The researchers asked the remaining respondents to consider human evolution and found that 53 percent accepted that "humans and other living things" evolved. This majority included 32 percent who accepted that humans and other living things evolved through natural processes and 21 percent who thought they had evolved with guidance.

Scientists accept evolution as the best and only theory that accurately explains how humans and other species came to be so diverse. The theory is supported by many studies in many different fields of science. Intelligent design is a thinly veiled creationist argument designed to make the public doubt the theory of evolution, according to nearly all scientists and a 2005 ruling by U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

"The bottom line is that the world is round, humans evolved from an extinct species and Elvis is dead," Weissmann said. "This survey is a wake-up call for anyone who supports teaching information based on evidence rather than speculation or hope; people want to hear the truth, and they want to hear it from scientists."

The Barroom Bullshitter -- there's one in every pub or saloon. PSXXX reminds me of Norman, the mailman, on "Cheers."