Posted on 08/16/2004 9:40:47 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
The Cosmic Clerk is, as you correctly guessed, related to the Fine Tuner. They are both subservient to, and handle details for, the Intelligent Designer.
I would have said "boob" instead of "dork," but then I have a twisted sense of propriety.
It's news to me he's a 'design theorist'. though I know he's a Christian and an evolution skeptic. Can you find any papers he's written on ID? If not, isn't this a little misleading? If I work on biophysics, but have doubts about General Relativity, does that make me a cosmologist?
I have yet to meet an anti-evolutionist who does not understand the basic tenets of evolution. It's inescapable.
No other aspect of science is attacked so relentlessly because no other element of science has become a religious belief for its adherents.
The difference? Science is open to debate. Religion isn't. Creationists are more open to debate about their theories than evolution is. That tells me who the real fanatics are.
You, yourself, have proven you do not understand what the actual theory of evolution says -- on this very thread.
No other aspect of science is attacked so relentlessly because no other element of science has become a religious belief for its adherents.
To a child with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. To a person whose entire life is ruled by religion, everything looks like religion. The difference here is that creationism is based on faith, and evolution is based on physical evidence.
The difference? Science is open to debate. Religion isn't. Creationists are more open to debate about their theories than evolution is. That tells me who the real fanatics are.
Not quite. Any debate must be consistent with the evidence. Creationists do not have theories, at least in the scientific sense of the word, so they can debate till the cows come home. Science is more constrained because of its reliance on evidence.
Never saw it. I'm told it didn't look like a bag of gravel, maybe more like a sock full of sandy sludge or something. There weren't any notable stones per se but it was diseased and wasn't emptying right.
It is apparently an argument ad hominem if you notice someone trying to pull your hat brim down over your eyes and dance around you mocking and japing.
You haven't been reading these threads. I invite you to provide links to any posts by creationists or ID proponents that demonstrate a basic understanding of evolution.
I don't mean they have to agree with it, but they must state the theory in a way that would be acceptable to a biologist.
Yes, as long as it's real science that they get excited about.
Intelligent Design is not real science, it is religion, trying to claim it's science.
When you wish to use real scientific hypothesis, to excite childrens minds about science, we can talk, but ID is not a scientific hypothesis, it is religion, masquerading as science.
I read some of that site that that cartoon pointed to.
No scientific thought there, the logic went beyond me and I thought my head was going to explode looking at all the nonsensical conclusions that they were making.
Yikes, please don't make me suffer like that again. ;)
Modification of your tagline.
---
And a good thing too. Because based on the organization human genome, the "designer" must have been an incompetent putz.
---
ID also doesn't make moral judgements on the quality of the design. An inefficient design is still as much of a design as an efficient design. In other words, level of efficiency is irrelevant to the question of design.
What a great escape clause.
Doesn't make a moral judgement on the quality of the design.
Evolution shows that the Genome should look pretty confusing, there should be some that is used and some that aren't, some are tossed in randomly because they somehow fused into the DNA structure at some point.
ID would show that there is a minimum of unused DNA structure, that there would be a minimum of wasted space, the designer would have used as little as possible to make his designee to work.
DNA structure shows and evolution made the prediction, that the DNA structure would be loaded with DNA fragments that were either A: not used, or B: were used for a different purpose then they had orignally beeen.
ID makes no predictions, it is not helpful to science in any way shape or form, except to get creationists all excited about the possibility. Sorry to burst your bubbles, but it not scientific, and it sure as heck makes no predicitions, and it has not been helpful to science in the least.
The talk origins site is a bunch of propaganda -- twist the science to make evolution appear as fact. These guys are a bunch of religious humanist zealots -- look at the links to the guys who passed away. This is all they did with their time.
I would recommend the article "Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution." I think this link will get you there
http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.