The Lies and Arrogance of Evolutionists

[eots]

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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

You're taking something very simple and making it hard.

ID theory proper does not attempt to define or identify the nature of the designer beyond the fact that it is intelligent, at least insofar as what can be advanced in purely scientific terms at this point in time and with the current understanding of the Cosmos. Many ID theorists are agnostics. Moreover, ID theory does not necessarily preclude evolutionary processes.

"[T]herefore, the Intelligent Designer can only be 'Superntural' "?

edthecynic, even if that were necessarily true according to ID theory proper, so what? ID theory limits itself to the examination of empirical evidence that potentially evinces design. That is all. It doesn't presuppose the nature of the designer. In other words, in biology, for example, ID theory only deals with known or discoverable life forms. . . .

But I don't care what you think about ID theory. I don't accept your metaphysical presupposition that nature is the only thing that exists or that all of natural history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect.

As far as science goes, I'm only interested in the empirical data, which does not interpret itself. In other words, I believe the guiding principle that underlies your theory and drives your interpretation of the data to be utter bullshit, the bullshit of the galactically stupid. Where you apparently see the chaos of chance variation or mindless matter imbued with the properties to achieve the staggeringly complex feat of self-awareness, I see design, purpose and the direct hand of God.

You take your worldview and your self-serving presupposition for science and shove 'em. I know better. Wisdom knows better. I'm not going through my life like you zombies of materialism or fundamentalist naturalism pretending that the commonsensical recommendations (the imperatives!) of the logical forms and rational categories of the human mind, that certain potentialities of human consciousness do not exist.

And I sure as hell have nothing but contempt for punks who either cannot grasp or pretend not to grasp the fact that they do not have the right to impose their worldview on me and my children in the public education system in the name of science or in the name of any other phony ass tripe they might dream up as a justification for their obviously depraved--DEPRAVED!--indifference to the fundamental rights of others.

I say we just cut to the chase, dispense with the cultural war and break out the arms, you know, call a spade a spade and have us a little Jeffersonian throw down. Clearly, the left is intent on pushing things toward that.

Fascist thugs.

 

[Foxfyre]

YouTube - ‪Einstein on God‬‏

An interesting discussion.

It all boils down to this though:

Einstein, however, did not accept the label of "atheist" since it seemed a term of opprobrium and one that during his lifetime often implied moral relativism, which he vehemently opposed. Moreover, as a disciple of the famous Dutch pantheist Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677), he was not opposed to using the term God to refer to the mystery of "intelligence" that pervades the universe and makes possible the whole enterprise of scientific exploration. Einstein considered himself a deeply religious man, provided that "religion" is taken to mean a firm commitment to universal values (goodness, beauty, truth) and a cultivation of the insurmountable "mystery" encompassing the universe. But he considered the idea of a personal God dispensable to living religion.
Atheism: Encyclopedia of Science and Religion

And this:

In a 1930 essay entitled "What I Believe," Einstein wrote:
To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man (ibid. 47).
He also made the following statement in an essay entitled "The Religiousness of Science," which appeared in a collection of his essays published in English under the title "The World As I See It":

The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation....His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an INTELLIGENCE of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire (Updike 2007: 77 [emphasis added]).

These statements are highly significant, considering that no scientist of any worth would dismiss Einstein as superstitious or unscientific. Moreover, the above quotes can't be dismissed as the product of a religious bias on Einstein's part, because, except for a brief period of "deep religiousness" when he was twelve, Einstein rejected organized religion (ibid
Einstein and Intelligent Design

 

[edthecynic]

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

You're taking something very simple and making it hard.

ID theory proper does not attempt to define or identify the nature of the designer beyond the fact that it is intelligent, at least insofar as what can be advanced in purely scientific terms at this point in time and with the current understanding of the Cosmos. Many ID theorists are agnostics. Moreover, ID theory does not necessarily preclude evolutionary processes.

"[T]herefore, the Intelligent Designer can only be 'Superntural' "?

edthecynic, even if that were necessarily true according to ID theory proper, so what? ID theory limits itself to the examination of empirical evidence that potentially evinces design. That is all. It doesn't presuppose the nature of the designer. In other words, in biology, for example, ID theory only deals with known or discoverable life forms. . . .

But I don't care what you think about ID theory. I don't accept your metaphysical presupposition that nature is the only thing that exists or that all of natural history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect.

