Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
what a complete embarrassment Pilgrim made of himself
Yep.
But of course it still only takes third place to his previous assertion that keeping religion out of public schools is unamerican and your gem today about Brown being a liar.
Sorry, posting a news story that turns out to be incorrect isn't the same thing as believing ID is science.
☭proletarian☭;1902396 said:Honest question: Are you retarded?
'It must be fucking magic! All hail the god-er, the magician!' ias not science. It's religion, stupidity, mythology, fables, folklore- whatever terminology makes you feel a little bit better about clinging to a childish assertion lacking any supporting evidence whatsoever.
Who was it who killed people for questioning whether the Earth was flat? Oh yeah, the church!
Yep, and just a few years ago they offered an official apology for it. While I am not christian I do recognize the value of repentance and changing your ways.
A 400 year old sin does not mean that church is acting the same way today. In fact, from what I know, the reason there is so many different churches is that all of them don't agree enough to have one. Lumping them all together seems more authoritarian than the principles that this country was founded on.
Anyway, science-all science is meant to be questioned from every 'angle' that can be thought of, it's kind of what makes science science.
It doesn't bother me if people study ID, I mean, I have different priorities. I would spend much more time studying what can be done about the inevitable human enslavement by evil alien midgets, but that's just me. See my post entitled"prepare to meet your new midget masters"
Questioned from every angle on aspects that can fit within the methodology of science. That purposely excludes an omnipotent God, because (if you think about it), once you make provisions for an all powerful supernatural force, the answer to every scientific question automatically becomes "because God did it".
It doesn't bother me if people study ID, it bothers me if they call it science.
It is not.
Link?what a complete embarrassment Pilgrim made of himself
Yep.
But of course it still only takes third place to his previous assertion that keeping religion out of public schools is unamerican and your gem today about Brown being a liar.
☭proletarian☭;1902492 said:Link?what a complete embarrassment Pilgrim made of himself
Yep.
But of course it still only takes third place to his previous assertion that keeping religion out of public schools is unamerican and your gem today about Brown being a liar.
Hahahaha
Don't act so threatened guys
Just because darwin might not of figured everything out wont make you idiots for believing in his theories, they have validity after all.
There should be no limits on science or the way that it is studied.
The substancial part of any research, will be tested and retested maybe even accepted, if there is any.
looking for the existence of god really is the reason science started.
SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion. Faith is defined as the firm belief in something for which there is no proof…. The belief that there are other life forms in the universe is a matter of faith. There is not a single shred of evidence for any other life forms, and in forty years of searching, none has been discovered. There is absolutely no evidentiary reason to maintain this belief. SETI is a religion.
Hahahaha
Don't act so threatened guys
Just because darwin might not of figured everything out wont make you idiots for believing in his theories, they have validity after all.
No single person on here that I know of, and no single evolutionary biologist, ever claimed Darwin had everything figured out. Darwin's proposed mechanism for inheritance was just goofy.
You know, the theory has changed a bit in the past 160 years or so.
And you have the gall to call others "idiots".
Why don't you educate yourself on this matter before spouting off non-sense.
The part that the id people recognize is the part that shows different species have common traits. At least that's what I have been able to gather.
The ID theory seems to be a way for religious people, christians especially, to reconcile their religous beliefs with science.
It might be helpful to get someone who actually holds this opinion to answer these kind of questions.
Of course if you simply want to attack someone, then it doesn't matter who answers your questions.
A little of both... that's what makes this worthwhile IMO.
When I first heard the term "intelligent design" it made perfect intuitive sense to me. But my conceptualization of the term turned out to be completely at odds with the "official" ID theory. Like you, I assumed that it was consistent with evolution in that it merely meant that evolution itself may have been guided and not completely random. I still think that is a very real possibility. But that's not at all what the official ID theory is all about. If you educate yourself about the history of ID and how the theory has been officially written up, it's repackaged creationism, pure and simple.
Well, yeah, basically. I knew that when I heard it. It has always been my understanding that it is a theory that came christian research as a way to acknowledge that there is valid points to science, while keeping a faith in god. One who believes in God always believes in creation, this was designed as a way to make it possible to recognize both.
