No, but it still manages to include 'Intelligent' in its very title. Perhaps it's indicative of the intelligence of its proponents and their transparent assumptions.
But your dismissive equation of God with mere magic is simply more evidence of your closed minded bigotry and irrationalism.
As opposed to the self-delusion required to assume that Alacarte was commenting within your own paradigm that mandates god is the intelligence behind a design. The statement that you have mischaracterized assumes nothing that you have attributed to it.
A You label something without addressing its claims and then dismiss your opposition because they are what you label them as.
The very foundation of the ID 'theory' is unquantifiable and unverifiable, and hence outside the realm of evidence and science.
There is no finer example of hysterical closed mindedness even in the anals of the Inquisition, the Stalin Trials or the Cultural Revolution. You must be proud of that.
I'd recommend you actually understand history before commenting on it, and pick up a spelling primer on your way home tonight.
JFK_Lib(quoted) - ID does not at all address who/what gave nature its design as that is in other realms of knowlege, and not for scientific investigation.
Pahuanui - No, but it still manages to include 'Intelligent' in its very title. Perhaps it's indicative of the intelligence of its proponents and their transparent assumptions.
JFK_Lib - In sequential logic, one does not avoid apparent decisions merely because of difficult questions that may follow. If design is present in the structure of a cell, it is irrelevant what the origen of that design is in terms of any scientific inquiry. That opponents of ID obsess with the 'who' instead of the 'what' is a reflection on their preoccupation with consequences instead of the question at hand. And that ishardly proof of any inadequacy of ID, but only of the critics.
JFK_Lib(quoted) - But your dismissive equation of God with mere magic is simply more evidence of your closed minded bigotry and irrationalism.
Pahuanui - As opposed to the self-delusion required to assume that Alacarte was commenting within your own paradigm that mandates god is the intelligence behind a design. The statement that you have mischaracterized assumes nothing that you have attributed to it.
JFK_Lib - That Alacarte was obviously commenting on the concept of God in his overly broad and sweeping generalization regarding magic is apparent, and hardly an unusual tactic or slur for typical uber-secularists.
If I have mischaracterized Alacartes statement, then show me specifically how, and stop it with the labels, though they do seem to be the Darwinists forte these days.
JFK_Lib(quoted) - A You label something without addressing its claims and then dismiss your opposition because they are what you label them as.
Pahuanui - The very foundation of the ID 'theory' is unquantifiable and unverifiable, and hence outside the realm of evidence and science.
JFK_Lib - Why must the presence of 'design' be unverifiable? It is something that has been ill-defined until recently, but the ID proponents claim to have an objective method of determining what we all recognize instinctively. We all know that a poker dealer that deals himself seven hands of Royal Flushes in a row is 'designing' his deck, even without 'scientific' proof. Why cant science have caught up to common sense in this regard?
And what makes you an authority to pontificate on the subject anyway? If you cant explain it in laymans terms persuasively, then I doubt there is much substance in your assertions to begin with.
JFK_Lib(quoted) - There is no finer example of hysterical closed mindedness even in the anals of the Inquisition, the Stalin Trials or the Cultural Revolution. You must be proud of that.
Pahuanui - I'd recommend you actually understand history before commenting on it, and pick up a spelling primer on your way home tonight.
JFK_Lib - HAHAHAH, the classic concession in discussion on the internet; you have resorted to grammar and spelling critique as though it matters to the discussion.
Oh, obviously you simply *must* be right because of your superior brain and high-IQ, proven because you can spellcheck a text, LOL! </sarcasm>
Why dont you save your arrogant and condescending advice for someone who needs it?
I have forgotten more history than you will ever know, mugwump.