Why intelligent design will change everything

WorldNetDaily ^ | March 25, 2006 | Lynn Barton

[SampleMan]

Because I've recently noticed a lot of vitriol against the theory of Intelligent Design, I decided to actually do a little research on what it is. This article seems to describe it fairly well. In the spirit of open mindedness and science, let me be the first to say that I'm sure that everyone will be absolutely objective, collegial, and downright polite.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

Ping.

[nmh]

" ... let me be the first to say that I'm sure that everyone will be absolutely objective, collegial, and downright polite."

LOL!!!!!

When the evolutionists pile on that's when the thread deteriorates. They get down right NASTY.

I scanned the article. What the cowards have done is removed the word God and substituted the words Intelligent Design. The Intelligent Designer is the Judeo Christian God and yes, genuine, OBJECTIVE, science does support God, er Intelligent Design.

[SteveMcKing]

An ambiguous statement is not a theory, nor even a statement. It is a diversion. (Likely willful or incredibly self-deluded...)

[muleskinner]

If I.D. is legitimate scientific theory, someone with guts and money needs to publish the details as a peer reviewed paper in the appropriate venue and see what happens.

Oh wait, it's been done, but never seems to make it out of the review committee for publication...'cuz it doesn't qualify as science or a theory.

[wintertime]

There is only ONE reason evolution/ ID is a hot button issue: Government schools!

If there were no government k-12 schools the acrimony would evaporate like dew on morning grass.

Evolution has profound political, cultural, moral and ethical ( that means religious) consequences for all the children in a government school. Those consequences are NOT neutral.

No matter how the government school approaches this topic, the government WILL establish the worldview of some ( with religious consequences) and actively trash and undermine the most cherished family traditions of others.

Solution: Begin the process of completely separating school and state.

[PetroniusMaximus]

"Government schools!"

Very insightful.

I'm not against free though and new ideas, just forced indoctrination.

[Oztrich Boy]

Lynn Barton is a graduate of Wellesley College and a former stockbroker. She is married and the mother of two children, whom she homeschools on a small farm

[SampleMan]

'cuz it doesn't qualify as science or a theory.

If it hasn't been published, how would you know?

[Mogollon]

Very good article.

[Filo]

What a steaming pile!

ID has absolutely nothing to do with science, it's not a theory (it's an opinion) and this article does nothing but reinforce the position that creationists and IDers (as if there's a difference) understand nothing of evolutionary theory.

Ahh, well. That's as collegial and polite as I can be in the face of such utter lunacy.

[Avenger]

It seems to me that before we can study intelligent design we should first have a scientific definition of "intelligent." What is the definition?

[Virginia-American]

...genuine, OBJECTIVE, science does support God, er Intelligent Design.

Show me the creationist, err ID-ist explanation for this phenomenon:

the recurrent laryngeal nerve. post 339

Normal biology does in fact have an explanation.

[muleskinner]

Sorry, but I.D. makes about as much sense as Jehovah Witness art. You know, the idyllic pictures of all the animals in God's Kingdom hangin' out together on the perfectly manicured, perfectly pruned back 40.

Nothing like a lion recently satiated with a big pile of tofu.

[edsheppa]

I.D. theory ... is good science. I want to explain why

Before reading further I will make a prediction. The author will not do the one thing necessary to show that ID is a scientific theory, namely he will not deduce a testable prediction from it.

Curiously, that makes my theory about ID (that ID is not a scientific theory) scientific while ID itself is not (if my theory is correct that is).

[Doctor Stochastic]

Dembski defines Intelligent Design thusly:

"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory,"

[inTouchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue 4 July/August, 1999]

Showing some sense, the author seems to omit Dembski's contributions.

[nmh]

I don't have to prove anything to you.

It's OBVIOUS.

Do you really think your post #339 SIMPLY EVOLVED?

Do you really believe that humans EVOLVED from APES?

Do you really believe that inanimate material created LIFE?

REALLY?


LOL!


It's sheer impossible!

[Revolting cat!]

'cuz it doesn't qualify as science or a theory.

OK, cool. Given that, a question: Why is it that you science-fiction moonies express absolutely no objections to "ethic studies", whatever that is, as "science", to Margaret Mead's fakery as "science", to the Kinsey report stating that 10% of us are pederasts, as "science", to calling 1,000 people at random and asking if they think the sun is going to come up tomorrow as "scientific polling", to "political science", whatever that is again, to Chomsky's gibberish as "science", but you get your panties all twisted when the IDers come up with some alternatives to your own fantasies? (FYI: The cat has no dog in this Lucha LIbre!)

[Lokibob]

bump

[Revolting cat!]

"ethnic"