For hte last time Coyote- since when does DI amount to the end all be all of ID science?
Now follow along Coyoteman- I’ll explain this to you and to everyone else you’re trying to pull the whool over on,:
[[Governing Goals
To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.
Five Year Goals
To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.
To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.
There is NOTHING unscientific about ANY of that- IF Macroevolution IS infact a false religion with NO scientific evidence to support it- then logically one MUST find an alternative and to soundly defeat the dogma that demands that a dead theory is a viable theory- There is absolutely NOTHING unscientific about ANY of the above- Nothing- Comprende?
[[ID is religion start to finish, the stepchild of creation “science,” still trying to sneak its nose back into the science tent.]]
That is totalt BS and anyone with an odicum of intellect knows that DI’s PERSONAL OPINIONS OUTSIDE OF THE FACTS OF ID mean absolutely NOTHING to ID science itself- Again- listen up- because apparently you’re just not comprehendinging htis- DI does NOT constitute ID SCience- they are an instititute WITHIN ID science- their PERSONAL OPINIONS are just that- opinions OUTSIDE of the scope of the FACTUAL SCIENCE of ID. ID science is the ONLY non religious science regarding biology- the only one Coyote- it studies actual facts- it doesn’t entertain fanciful wishful dreams and assumptions like Macroevolutionists do- So lower your nose a bit and you might just understand that- until then- I suppose I’ll have to keep repeating it everytime you post DI’s PERSONAL OPINIONS as though they are the opinions of every scientist in ID when infact they are NOT. There also is NOTHING inconsistent or anti-science about their goals- You seem to be under the delusion that the only viable science is one of naturalism- yet incredibly, naturalism is more a religion than any other branch of science- yet- amazingly, you accept that religion hook line and sinker, yet can’t allow any other hypothesis? You call yourself an objective scientist? Lol-
A few facts are clear to anyone who is willing to open his eyes:
1) The Discovery Institute (with their fleet of lawyers, PR flaks, journalists and that poor lone poly sci major, along with their small gaggle of tame scientists) is the primary force behind ID.You can huff and puff all you want but you can't change any of that.2) Their stated goals are theistic, not scientific.
3) You are doing apologetics, not science.