The Lies and Arrogance of Evolutionists

[M.D. Rawlings]

I saved you for last. . . .

You are delusional if you think that Intelligent Design didn't fail at Dover. Not only did they lose the case, their star witnesses like Behe were shredded on the stand. It was so bad that the Judge's decision was a complete smack down.

I'll allow that you simply didn't get the drift and are not intentionally misrepresenting me here.

First of all, Behe doesn't speak for me scientifically, and his reckless, ill-considered rendition of the classical construct of irreducible complexity is of no consequence with regard to the constitutional issue. Indeed, the fact that evolutionists themselves must necessarily and, therefore, cynically invoke the logic of the classical construct (LOL!) in order to refute the flaw in Behe's rendition is of no consequence with regard to the constitutional issue either.

Regardless of what Behe said or didn't say, regardless of what he believes or doesn't believe about intelligent design theory, the court failed to uphold the free exercise clause of the Constitution. The court was supposed to speak for me with regard to the protection of my fundamental rights. The judge is just another leftist, two-bit punk political hack.

What the proponents of ID in the Dover Trail did successfully establish was that (1) ID theory is not subject to the metaphysical/ontological naturalism that underlies the theory of evolution or the various hypotheses of abiogenesis, and (2) the free exercise clause is supposed to prohibit the government from allowing one faction to impose its worldview on any other in the public schools.

So what happened to that order wherein the court directed the public schools within its jurisdiction to provide for universal school choice in order to satisfy the requirements of the free exercise clause for all? I can't find it.

Is it under your bed? Did the court slip it into your back pocket? Don't tell me the court pinned it to your ass and you ran off with it. Say it isn't so, Dorothy!

*Crickets Chirping*

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

So you'd support publicly funded religious schools then?

I support universal school choice. You?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Funny that you simply dismiss jurisprudence as "arbitrary and tyrannical" when you disagree with it. Though, I suppose if you can create your own reality where Intelligent Design didn't lose badly at Dover, you can do most anything.

Funny how you go all blind and stupid and obtuse when it comes to the government imposing your worldview on me. Guys like you understand the matter when the shoe's on the other foot though, don't ya? Yeah. Sure. You get all lucid and wax poetic about the limitations of democratic rule in the face of unbridgeable rights when it's you being imposed upon by the mob or another faction in the public square. LOL!

The constitutional issue has nothing to with what you think about my worldview or what I think about your's. The right to hold and express our respective opinions ENDS where parental consent and authority, where the fundamental rights of individual free-association and ideological liberty begin.

That's what matters here. What is this prattle about alternate realities? We all lost in the Dover Trial. The flim-flam of imposing the establishment clause of the collective, the perspective of the state, while ignoring the free exercise clause, at the expense of the individual's fundamental rights and perspective continues. . . .

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

MDR: No institution, particularly one of education, exists in an ideological vacuum; either the education system in and of itself is unconstitutional or the manner in which it is administered—i.e., in the absence of universal school choice—is unconstitutional. A closed, collectivist education system is tyranny.

geauxtohell: That's a separate issue. The system isn't closed. People are free to home school or send their children to private or parochial school if they want.

Yeah. Right. The First Amendment means that religionists must pay twice for education in order to realize their fundamental rights. Stow it. You know damn well I'm talking about a publicly funded system of universal school choice or perhaps a universal system of vouchers and tax credits therein. You're pretending not to understand me. You're brighter than the rest of the rabble I've been stomping on, the ninnies who do not grasp the essence of scientific methodology and philosophy. The fact that you comprehend the nature of educational institutions and the dynamics of ideology therein demonstrates that. We understand each other perfectly, so spare me the nonsense you're putting out for the lemmings around us regarding governmental institutions of education in the face of the free exercise clause.

Instead, how about this? You take your disingenuous, Darwinian ass and get the hell out. Yeah. That's the ticket. You take your sideshow and scram. You pay twice for education.