As far as science goes, I'm only interested in the empirical data, which does not interpret itself. In other words, I believe the guiding principle that underlies your theory and drives your interpretation of the data to be utter bullshit, the bullshit of the galactically stupid. Where you apparently see the chaos of chance variation or mindless matter imbued with the properties to achieve the staggeringly complex feat of self-awareness, I see design, purpose and the direct hand of God.

Again you are being dishonest. ID defines the nature of the designer as SUPERNATURAL. There is no "empirical" evidence of supernatural design. There is no empirical evidence of anything supernatural. You imagine designe where it does not exist and call it the hand of God, the intelligent designer.

ID is nothing but a feeble attempt by Creationists to impose their God on "the public education system in the name of science or in the name of any other phony ass tripe they might dream up as a justification for their obviously depraved--DEPRAVED!--indifference to the fundamental rights of others.

Fascist thugs."

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

There is no "empirical" evidence of supernatural design. There is no empirical evidence of anything supernatural.

That's debatable, but you stated it as an absolute, meaning that your materialist, metaphysical apriority is showing again. You've been trying to deny the existence of your metaphysics. You might want to zip that up.

Let me help you: a better way to express the idea you're after and still conceal the metaphysics underlying your scientific theory, as is your wont, would have been to say that science can only address empirical data. See. That way your statement is not an absolute, more accurate and avoids the revelation of your unstated subjective belief system.

See what happens when you lie?

So. Are you ready to fess up about your metaphysical presupposition, i.e., the metaphysics underlying your scientific theory?

ID scientists are only looking at empirical evidence that might evince design. That's it. Science cannot and does address the supernatural, and ID theory proper does not address the nature of the potential designer. From a strictly scientific perspective, until such time that the potential designer empirically reveals itself or is empirically uncovered, the ID theorist says: "je ne sais quoi"; i.e., "I do not know."

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Again you are being dishonest. ID defines the nature of the designer as SUPERNATURAL.

For. The. Last. Time. No. It. Doesn't. (A little slow talk for the comprehension impaired.)

Creationism (a theological construct) and ID theory are not the same thing.

The only one being dishonest here is you. Either that or you are just too stupid to grasp the distinction. Which is it?

The distinction goes to the potentiality of a non-supernatural intelligent designer—i.e., extraterrestrial life—or the possibility that there is no intelligent designer at all.

Hence, the fact that for most ID theorists the intelligent designer is supernatural is irrelevant to the science, just as the evolutionary theist's belief that God initiated the processes of evolution is irrelevant to the science.

The science of ID theory is concerned with one thing and one thing only: empirical evidence that evinces design. That's it. Science cannot address the supernatural, and your insinuation that the professional scientists of ID theory don't understand that is absurd, silly, stupid.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

ID is nothing but a feeble attempt by Creationists to impose their God on "the public education system in the name of science or in the name of any other phony ass tripe they might dream up as a justification for their obviously depraved--DEPRAVED!--indifference to the fundamental rights of others.

Fascist thugs."

Again, ID theory and creationism are not the same thing. Aside from that, you're unwittingly making my point, ya dummy.

So. It would be wrong or unconstitutional for the government to impose my worldview on you in the public education system, right?

I agree.

So your insinuation is moot and merely highlights, once again, what a fascist thug you: WHY IS IT NOT WRONG OR UNCONSITUTIONAL FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO IMPOSE YOUR WORLDVIEW ON ME IN THE PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM?

*Crickets Chirping*

See what happens when you lie?

 

[edthecynic]

There is no "empirical" evidence of supernatural design. There is no empirical evidence of anything supernatural.

That's debatable, ...

No it's not. All life is made up from naturally formed components. You Creationists have never been able to show even one molecule necessary for life made from "designer" components. Until you Creationists can show a molecule that is made up of designer components you have no empirical evidence for your metaphysics.

 

[edthecynic]

Again you are being dishonest. ID defines the nature of the designer as SUPERNATURAL.

For. The. Last. Time. No. It. Doesn't. (A little slow talk for the comprehension impaired.)

Creationism (a theological construct) and ID theory are not the same thing.

The only one being dishonest here is you. Either that or you are just too stupid to grasp the distinction. Which is it?

The distinction goes to the potentiality of a non-supernatural intelligent designer—i.e., extraterrestrial life—or the possibility that there is no intelligent designer at all.

