Intelligent Design: Extinct?

i think the shit was invented to infiltrate the public school system. having failed miserably, i couldn't imagine why a christian school would carry it in their curriculum instead of science and religion, both. worst of both worlds, really.

That's exactly why it was invented. Read "The Wedge Document" if you want to know the who, what, where, when, and why of Intelligent Design.

I never heard of that.

if anyone else doesn't know what "the wedge document" is, here's a link and an excerpt.

The Wedge Strategy - Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture

FIVE YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN SUMMARY

The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip ]ohnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

The Wedge strategy can be divided into three distinct but interdependent phases, which are roughly but not strictly chronological. We believe that, with adequate support, we can accomplish many of the objectives of Phases I and II in the next five years (1999-2003), and begin Phase III (See "Goals/ Five Year Objectives/Activities").

Phase I: Research, Writing and Publication

Phase II: Publicity and Opinion-making

Phase III: Cultural Confrontation and Renewal
 
If Intelligent Design is not extinct, it is certainly an endangered species in the US. I find it quite ironic that a philosophy which opposes the validity of natural selection has apparently fallen victim to the survival of the fittest scientific explanation for the diversity and heredity of life on earth.

Following definitive defeat in federal court and with many religious folks disinterested in any pseudo-scientific explanations for biodiversity -- preferring science or the bible's contentions instead -- does the ID movement have any future in the US?

I know, not long and science will be completely stamped out. All due to popular demand for a convenient lie.

Since when was a judge a scientist? Hmmm... oh yeah, screw that....

You might have a point if more than a handful of Scientists supported ID.

If this matter were purely put up to the scientific community I.D. would have never even gotten off the ground.

In fact, that is exactly what happened and is evidenced by I.D.'s absolute failure to be peer-reviewed and published. The one article they did get published was done so through obfuscation and was virtually immediately redacted by the magazine.

I see, we vote on truth.

Maybe if a few more students were taught BOTH sides there would be more ID scientists now wouldn't there. ;)

It is actually a marvel to behold how many top scientists actually know ID to be correct when you consider that everyone is brainwashed with evolutionism trash.

Maybe if evolutionists would play fair, science would have a chance.
 
You're wrong. The right wing only has to file lawsuits for court cases that public schools can't afford to fight. So instead of being put into that position, they just don't teach anything that "might" be controversial.

Instead they teach the kind of science you find in most Bible college. It's called "natural science" where they teach "bees pollinate flowers" and a kind of "simple science" that doesn't threaten "mystical and supernatural teachings".

I know. How dare them teach things that can actually be observed. We should be teaching them fairy tales like the easter bunny, the big bang, evolutionism, the nebular hypothesis, etc. etc. etc.

If you are arguing that Evolution can't be observed, then I.D. sure as hell can't be observed since it utilizes the same mechanics of evolution to explain speciation and merely fills in the holes with a "God in the gaps" mentality.

No, it is evolutionists that are arguing that ID cannot be observed yet not one bit of their theory can be observed.
 
If Intelligent Design is not extinct, it is certainly an endangered species in the US. I find it quite ironic that a philosophy which opposes the validity of natural selection has apparently fallen victim to the survival of the fittest scientific explanation for the diversity and heredity of life on earth.

Following definitive defeat in federal court and with many religious folks disinterested in any pseudo-scientific explanations for biodiversity -- preferring science or the bible's contentions instead -- does the ID movement have any future in the US?

Dover was I.D.'s Waterloo. Even I.D.'s main proponents knew that it was the wrong time and would end in a disaster.

Not that I am sorry for that bunch of dishonest hacks and their attempts to do a run-about on the scientific method with a theology based philosophical question.

The only dishonesty that has come about is from the evolutionist community. Hoax after hoax after hoax....when will ya'll just let it die.

I know, you feel like the queen from Alice in wonderland but common. Do let evolution die.

I dare say you haven't had much practice. When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” -Queen:lol:
 
dunno, modo. its been such a flash in the pan, i dont think it should make the history books either.
I think it would be a perfect topic to cover in a critical thinking course as an example of a non-falsifiable theory. Great example.

Of course, if theology is offered, it also belongs there.

But, agreed. It really NEEDS to stay away from any science curriculum. There already are the climate dilettantes polluting the logic of scientific discovery and it can't afford any more corruption.
 
I don't think we've heard the last of it yet.

Consider the fact that ID is nothing more than repackaged Creationism, concocted after Creationism suffered similar legal defeats. The thumpers will just repackage it once more and try again. Afterall, they are doing God's work you know.

for the time being the fate of the school board members who agreed to the curriculum might scare other such school boards from acting against popular will and science convention. it is science philosophy, but that is not really part of science education until university.
 
I see, we vote on truth.

No, we vote on what the scientific evidence strongly points towards. There is nothing scientific about supernatural powers. It is beyond the scope of science to account for that.

Maybe if a few more students were taught BOTH sides there would be more ID scientists now wouldn't there. ;)

Doubtful. Even if both sides were taught, ID can't get around the basic fact that it does not meet the criteria of the scientific method.