The exposition of your hypocrisy and idiotic constitutional theory renders the rest of your drivel moot.

How ya like me now?

Now as for the scientific aspects of your drivel. . . .

 

[geauxtohell]

How exactly were the Warren Court’s rulings ‘arbitrary and tyrannical’?

Because he/she didn't agree with them.

Obvious judicial activism!

Spoken like a true statist, well-groomed and -conditioned by years of mindless assimilation. I'm talking about universal school choice, educational freedom, ideological liberty.

If it's unconstitutional for the state to impose my worldview on you, why is it not unconstitutional for the state to impose your worldview on me?

*Crickets chirping*

All the Court did was declare, in effect, that anything traditionally thought of as being religious in nature could not be imposed by the State in the public schools.

So I disagree with the Court, eh? I do not disagree with that aspect of the Court's decision. Not at all. Oops. Wrong.

The real-world result in the absence of universal school choice, however: the secularist's/the materialist's worldview has free reign. So the First amendment means that the state can impose what millions regard to be vile and false on their children? Bull! It means no such thing. How could it?

But then leftists arbitrarily stand on the establishment clause and disregard the imperatives of the free exercise clause altogether. (frauds, hypocrites, liars, thugs, thieves, fascists)

Rather than resolve the problem constitutionally, the Court merely traded one tyranny for another and unnecessarily instigated a cultural civil war . . . and the education system has declined ever since. Today it is a cesspool of mediocrity and incessant infighting.

I told you before, that's the difference between you and me: I would oppose what the Court did even if I were an agnostic, an atheist or a non-Christian. I have always opposed the educratic tyranny of secular humanism, fully understanding the metaphysical and theological implications thereof.

Make no mistake about, the leftist members of the Warren Court understood that institutions of education, especially, do not exist in ideological vacuums. They were fully conscious of what they were doing. It was their intent to impose their worldview, to engage in a little social engineering. Judicial activism? Pfft. An afterthought.

(Lefty is such a silly ass. He lives in a world of black-and-white sloganeering—the complexities, the nuances, the imperatives of reality flying right over his pointed head.)

I'll tell you what; first you respond to my challenge to you: "show how ID can fit into the scientific method" and then I'll pick up some of yours.

I saw your linked in post. It didn't even address that issue. I don't know who you think you are fooling.

 

[geauxtohell]

If it's unconstitutional for the state to impose my worldview on you, why is it not unconstitutional for the state to impose your worldview on me?

MDR has capsulized the absolute core of the thesis of this thread in the above sentence. (Noting that it was excerpted from a much longer post a few minutes earlier.)

Who is to say what any school board in any community MUST teach school children or what they MUST NOT teach school children? A good school board will of course teach all the theories of climate change AND evolution AND various others concepts that are part of the national and world debate. But a good school board will also insist that curriculum will also encourage critical thought and not close any concepts from consideration including acknowledgment that Creationism and Intelligent Design are part of that national and world debate.

It is not for the Federal government to dictate what can or cannot be included in any local school curriculum. In fact it is very dangerous to give the Federal government such power.

It's up to the constitution when we are talking about public schools. If you want your kids to get religion in the regular curriculum, send them to parochial school.

 

[geauxtohell]

YOU BRAINWASHED TOOL. Scientific intelligent design theory DOES NOT address the existence or non-existence of God. BONG. ERROR. WRONG. FALSE. INCORRECT.

Sure it doesn't.

Wedge strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You aren't fooling anyone.

 

[geauxtohell]

I saved you for last. . . .

You are delusional if you think that Intelligent Design didn't fail at Dover. Not only did they lose the case, their star witnesses like Behe were shredded on the stand. It was so bad that the Judge's decision was a complete smack down.

I'll allow that you simply didn't get the drift and are not intentionally misrepresenting me here.

First of all, Behe doesn't speak for me scientifically, and his reckless, ill-considered rendition of the classical construct of irreducible complexity is of no consequence with regard to the constitutional issue. Indeed, the fact that evolutionists themselves must necessarily and, therefore, cynically invoke the logic of the classical construct (LOL!) in order to refute the flaw in Behe's rendition is of no consequence with regard to the constitutional issue either.

