Why Intelligent Design Is Going to Win

Tech Central Station ^ | 7 Oct 2005 | Douglas Kern

[VadeRetro]

1) ID will win because it's a religion-friendly, conservative-friendly, red-state kind of theory, and no one will lose money betting on the success of red-state theories in the next fifty to one hundred years.

Read this far, realized this bozo has no clue what science is about or that there's a world outside the Red States of the US.

[VadeRetro]

2) ID will win because the pro-Darwin crowd is acting like a bunch of losers.

Read THIS far, realized this bozo doesn't know that the history of life on Earth is not dependent upon how ANYBODY is acting now.

[bobdsmith]

You seriously think naziism, communism, and two world wars are caused by evolution?

[VadeRetro]

3) ID will win because it can be reconciled with any advance that takes place in biology, whereas Darwinism cannot yield even an inch of ground to ID.

If you don't know what science is, you think unfalsifiability is good. This author, as already noted, is clueless. A theory that can be reconciled with any advance, any discovery, is no [one word deleted] good. It isn't telling you anything useful about what you can expect.

[VadeRetro]

4) ID will win because it can piggyback on the growth of information theory, which will attract the best minds in the world over the next fifty years.

The author has naively accepted the claims of Dembski, Spetner, and a few others, who have cloaked their mumbo-jumbo in terms of information theory. He's been had.

[VadeRetro]

5) ID will win because ID assumes that man will find design in life -- and, as the mind of man is hard-wired to detect design, man will likely find what he seeks.

OK, it's already happened in this guy's case.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

<<Are you aware of the results of Whole Language and Whole Math? Do you even care?

*No, and not really*

Your willful ignorance is noted.

"What I do care about is a piece of absolute junk science (evolution) which has had horrific political consequences (naziism, communism, and two world wars)"

You mean Marx, who wrote the Communist Manifesto 9 years before Darwin published his theory? Or Hitler, who was a warped creationist bent on preserving the Aryan race because he believed it to be the perfect special creation of God? Or do you mean Stalin, who murdered anybody who taught Darwin? Or do you refer to Darwin himself, who was a respectable Victorian gentleman who was a free market, anti-slavery whig?

"That's basically fascism."

Please define fascism for us.

[gobucks]

Well, I'm glad you found the article at least worth reading...

[VadeRetro]

Folly is amusing when I'm in a good mood. "A tragedy for those who feel, a comedy for those who think," something like that.

[Liberal Classic]

This is why ID is going to win. A normal person can look at something like one of the new Mottoguzzi bikes and tell that it was designed and engineered. An evolutionist can't. An evolutionist looks at a picture like that and figures

"Gee, what a hell of a coincidence for the wind to have blown all of that steel, aluminum, rubber, electrical wire and electrical components and what not all together so it ended up looking like that!!"

Bad analogy. I used to drive a Fiat.

*ducks*

[curiosity]

which has had horrific political consequences (naziism, communism, and two world wars)

Two world wars, including WW1? That's a new one. How do you figure Darwinism was responsible for WW1?

[curiosity]

which has had horrific political consequences (naziism, communism, and two world wars)

Two world wars, including WW1? That's a new one. How do you figure Darwinism was responsible for WW1?

[tamalejoe]

WW-I was a consequence of an out of control arms race between Germany and England and also of a race to world empire. Nothing like that ever happened during the middle ages or during the 15'th through early 19'th centuries when Europe was still Christian.

[curiosity]

WW-I was a consequence of an out of control arms race between Germany and England and also of a race to world empire. Nothing like that ever happened during the middle ages or during the 15'th through early 19'th centuries when Europe was still Christian.

Your analysis is very interesting (albeit filled with falsehood), but it doesn't answer my question: how exactly is the theory of evolution responsible for World War 1?

[porkchops 4 mahound]

What a bunch of arrogant BS.

Just typical Darwinist fundamentalist "scientific" "argument".

[tamalejoe]

The idea of men and nations locked in perpetual comflict in which the only moral law in nature is "survival of the fittest" simply led nations in a direction which was substantially different from that which a view of their neighbors as fellow children of God might have. This stuff isn't complicated.

[curiosity]

The idea of men and nations locked in perpetual comflict in which the only moral law in nature is "survival of the fittest"

The idea you speak of is not Darwin's theory of evolution.

[SunkenCiv]

· GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach · · join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe ·
	Antiquity Journal  & archive  Archaeologica  Archaeology  Archaeology Channel  BAR  Bronze Age Forum  Discover  Dogpile  Eurekalert  Google  LiveScience  Mirabilis.ca  Nat Geographic  PhysOrg  Science Daily  Science News  Texas AM  Yahoo  Excerpt, or Link only?	Note: this topic is from October 7, 2005. Thanks gobucks. Douglas Kern: It doesn't matter if you like it or not. It doesn't matter if you think it's true or not. Intelligent Design theory is destined to supplant Darwinism as the primary scientific explanation for the origin of human life. ID will be taught in public schools as a matter of course. It will happen in our lifetime. It's happening right now, actually... because it's a religion-friendly, conservative-friendly, red-state kind of theory, and no one will lose money betting on the success of red-state theories in the next fifty to one hundred years... families that reproduce people tend to reproduce ideas, as well. The most vocal non-scientist proponents of ID are those delightfully fertile Catholics, Evangelicals, and similarly right-leaning middle-class college-educated folk -- the kind whose children will inherit the country. Eventually, the social right will have the sheer manpower to teach ID wherever they please. Despite what angry ID opponents may tell you, the advent of ID won't hurt American productivity a bit. Belief in ID does nothing to make believers less capable in science or engineering. No geek in the world will find his computer mojo diminished because of his opinions on irreducible complexity... ID might make biology and the natural sciences more appealing to believers who might otherwise find science to be too far removed from God's presence. As ID appeals to the conservative mindset without hurting anyone's skills, why wouldn't the social right embrace it? Blast from the Past. Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution. To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.
· History topic · history keyword · archaeology keyword · paleontology keyword · · Science topic · science keyword · Books/Literature topic · pages keyword ·