Id was designed to make religion and the theory of evolution compatible, of course it has creation in it.
Science is not decided by majority vote. Can the majority of scientists be wrong about scientific matters? Yes they can.
Scientific theories are supposed to be tested, reasearched, and expanded upon. Have you ever read Thomas Kuhn? Well in his Structure of Scientific Revolutions he documented numerous reversals in science where views once confidently held by the scientific community ended up being discarded and replaced.
Please stop now, Pilgrim, or I'm going to be forced to give you a pity rep.
Science is not decided by majority vote. Can the majority of scientists be wrong about scientific matters? Yes they can.
Scientific theories are supposed to be tested, reasearched, and expanded upon. Have you ever read Thomas Kuhn? Well in his Structure of Scientific Revolutions he documented numerous reversals in science where views once confidently held by the scientific community ended up being discarded and replaced.
An example...until the theory of plate tectonics was proposed, geologists used to believe that the continents were immovable (compare Kearey and Vine 1996 to Clark and Stearn 1960).
Intelligent design is at present a minority position within science. But that fact by itself does nothing to discredit its validity. To call some area of inquiry not science or unscientific or to label it religion or myth is a common maneuver for discrediting an idea.
Physicist David Lindley, for instance, to discredit cosmological theories that outstrip experimental data or verification, calls such theories “myths.”
Writer and medical doctor Michael Crichton, in his Caltech Michelin Lecture, criticizes the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence as follows:
SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion. Faith is defined as the firm belief in something for which there is no proof…. The belief that there are other life forms in the universe is a matter of faith. There is not a single shred of evidence for any other life forms, and in forty years of searching, none has been discovered. There is absolutely no evidentiary reason to maintain this belief. SETI is a religion.
In the past NASA has funded SETI research. And even if the actual search for alien intelligences has thus far proved unsuccessful, SETI’s methods of search and the possibility of these methods proving successful validate SETI as a legitimate scientific enterprise.
Just because an idea has religious, philosophical, or political implications does not make it unscientific.
According to evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould "Biology took away our status as paragons created in the image of God…. Before Darwin, we thought that a benevolent God had created us.”
Oxford University biologist Richard Dawkins claims, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”
In his book A Darwinian Left: Politics, Evolution, and Cooperation, Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer said we have to “face the fact that we are evolved animals and that we bear the evidence of our inheritance, not only in our anatomy and our DNA, but in our behavior too.”
Gould, Dawkins, and Singer are respectively drawing religious, philosophical, and political implications from evolutionary theory. Does that make evolutionary theory unscientific? No.
By the same token, intelligent design’s implications do not render it unscientific.
And if you think they do then I'm sure glad your not a scientist doing reasearch.
Wait a minute. Are you telling me that science doesn't rely on consensus? Just how uninformed are you?
The exact issue with ID is that it can't be tested, researched and expanded upon. As exhibit A, I reference the Discovery Institutes' refusal to conduct any real research.
If you don't understand the difference between the natural and supernatural world, then I can see why you are so lost on this matter.
Hahahaha
Don't act so threatened guys
Just because darwin might not of figured everything out wont make you idiots for believing in his theories, they have validity after all.
No single person on here that I know of, and no single evolutionary biologist, ever claimed Darwin had everything figured out. Darwin's proposed mechanism for inheritance was just goofy.
You know, the theory has changed a bit in the past 160 years or so.
And you have the gall to call others "idiots".
Why don't you educate yourself on this matter before spouting off non-sense.
Maybe PP is right. Perhaps we should fund more research in areas such as astrology, voodoo, tarot cards and palm reading since they are on equal scientific footing with intelligent design.
Some dupe just told me they're wicked different.
Anyone want to take a stab at explaining exactly where the two disagree?
They are really not. Once you understand that ID came about as a reaction to Edwards V. Aguillard as a means to try and insert creationism into the classrooms, ID is "creationism lite" for all intensive purposes. This was the conclusion of the court in Dover and why they lost in 2005.
This is from Wiki, but the first paragraph does a pretty good job of summing it all up:
Intelligent design - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The red part is your strawman
