Hmmm… You might be interested in pursuing this classified ad: And you might be interested in pursuing a logical argument and presenting evidence for your position, instead of making silly posts about broken glass.
This sums up what some people buy in regard to design by stupidity. Stupidity, by definition, is lack of intelligence. When intelligent design is rejected we are left with design by stupidity. Methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism are by definition – ‘stupidity’ because they lack intelligence. How much are you willing to pay for the rare items? Perhaps a flagellum? A stupid universe? A mind (your mind)-- all from this stupidity?
Repeating the word "stupidity" six times does not constitute an actual rebuttal to anything I wrote in my post.
Nor is it correct to say that "stupidity" is "lack of intelligence". Stupidity is intelligence applied poorly. Attempting to rebut substantive points by consciously choosing to snicker about broken glass sales is stupid. Rain forming in clouds and falling due to the interplay of natural forces without intelligent intervention is not an example of "stupidity" at work. Neither is the process of evolution, which like the formation of clouds and rain and watershed systems, brings about structure through the shaping actions of natural events.
That's an entirely different thing than, say, this:
Nor is it correct to say that "stupidity" is "lack of intelligence". stu·pid·i·ty [ stoo píddətee ] (plural stu·pid·i·ties) noun
1. lack of intelligence: lack of intelligence, perception, or common sense
Gould refers to this as “the drunkard's walk”.
Dawkins, “The Blind Watchmaker” or a flowing stream void of intelligence and going forward.
Darwin? Well:
With respect to the theological view of the question. This is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae [wasps] with the express intention of their [larva] feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed. On the other, I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance.
(Darwin to Asa Gray, [a minister] May 22, 1860)
Ichneumon, I don’t think you are stupid or the name you have chosen is due to stupidity. I am merely arguing for “intelligence in design” and you are arguing for “stupidity in the appearance of design”. Now, I fail to see how Bevis and Butthead images help your position.
The Stupid Design Theory