Regardless of what Behe said or didn't say, regardless of what he believes or doesn't believe about intelligent design theory, the court failed to uphold the free exercise clause of the Constitution. The court was supposed to speak for me with regard to the protection of my fundamental rights. The judge is just another leftist, two-bit punk political hack.

Yes. Just another leftest, two-bit punk political hack W. Bush appointee.

Are you the comic relief or something?

What the proponents of ID in the Dover Trail did successfully establish was that (1) ID theory is not subject to the metaphysical/ontological naturalism that underlies the theory of evolution or the various hypotheses of abiogenesis, and (2) the free exercise clause is supposed to prohibit the government from allowing one faction to impose its worldview on any other in the public schools.

They lost. They didn't establish anything. They failed to establish their claims.

So what happened to that order wherein the court directed the public schools within its jurisdiction to provide for universal school choice in order to satisfy the requirements of the free exercise clause for all? I can't find it.

The court didn't establish that, nor was it the court's prerogative to do so.

Is it under your bed? Did the court slip it into your back pocket? Don't tell me the court pinned it to your ass and you ran off with it. Say it isn't so, Dorothy!

*Crickets Chirping*

Still waiting for you to show how I.D. meet's the scientific rigor of the scientific method.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

We are talking about the natural sciences, not the metaphysical. Darwin's theory of evolution does not fall into the realm of the "metaphysical" as much as you would like to claim otherwise.

I didn't claim it did. I said it rests upon a metaphysical apriority. All scientific theory does, you idiot. Science itself necessarily rests on one metaphysical apriority or another. You're despicable misrepresentation of my observation--assuming its intentional and not merely the stuff of ignorance and stupidity--is moot.

Metaphysics is philosophy. Science is rooted in observation and a strict methodology.

Well looky here, it must be ignorance and stupidity, after all.

Let me help you out as one who is an accomplished philosopher of science and a reformed materialist, evolutionist and atheist . . . though never quite as stupid and ignorant as you.

"Science is [not] rooted in observation and a strict methodology." Your statement is misleading and reveals an appalling lack of sophistication.

Instead. . . .

(1) The objective of the natural sciences is the explication of the empirical world.

(2) The methodology of science entails observation in accordance with a certain set of systematic rules, beginning with the formulation of a testable or falsifiable hypothesis about something.

(3) The discipline of science necessarily rests or presupposes one kind of philosophical construct of naturalism or another, and the construct is necessarily metaphysical in nature.

Fact.

 

[rdean]

We are talking about the natural sciences, not the metaphysical. Darwin's theory of evolution does not fall into the realm of the "metaphysical" as much as you would like to claim otherwise.

I didn't claim it did. I said it rests upon a metaphysical apriority. All scientific theory does, you idiot. Science itself necessarily rests on one metaphysical apriority or another. You're despicable misrepresentation of my observation--assuming its intentional and not merely the stuff of ignorance and stupidity--is moot.

Metaphysics is philosophy. Science is rooted in observation and a strict methodology.

Well looky here, it must be ignorance and stupidity, after all.

Let me help you out as one who is an accomplished philosopher of science and a reformed materialist, evolutionist and atheist . . . though never quite as stupid and ignorant as you.

"Science is [not] rooted in observation and a strict methodology." Your statement is misleading and reveals an appalling lack of sophistication.

Instead. . . .

(1) The objective of the natural sciences is the explication of the empirical world.

(2) The methodology of science entails observation in accordance with a certain set of systematic rules, beginning with the formulation of a testable or falsifiable hypothesis about something.

(3) The discipline of science necessarily rests or presupposes one kind of philosophical construct of naturalism or another, and the construct is necessarily metaphysical in nature.

