Posted on 08/28/2005 2:14:36 PM PDT by AZLiberty
...
Is "intelligent design" a legitimate school of scientific thought? Is there something to it, or have these people been taken in by one of the most ingenious hoaxes in the history of science? Wouldn't such a hoax be impossible? No. Here's how it has been done.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Darwin's general theory remains a hypothesis. Intelligent Design is also a hypothesis.
No. Darwin's theory of evolution is both a fact, in its observation of the fossile record, and a theory, as a coherent organization of the entire DNA, fossile, and more recent observations of species change. The entire body of knowledge is extraordinary, and the strenght of the theory, as in any scientific theory, is that it fits such a large and complex data set. The home page of Ichneumon and some of his posts provide a brief glimpse into this structure. One of his posts has more raw information than the entire output of the Discovery Institute.
Intelligent Design is first a lie; it has the same chimerical nature of voodoo or witchcraft. Indeed, they may have tried to surround it with scientific-sounding words to make it appear respectable. But, at its core, it is simply argument by assertion. To anyone truly trained in science, this is immediately apparent: the classic examle is their notion of "irreducible complexity."
I have known lots of people who took a science course or two. Then they gave it up as too difficult. That's OK. They are smart people making real contributions elsewhere. But if they cannot see through the fabrication of Intelligent Design, well, that is consistent with the fact that they only could get through a course or two.
Cute.
And, speaking as an engineer, know that what the creos are posting is pure BS.
After observing your umpteen twisted, out-of-context post, I thought I would fire back.
But it is telling that two have come here saying they dropped out of science as if that gives them more credibility.
Perhaps not, although I should think that Dawkins is prominent enough that his comments carry some weight.
But your objections puzzle me. Do you seriously deny that evolution is often used (or I should say misused) to "prove" that God does not exist?
Evidently, name-calling has become a major part of evolutionist argument.
Do you seriously deny that guns are often used (or I should say misused) to kill the innocent?
You would rather we be politically correct and not speak honestly?
Sheesh, how come everyone gets so touchy? I don't even go
to church regularly :-). I just watched Privileged Planet and have read some really good articles that got me thinking. 'Scuse me if I offended anyone...
What I state is that this is the "wedge" issue with the creos. It is part of their operation. In thousands of posts, I have seen almost none that seek to prove there is no God based on the 'belief' in evolution but I have seen hundreds of posts from creationists claiming evolutionists are atheists and many that propose evolution is a communist, liberal plot to destroy religion.
LOL we already are -follow these threads -the lynching of the religious is in evidence as is the crusade to silence any opposition to the darwinian god...
The creos as you lovingly call them are but fodder for the evolitionist crusade...
Some evolutionists do exactly the same thing.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1472221/posts?page=77#77
"While Einstein was a theist, everything I've seen from him indicates that he believed in a seamless continuity of natural law."
This is precisely why evolutionists must not avoid the question of origin of life.
The Origin-of-Life Prize ® site puts it this way;
Does the phrase "God doesn't play dice with the universe" ring any bells? It infers a deep respect for what is called "ID" on the part of Scientist Einstein.
It is not evolution that is attacking creationism but creationism that is attacking evolution.
Aside from the fact that Dennet's past 'hippyness' really has no bearing on whether his information is correct, this attempt at poisoning the well of yours completely misses the point that 'Evos' follow the evidence instead of basing their opinion of the source of the information on the colour of his shorts.
Get through a course or two .... snort. I challenge you, slide rules at 20 paces.....
I'm a bad scientist because I don't agree with you? That equation is entirely reversible. And exothermic both ways. LOL.
John / Billybob
I'll just note your lack of examples and another accusing "liar, liar" main theme in your post. It's been fun.
Right. There is only one theory which is micro evolution. Its the only one with any science. Macro evolution is an extension of that and is at the center of the debate. Macro evolution concepts should be pulled from the textbooks.
I said no such thing. I said there is no such theory as "micro" evolution. Darwin did not theorize micro and macro evolution. You are proposing a "micro" theory of evolution. What is it?
Have you ever heard of SETI? Please enumerate a few experiments which can be used to determine if a signal originated from an intelligent source.
I am geting sick and tired of all the old evolutionist canards that pass as wisdom.
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.