[ml/nj]

While going to dilbert.com for my daily dose of Dilbert, I saw that Dilbert Creator Scott Adams has a blog. Since Adams obiously understands Engineering/Systems-Design organizations, I thought I'd take a look.

And I found this.

Most amusing comment among those I read:

Both Darwinism and Intelligent Design are preposterous. Obvously you can't get somthing from nothing, life can't come from non-life. And if the world had been designed intelligently, we wouldn't all need to spend our time reading cartoonist's blogs to keep our day interesting.

The only possible soloution here is Unintelligent Design. We were created as some kind of half-assed science fair project that probably got a D-minus.

After the fair was over, the janitor just tossed us away into the unfashionable part of the galaxy, to spin around until we eventually decompose with all of the other crap floating around. Hot, loose, alien women, on the other hand, that would be an example of intelligent design.

ML/NJ

[escapefromboston]

bump for later.

[BipolarBob]

I guess really it all boils down to faith. You have to have "faith" to believe in a Darwinism explanation of how we got here with the extreme complexity of the life forms and coincidental enviroment and amount of DNA variances. As far as if God created the earth (as stated in genesis) you only have to believe in one simple thing - the omnipotence of God. If He has the ability to create the universe and all life in it, just how difficult would it be for Him to make the universe appear "older" for whatever reason.

[elfman2]

"First of all, you’d be hard pressed to find a useful debate about Darwinism and Intelligent Design"

“First of all", it’s called evolution, not “Darwinism”. That’s like calling ID “Creationism”.

Second, there’s no point in debating a 100% faith based ideology. A faith can not be disproved. ID's only hope of evidentiary support its to disprove every alternative, and it has had no success in disproving the scientific theory of evolution nor the evidence supporting it.

Both are fine to teach in public school. But ID belongs in social studies, not along side evolution in science.

[ovrtaxt]

Here’s where it gets interesting. The Intelligent Design people allege that some experts within each narrow field are NOT convinced that the evidence within their specialty is a slam-dunk support of Darwin. Each branch of science, they say, has pro-Darwinists who acknowledge that while they assume the other branches of science have more solid evidence for Darwinism, their own branch is lacking in that high level of certainty. In other words, the scientists are in a weird peer pressure, herd mentality loop where they think that the other guy must have the “good stuff.”

Exactly. For such a supposedly intelligent bunch, the cattle/lemming clone mindset runs rampant, just as much as it does in any other religion. (IMO, this lack of independent thinking is the defining hallmark of mindless religion, as opposed to true Christianity.)

Probably why they are so quick to skewer us lowly un-anointed regular folks, the non-scientists, who think they are full of crap on this issue.

[CodeToad]

Atheism is a religion. It requires faith that evolution is true. I say "faith" because there is no factual scientific proof that species evolved, just a bunch of guess because two specie looks like each other.