Fact.

metaphysical [ˌmɛtəˈfɪzɪkəl]
adj
1. (Philosophy) relating to or concerned with metaphysics
2. (Philosophy) (of a statement or theory) having the form of an empirical hypothesis, but in fact immune from empirical testing and therefore (in the view of the logical positivists) literally meaningless
3. (popularly) abstract, abstruse, or unduly theoretical
4. incorporeal; supernatural

metaphysical - definition of metaphysical by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Scientists, college professors and doctors all recognize "evolution" as the foundation science for biology, botany and physiology. You can hardly find an "evolution" course in college anymore. Instead, there's the "evolution of the eye, evolution of the lymphatic nervous system, of the skin, liver, kidneys, of the immune system and on and on.

If you've been vaccinated or go to the doctor, then you have benefited from the fruits of the knowledge gained by the study of "evolution".

So what have we "gained" from "magical creation" or "occult beliefs"? How has that "science" helped us?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I agree. Too bad I.D. doesn't fall into the "methodological or mechanistic naturalism" of the natural sciences. Science is rooted in scientific methodology. The spirit of inquiry exists in science, but any theory has to adhere to the rules. There might be room for Intelligent Design (which is not creationism, BTW) in theology of philosophy. There is no room for it in the scientific classroom.

Well, we've already dispensed with the idiotic notion that the discipline of science is rooted in the mere nuts and bolts of methodology, as if its foundation and structure were suspended in midair without the benefit of a guiding principle. Idiot.

It is rooted in one metaphysical apriority or another. Fact.

Your metaphysical apriority is either that of the materialist—an ontological/philosophical naturalism, the presupposition that nothing exists beyond nature, beyond matter and energy—or that of a post-modern naturalist, perhaps even a theist. Either way, both hold to a form of naturalism which presupposes that all of natural history within the space-time continuum is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect.

But what if this apriority is not true, Dorothy? Oops. There goes your theory.

My metaphysical apriority is the methodological/mechanistic naturalism of classical empiricism, not to be confused with the post-Darwinian formulation of the construct, you know, like the bull you tried to pull in the above, pretending not to understand the distinction between your apriority and one which reasonably presupposes that the temporal plain is ordinarily bound to the processes of natural causality, but does not necessarily assume that applies for all time or to events that are not subject to immediate observation, or assume the non-existence of certain potentialities of human consciousness that would necessarily reside beyond the substance and methodology of scientific inquiry. Naturally, ID theory holds that while such potentialities in and of themselves are beyond the scope of science, the empirical evidence for such is not necessarily beyond the scope of science.

But of course your sneaking nonsense was that of one trying lie about the fact of the relationship between science and metaphysics, or that of one trying to avoid the acknowledgement of the nature of one's own metaphysical apriority.

Now you just look like a damn fool.

 

[edthecynic]

I got that from the part of your post I cited. How could you have possibly missed it. If ID does not presuppose God is the Intelligent Designer then who or what other than Nature could possibly be the Intelligent Designer?

No. You didn't get that from me. I wrote: ''. . . intelligent design theory proper does not address the existence or non-existence of God. . . .'' Fact.

You just fished that out of your mind; you got that from evolutionist propagandists. Perhaps you got that from Wikipedia's summation of ID, a stream of ignorance and stupidity. Your mind just can't wrap itself around the proscriptions of traditional methodological naturalism, the underlying apriority of science prior to Darwin.

It was quite dishonest of you to claim that ID does not address the existence of God. In ID God and only God can be the Intelligent Designer.

YOU BRAINWASHED TOOL. Scientific intelligent design theory DOES NOT address the existence or non-existence of God. BONG. ERROR. WRONG. FALSE. INCORRECT.

Intelligent design theory is not creationism. MANY OF ITS PROFESSIONAL PROPONENTS ARE AGNOSTIC, NON-RELIGIOUS.

Are the lights on yet? Did you find the switch?

ID has never and will never accept even the possibility that Nature is the Intelligent Designer.

Well, by definition, nature would not be an intelligent designer, now would it?