Hence, the fact that for most ID theorists the intelligent designer is supernatural is irrelevant to the science, just as the evolutionary theist's belief that God initiated the processes of evolution is irrelevant to the science.

The science of ID theory is concerned with one thing and one thing only: empirical evidence that evinces design. That's it. Science cannot address the supernatural, and your insinuation that the professional scientists of ID theory don't understand that is absurd, silly, stupid.

You've already admitted that by definition the intelligent designer cannot be Nature, so no amount of your pompous arrogant condescension will changed your confession.

And there is no "science" of ID.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Einstein and Intelligent Design

Good find, Foxfyre!

Einstein's belief in an intelligent designer thus derived not from a pre-conceived religious bias, but from the phenomenal insights into the Universe that he possessed as the most brilliant scientist who ever lived. His recognition of a creator refutes the recent claims by atheists that belief in any sort of god is unscientific.​

Also:

It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity. —Sir Francis Bacon, Of Atheism​

The problem is that when you're talking to the post-Darwinian atheist, with his post-modern epistemology (his version of methodological naturalism as opposed to that of classical empiricism), you rarely get beyond his "little philosophy". His thought processes, his ideas are little more than a collection of slogans. This is not merely true of the laymen among them; it's true of many scientists. There are some brilliant mathematicians and theorists out there today who, nonetheless, spout some of the stupidest things about the fundamentals of reality beyond the scope of their field. Atheists are notoriously bad logicians and philosophers.

Illustration: Another Atheist's Unexamined Thought Processes: A Close Encounter of the Raw Kind

Is Atheist-Think "Hardwired" for Irrationality and Statism?

 

[konradv]

ID is nothing but a feeble attempt by Creationists to impose their God on "the public education system in the name of science or in the name of any other phony ass tripe they might dream up as a justification for their obviously depraved--DEPRAVED!--indifference to the fundamental rights of others.

Fascist thugs."

Again, ID theory and creationism are not the same thing. Aside from that, you're unwittingly making my point, ya dummy.

So. It would be wrong or unconstitutional for the government to impose my worldview on you in the public education system, right?

I agree.

So your insinuation is moot and merely highlights, once again, what a fascist thug you: WHY IS IT NOT WRONG OR UNCONSITUTIONAL FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO IMPOSE YOUR WORLDVIEW ON ME IN THE PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM?

*Crickets Chirping*

See what happens when you lie?

There's no worldview imposition involved. They're merely teaching science and trying to keep out things that aren't science. To teach ID, you'd first have to prove there's a D!!! Since that is essentially unprovable by scientific methods, it doesn't belong in a science class. Like my high school biology teacher said about evolution to those who balked, "You don't have to believe it, but you do have to understand it, if you intend to pass." That'd really help present day creationists and ID proponents, because their arguments often show an appalling lack of understanding of the theory in general. Atheists often know their Bible very well, when arguing with theists. It would serve creationists well for them to do the same regarding evolutionary theory.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

Precisely! As for the political aspect of the debate, you nail it. Ultimately, regardless of what any of us believe, that's my concern. We all lose when the federal courts disregard the imperatives of the free exercise clause.

 

[konradv]

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.

Precisely! As for the political aspect of the debate, you nail it. Ultimately, regardless of what any of us believe, that's my concern. We all lose when the federal courts disregard the imperatives of the free exercise clause.

The "free exercise" clause is irrelevant. We're not talking about religion, we're talking science. There's no imperative that every segment of the religious spectrum has to be catered to. What's next, sharia?!?!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

Who do I think I'm fooling?! OBTUSE AS A TWO-BY-FOUR ARE YOU.

I don't owe you an explanation with regard to my worldview as far as the political aspect of this debate is concerned. I am a free human being. Who the hell do you think you are? You do not have the right to impose your worldview on me in the name of science or in the name of anything else, ya fascist freak. That is a matter of every-day-walk-in-the-park common sense and decency.

If tomorrow the regnant scientific community pronounces something else to be sacrosanct, no matter how stupid, we're all supposed to just bow down to that too in the public schools?

As for the scientific aspect of the debate. Up yours! You idiots refuse to acknowledge the pertinent distinctions between Creationism and ID theory, the actual nature of ID theory's empirical concerns and the universal nature of science's first principle.