Therefore, it is not a scientific theory.

Call it philosophy if you want, but it's not science.

It is actually a marvel to behold how many top scientists actually know ID to be correct when you consider that everyone is brainwashed with evolutionism trash.

Like Dr. Behe who was completely embarrassed by a lawyer at Dover over a scientific matter? Behe admitted that, if the scientific method were altered to allow ID, astronomy would also be considered legitimate science.

Then there is the fact that Behe's irreducible complexity pseudo-theory has been completely destroyed by the scientific community.

The sad news? Behe is the best scientist ID has. I don't doubt that many scientists believe ID as an article of faith, they just know it's not something they can introduce into their professional work.

Maybe if evolutionists would play fair, science would have a chance.

Evolutionists aren't the ones with the track record of lying, distortions, half truths, and other dishonest tactics to advance their cause.

Judge Jones' opinion in the Dover trial was completely scathing towards the ID position for the dishonest way in which they acted.

And before you go there: Judge Jones was appointed by George W. Bush.
 
No, it is evolutionists that are arguing that ID cannot be observed yet not one bit of their theory can be observed.

The argument from evolution is that a supernatural force can not be observed, tested, or reproduced.

Evolution is readily observable in the lab and in the fossil record. You can reject that if you want, the field of biological sciences could care less about your opinion on the matter.
 
The only dishonesty that has come about is from the evolutionist community. Hoax after hoax after hoax....when will ya'll just let it die.

I know, you feel like the queen from Alice in wonderland but common. Do let evolution die.

I dare say you haven't had much practice. When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” -Queen:lol:

"Hoax after hoax"?

I don't think so. Let me guess, you are going to whine about Ernst Haeckel's contribution to evolution?

Or maybe you were going to come up with something that happened this century?

At any rate, when something is discredited in science it is removed. It doesn't invalidate the whole theory.

You could disprove evolution in a heartbeat if you found, say, a human fossil among dinosaur fossils.

Get digging!

I don't know what you do, I don't care what you believe. I only take issue when you guys try and pervert the scientific method because the conclusions that science has reached are inconvenient to your personal faith and belief system.

Could you be anymore intellectually dishonest?
 
I know, not long and science will be completely stamped out. All due to popular demand for a convenient lie.

Since when was a judge a scientist? Hmmm... oh yeah, screw that....

You might have a point if more than a handful of Scientists supported ID.

If this matter were purely put up to the scientific community I.D. would have never even gotten off the ground.

In fact, that is exactly what happened and is evidenced by I.D.'s absolute failure to be peer-reviewed and published. The one article they did get published was done so through obfuscation and was virtually immediately redacted by the magazine.

I see, we vote on truth.

Maybe if a few more students were taught BOTH sides there would be more ID scientists now wouldn't there. ;)

It is actually a marvel to behold how many top scientists actually know ID to be correct when you consider that everyone is brainwashed with evolutionism trash.

Maybe if evolutionists would play fair, science would have a chance.

this is a real joke, lite. top scientists? this cracks me up imagining you in your clownsuit marveling at scientists who you think are dwelling on evolution theory and can give a shit about some half-baked attempt to sway high school earth sciences texts.
 
The argument from evolution is that a supernatural force can not be observed, tested, or reproduced.

You are going back to origins which I don't think you really want to do because evolution has a very poor leg to stand on when it comes to origins.

Evolution is readily observable in the lab and in the fossil record.

Evolution is NOT observable to the point to which you would like it to be. A monkey has NEVER been observed to evolve into a human and your attempts to claim that they have are nothing less than intellectually dishonest.

Everything in terms of post-origins of the ID theory can be observed in the lab.

However, if you would like to go to origins, "design" is readily observable in daily life and in the lab.


You can reject that if you want, the field of biological sciences could care less about your opinion on the matter.

Yes, I know, biologists are the only field who choses to keep their heads in the sand when it comes to the 2LOT. And thanks for proving my point about how hard you evolutionists work to shut out any opinion that doesn't support your religion. ;)
 
You are going back to origins which I don't think you really want to do because evolution has a very poor leg to stand on when it comes to origins.

Evolution is NOT observable to the point to which you would like it to be. A monkey has NEVER been observed to evolve into a human and your attempts to claim that they have are nothing less than intellectually dishonest.

A god is not observable either. At least there is bona fide, provable evidence of evolution. There is absolutely NO tangible evidence of a god. None whatsoever. Only belief...
 
Doubtful. Even if both sides were taught, ID can't get around the basic fact that it does not meet the criteria of the scientific method.

Nor does evoultion in the capacity that it is made out to.

Like Dr. Behe who was completely embarrassed by a lawyer at Dover over a scientific matter? Behe admitted that, if the scientific method were altered to allow ID, astronomy would also be considered legitimate science.

And that is suppose to prove scientists aren't brainwashed how?

Then there is the fact that Behe's irreducible complexity pseudo-theory has been completely destroyed by the scientific community.