Nevertheless, intelligent design theory does not necessarily preclude the possibility of evolutionary processes.

And by the way, given that you're so painstakingly trying to disguise the ultimate nature of your worldview, the metaphysics underlying your science, such as it is, that which causes you to interpret the empirical evidence in the manner in which you do, is showing. You might want to zip that up. LOL!

You can deny that ID avoids God all you want, but that will never make it true. The Intelligent Designer by definition is God. Period. You reveal that by your claim that "by definition" Nature cannot be the Intelligent Designer, therefore the Intelligent Designer can only be "Supernatural."

If ID truly does not absolutely REQUIRE the Intelligent Designer to be God, then Nature could surely be the Intelligent Designer

 

[edthecynic]

I understand your desire to turn science into a religion. . . .

No. You don't understand anything. You don't grasp the distinction between the ultimate substance of scientific inquiry (empirical) and the philosophy of science (metaphysical), and your understanding of intelligent design theory is confused and erroneous.

But would you please list these "metaphysical" presuppositions.

You still don't know? I've already told you what the Darwinist's metaphysical presupposition for science is. Aren't you an evolutionist? Don't you know what you're metaphysical presupposition is? LOL!

Hint, a scientific theory is NOT a "metaphysical presupposition.

Are you stupid or something? (A little Forest Gump lingo.) Hint: there is nothing profound about the observation that scientific theories are applied to empirical phenomena. There is nothing profound about the observation that the ultimate substance of science is empirical. And in anticipation of any more idiocy along this line, there is nothing profound about the observation that the scientific method is an empirically objective process governed by specific rules. Notwithstanding, scientific theories DO NOT necessarily escape metaphysics. But more to the point, the philosophy of science is purely metaphysical; ergo, scientific inquiry is based on one metaphysical apriority or another. Hint: these observations are not mutually exclusive, and every one of them is self-evident. Hint: only know-nothing amateurs or fools don't understand that.

ARE YOU STILL DENYING THIS?

AND IF AND WHEN YOU'RE DONE DENYING THIS, TELL US WHAT YOUR METAPHYSICAL PRESSUPOSITION IS.

First of all, all you did is PONTIFICATE that science is metaphysical, which is completely worthless psychobabble.

And I'm an EXISTENTIALIST, I don't have a metaphysical presupposition other than that the metaphysical is meaningless bullshit.
They are exact opposites. Metaphysics says Essence begets Existence, and Existentialism says Existence begets Essence.

 

[rdean]

We are talking about the natural sciences, not the metaphysical. Darwin's theory of evolution does not fall into the realm of the "metaphysical" as much as you would like to claim otherwise.

I didn't claim it did. I said it rests upon a metaphysical apriority. All scientific theory does, you idiot. Science itself necessarily rests on one metaphysical apriority or another. You're despicable misrepresentation of my observation--assuming its intentional and not merely the stuff of ignorance and stupidity--is moot.

Metaphysics is philosophy. Science is rooted in observation and a strict methodology.

Well looky here, it must be ignorance and stupidity, after all.

Let me help you out as one who is an accomplished philosopher of science and a reformed materialist, evolutionist and atheist . . . though never quite as stupid and ignorant as you.

"Science is [not] rooted in observation and a strict methodology." Your statement is misleading and reveals an appalling lack of sophistication.

Instead. . . .

(1) The objective of the natural sciences is the explication of the empirical world.

(2) The methodology of science entails observation in accordance with a certain set of systematic rules, beginning with the formulation of a testable or falsifiable hypothesis about something.

(3) The discipline of science necessarily rests or presupposes one kind of philosophical construct of naturalism or another, and the construct is necessarily metaphysical in nature.