 

[Douger]

these fascists. . . .

Seriously?

Oh, yes indeed. Everything in the above is a lie, a distortion or constitutes a flat-out denial of the fundamentals of human liberty. As far as the public education system goes, the only ones doing any real imposing are leftists in general and evolutionists in particular. They are fascists.

And you are uh murkin.

"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. ”....or oil company, Monsanto, Dupont, Carslyle, Bechtel, KBR,Halliburton......................

— Franklin D. Roosevelt, "Message from the President of the United States Transmitting Recommendations Relative to the Strengthening and Enforcement of Anti-trust Laws"

 

[konradv]

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.

Who do I think I'm fooling?! OBTUSE AS A TWO-BY-FOUR ARE YOU.

I don't owe you an explanation with regard to my worldview as far as the political aspect of this debate is concerned. I am a free human being. Who the hell do you think you are? You do not have the right to impose your worldview on me in the name of science or in the name of anything else, ya fascist freak. That is a matter of every-day-walk-in-the-park common sense and decency.

If tomorrow the regnant scientific community pronounces something else to be sacrosanct, no matter how stupid, we're all supposed to just bow down to that too in the public schools?

As for the scientific aspect of the debate. Up yours! You idiots refuse to acknowledge the pertinent distinctions between Creationism and ID theory, the actual nature of ID theory's empirical concerns and the universal nature of science's first principle.

There you have it!!! This isn't about science at all, but about protecting one's worldview. The only thing that appears to be "sacrosanct" is your perceived "right" to not be told anything that opposes that worldview. Evolutionary theory on the other hand has gone through a number of changes over the years as new evidence forces tweaking of the original theory. NOTHING sacrosanct about that.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The "free exercise" clause is irrelevant. We're not talking about religion, we're talking science. There's no imperative that every segment of the religious spectrum has to be catered to. What's next, sharia?!?!

Yeah. Sure. Throw out the free exercise clause and the only perspective that matters is that of the State, in practical terms, that of the elite or the collective, that of the few or the mob.

Only a balanced application of the First Amendment's establishment and free exercise clauses provides for universal individual liberty and free-association.

The government imposing Sharia Law?! Ya nitwit. The only dynamic in which such a thing would be possible would be within your half-baked stupidity.

The First Amendment means that no one's worldview can be trampled on by the government, and the government cannot impose anyone’s' worldview on another. Period.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

There you have it!!! This isn't about science at all, but about protecting one's worldview. The only thing that appears to be "sacrosanct" is your perceived "right" to not be told anything that opposes that worldview. Evolutionary theory on the other hand has gone through a number of changes over the years as new evidence forces tweaking of the original theory. NOTHING sacrosanct about that.

And there you have it! A non sequitur, a litany of baby talk.

You don't have the first clue as to what I'm talking about here.

Also, I know all about evolutionary theory. I don't need your instruction. I've written dozens of papers on the topic, both pro and con. I've even drawn the pro card a few times in debate. In those instances, unless you knew me personally you would never know that I was actually an ID theorist scientifically and a creationist theologically.

No. The problem here is that I'm surrounded by persons who do not properly understand what they're arguing against. ID theory's methodology is unorthodox, but not in the way that any of you are going on about. If you still wish to hold that it's unscientific, fine. I don't care. LOL! But do so for the right reasons, acknowledge the nature of your apriority and fess up to science's first principle . . . so we can move on, for crying out loud!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

No it's not. All life is made up from naturally formed components. You Creationists have never been able to show even one molecule necessary for life made from "designer" components. Until you Creationists can show a molecule that is made up of designer components you have no empirical evidence for your metaphysics.

What! So abiogenesis is an established theory now? That's what you're unwittingly implying. When did that happen? ROTFLMAO! Please provide the link showing that the Pasteurian law of biogenesis has been overthrown . . . and good luck with that.

*Crickets Chirping*

And aside from blind faith, the substance of your metaphysics, the substance of the claim that nothing exists beyond nature, is?

*Crickets Chirping*

And there is plenty of empirical evidence evincing design.

But you're welcome to your atheistic superstitions, just don't be surprised should your collectivist, one-size-fits-all mediocrity come apart at the seams. You're artificial constitutional theory is giving way to more and more charter schools and vouchers and tax credits all the time.

 

[Dante]

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

What is untruthful about any of the above?