You wish.

The sad news? Behe is the best scientist ID has. I don't doubt that many scientists believe ID as an article of faith, they just know it's not something they can introduce into their professional work.

And I'm suppose to think this is bad because a judge said so???:lol:
1.gif


Maybe if evolutionists would play fair, science would have a chance.

Evolutionists aren't the ones with the track record of lying, distortions, half truths, and other dishonest tactics to advance their cause.

Oh gee. You could get any more dishonest than that!

Judge Jones' opinion in the Dover trial was completely scathing towards the ID position for the dishonest way in which they acted.

And before you go there: Judge Jones was appointed by George W. Bush.

All the more reason the judge has completely NO idea WHATSOEVER about science.
 
You are going back to origins which I don't think you really want to do because evolution has a very poor leg to stand on when it comes to origins.

Evolution is NOT observable to the point to which you would like it to be. A monkey has NEVER been observed to evolve into a human and your attempts to claim that they have are nothing less than intellectually dishonest.

A god is not observable either. At least there is bona fide, provable evidence of evolution. There is absolutely NO tangible evidence of a god. None whatsoever. Only belief...

You are going back to origins. Which would you like to talk about?
 
You are going back to origins which I don't think you really want to do because evolution has a very poor leg to stand on when it comes to origins.

Neither evolution nor intelligent design comment on "origins" that's a separate theory. The only difference between intelligent design and evolutionary theory is that ID suggests the mechanism of evolution is too complex to have happened without a supernatural power guiding it.

You are either entirely ignorant on the subject matter you are attempting to debate or merely trying to chum the waters with false statements.

Evolution is NOT observable to the point to which you would like it to be. A monkey has NEVER been observed to evolve into a human and your attempts to claim that they have are nothing less than intellectually dishonest.

You mean not observable to the point in which YOU would like it to be. And I have a feeling that short of having some sort of magical looking glass with a hell of a fast forward button on it, you will never be satisfied. That's your prerogative, but it's a ridiculous standard and the rest of the biological community could care less about your objections.

Furthermore, claiming monkey's evolve into humans again displays a gross misunderstanding of what evolutionary theory claims.

Why am I not surprised? Maybe you should actually educate yourself on the theory before you dismiss it out of hand?

Especially if you are going to buy ID, which is Evolution + God's hand.

Everything in terms of post-origins of the ID theory can be observed in the lab.

Bullshit. You just said evolution can't be observed. Then how can ID be observed? Again, ID claims the same mechanism. They just state someone was guiding the process.

However, if you would like to go to origins, "design" is readily observable in daily life and in the lab.

Absurd. For every splendor of design you cite, I can point out a cancer, autoimmune disease, skeletal design flaw, etc to point out that, if we were designed, it wasn't terribly intelligent


Yes, I know, biologists are the only field who choses to keep their heads in the sand when it comes to the 2LOT. And thanks for proving my point about how hard you evolutionists work to shut out any opinion that doesn't support your religion. ;)

Maybe it's because they know their business. You obviously don't.

Finally, pointing out your misconceptions and false statements on a message board is hardly "shutting" you down.

You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.
 
Doubtful. Even if both sides were taught, ID can't get around the basic fact that it does not meet the criteria of the scientific method.

Nor does evoultion in the capacity that it is made out to.

Like Dr. Behe who was completely embarrassed by a lawyer at Dover over a scientific matter? Behe admitted that, if the scientific method were altered to allow ID, astronomy would also be considered legitimate science.

And that is suppose to prove scientists aren't brainwashed how?



You wish.



And I'm suppose to think this is bad because a judge said so???:lol:
1.gif




Evolutionists aren't the ones with the track record of lying, distortions, half truths, and other dishonest tactics to advance their cause.

Oh gee. You could get any more dishonest than that!

Judge Jones' opinion in the Dover trial was completely scathing towards the ID position for the dishonest way in which they acted.

And before you go there: Judge Jones was appointed by George W. Bush.

All the more reason the judge has completely NO idea WHATSOEVER about science.

Feel free to produce any sort of peer-reviewed work on "irreducible complexity".
 
Especially if you are going to buy ID, which is Evolution + God's hand.

As opposed to Big Bang + Miracle + unobserved evolutionism + adaptation evolution.



Bullshit. You just said evolution can't be observed. Then how can ID be observed? Again, ID claims the same mechanism. They just state someone was guiding the process.

Can we observe things changing and adapting? Yes. Simple as that.



Absurd. For every splendor of design you cite, I can point out a cancer, autoimmune disease, skeletal design flaw, etc to point out that, if we were designed, it wasn't terribly intelligent

Great! And I could point out a bunch of problems with an automobile. Therefore, it wasn't designed.:cuckoo:




Maybe it's because they know their business. You obviously don't.

They are entitled to their own opinion, not their own facts. ;)

Finally, pointing out your misconceptions and false statements on a message board is hardly "shutting" you down.

I never said it was.

You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.

Exactly
 

Forum List

Back
Top