Fact.

metaphysical [ˌmɛtəˈfɪzɪkəl]
adj
1. (Philosophy) relating to or concerned with metaphysics
2. (Philosophy) (of a statement or theory) having the form of an empirical hypothesis, but in fact immune from empirical testing and therefore (in the view of the logical positivists) literally meaningless
3. (popularly) abstract, abstruse, or unduly theoretical
4. incorporeal; supernatural

metaphysical - definition of metaphysical by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Scientists, college professors and doctors all recognize "evolution" as the foundation science for biology, botany and physiology. You can hardly find an "evolution" course in college anymore. Instead, there's the "evolution of the eye, evolution of the lymphatic nervous system, of the skin, liver, kidneys, of the immune system and on and on.

If you've been vaccinated or go to the doctor, then you have benefited from the fruits of the knowledge gained by the study of "evolution".

So what have we "gained" from "magical creation" or "occult beliefs"? How has that "science" helped us?

Ask that one simple question and the "magical creationists" run screaming with their hands flapping as if broken at the wrist.

 

[Dr Grump]

ID is a myth....purpetuated by religous zealots..

...nuff said...

 

[jillian]

ID is a myth....purpetuated by religous zealots..

...nuff said...

M.D. is kind of wacked.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

metaphysical [ˌmɛtəˈfɪzɪkəl]
adj
1. (Philosophy) relating to or concerned with metaphysics
2. (Philosophy) (of a statement or theory) having the form of an empirical hypothesis, but in fact immune from empirical testing and therefore (in the view of the logical positivists) literally meaningless
3. (popularly) abstract, abstruse, or unduly theoretical
4. incorporeal; supernatural

metaphysical - definition of metaphysical by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Bluster.

Still want to be treated like a damn fool, eh?

I'm going to keep shoving the obviously undeniable relationship between metaphysics and science down your throat until you fess up.

There's no point in discussing the merits of evolutionary theory versus those of ID theory until this obvious fact is mutually acknowledged.

You're merely trying to cover your glaringly stupid error.

Metaphysical, philosophical or ontological naturalism, which is your bag apparently, are interchangeable terms, all referring to the metaphysical presupposition of the materialist, i.e., that nothing exists but nature, nothing but mass and energy (or more accurately, in the light of quantum mechanics or chaos theory, the derivatives or the processes of mass and energy).

You're embarrassing yourself, halfwit . . . you nose-picking hayseed.

You're arguing with me about a factual relationship, one that is self-evident, objectively and universally understood by all scientists and professional philosophers of science as if I were relating some mysterious, subjective or debatable idea.

YOU DUMBASS!

It's a simple matter of necessity, pragmatism, that scientists must presuppose that one metaphysical reality or another obtains beyond the kin of scientific methodology in and of itself in order to proceed.

YOU IGNORAMUS!

Now fess up or shut up, as I'm certainly not going to waste my time discussing the specifics of scientific theory with a dipstick like you who apparently does not even grasp the very first, elementary principle of science.

Instead, I will just keep copying and pasting these expositions of your ignorance and stupidity over and over again.

(Besides, you still don't grasp the caliber of the intellect you're dealing with.

"By the way, creationism and ID are not the same thing", you tell me.

You think that's profound? Thanks for the tip, Bozo, I'll keep that mind. ROTFLMAO!)

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I already touched on that. . . .

No institution, particularly one of education, exists in an ideological vacuum; either the education system in and of itself is unconstitutional or the manner in which it is administered—i.e., in the absence of universal school choice—is unconstitutional. A closed, collectivist public education system is tyranny.

The Court failed to resolve the matter accordingly. That is to say, the leftist Warren Court failed, quite intentionally by the way, to order that the public education system provide universal school choice, the only solution that would satisfy the First-Amendment requirements of ideological/religious liberty for all.

That makes no sense whatsoever and is complete gibberish.

Let’s try this: in McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71 (1948), ‘The Court held that the use of tax-supported property for religious instruction and the close cooperation between the school authorities and the religious council violated the Establishment clause.’ McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71 | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

Explain how in McCollum the Court erred.

 

[eots]

This article is a bit dated, but it illustrates precisely why the fight for educational freedom/choice must be won against these fascists. . . .

The Creationist Buffoonery and Its Dangerous Implications
by Lee Salisbury / January 29th, 2008
Dissident Voice

Excerpt:

In spite of the pro-evolution 2006 verdict in Dover, PA, creationists persist seeking to influence and intimidate uninformed school boards in Ohio, Florida, and Texas. This is clearly a culture war with creationist/biblical literalists leading the anti-science, pro-creationist charge.

. . . Creation “science” rejects every fundamental precept upon which actual science functions, from empiricism to falsification. Creationists reject empiricism, the very heart of science, and instead embrace fanciful biblical legends of a ‘talking snake’ and a 6,000-year-old solar system all in a vain attempt to justify their immutable doctrinal beliefs. They are no different than the Roman Catholic clergy of 500 years ago persecuting Galileo because he declared the sun did not revolve around the earth.

. . . It is bad enough that creationist churches are freeloaders, taking advantage of the public’s good will by skirting their fair share of real estate taxes. But, worse yet, they use creationism as a rhetorical facade, as a lever through which to influence public policy. Creationists exploit the faith of well-meaning Christians (and those of other religions) to further their own purely self-serving goals at the expense of reality. Creationism is nothing more than an ancient regurgitated ideology bereft of merit, and loathsome in its intentions.​

LINK

I've said this before on this board. Creationism is a subject that should be offered at the College level. It would be the favorite of the football varsity player as every answer, every single one, on every test, every single one, would be the same: "God did it."

What possible place could this ridiculous course have in any science ciriculum?

This is science

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-azcMJ5JS4]YouTube - ‪what the bleep do we know (part 1)‬‏[/ame]

 

[edthecynic]

metaphysical [ˌmɛtəˈfɪzɪkəl]
adj
1. (Philosophy) relating to or concerned with metaphysics
2. (Philosophy) (of a statement or theory) having the form of an empirical hypothesis, but in fact immune from empirical testing and therefore (in the view of the logical positivists) literally meaningless
3. (popularly) abstract, abstruse, or unduly theoretical
4. incorporeal; supernatural

metaphysical - definition of metaphysical by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Bluster.

Still want to be treated like a damn fool, eh?

I'm going to keep shoving the obviously undeniable relationship between metaphysics and science down your throat until you fess up.

There's no point in discussing the merits of evolutionary theory versus those of ID theory until this obvious fact is mutually acknowledged.

You're merely trying to cover your glaringly stupid error.

Metaphysical, philosophical or ontological naturalism, which is your bag apparently, are interchangeable terms, all referring to the metaphysical presupposition of the materialist, i.e., that nothing exists but nature, nothing but mass and energy (or more accurately, in the light of quantum mechanics or chaos theory, the derivatives or the processes of mass and energy).

You're embarrassing yourself, halfwit . . . you nose-picking hayseed.

You're arguing with me about a factual relationship, one that is self-evident, objectively and universally understood by all scientists and professional philosophers of science as if I were relating some mysterious, subjective or debatable idea.

YOU DUMBASS!

It's a simple matter of necessity, pragmatism, that scientists must presuppose that one metaphysical reality or another obtains beyond the kin of scientific methodology in and of itself in order to proceed.

YOU IGNORAMUS!

Now fess up or shut up, as I'm certainly not going to waste my time discussing the specifics of scientific theory with a dipstick like you who apparently does not even grasp the very first, elementary principle of science.

Instead, I will just keep copying and pasting these expositions of your ignorance and stupidity over and over again.

(Besides, you still don't grasp the caliber of the intellect you're dealing with.

"By the way, creationism and ID are not the same thing", you tell me.

You think that's profound? Thanks for the tip, Bozo, I'll keep that mind. ROTFLMAO!)

The fact that everything that exists in the universe is energy in some form is not in any way metaphysical. It is an empirical fact.

Science is not metaphysical. If you had to equate science to a philosophy it would be existentialism. If you had to equate science to a religion it would be Zen.