[JFK_Lib]

Alacarte - I do know nothing about the specifics, because there are no specifics. It makes no positive assertions, only eliminative assertions targetting gaps in evolution such as irreducible complexity.

JFK_Lib - Eliminative assertions are specifics. To assert that A cannot do B is assertive, good greif. You're just slinging the polemic around like rich fertilizer, no?


Alacarte - Oh please, ID is just creationism 2.0.

JFK_Lib - No, it is not or else evolutionists would not find it compatible. It is compatible with evolution, but not materialism as expressed in Darwinistic evolution. Again, Darwinism <> evolution.



Alacarte - What do you mean by 'mere magic?' If it wasn't magic, then there would be a natural explanation and ID could expound on how exactly it was done. Or is it the semantics you object to?

JFK_Lib - Not everything that goes beyond the natural is 'magic'. And you deliberately use a pejorative phrase in order to further muddy the subject and lower the level of calm consideration. It is this type of hyperbole that makes it plain that you really do suspect that you are in the wrong, or else you would not engage in such obstructive semantics.


Alacarte - ID makes no claims of its own! It has NO body of research, it makes NO predictions, and it is not falsifiable.

JFK_Lib - Hahahah, yeah, right. You admit that you have not read up on the issue, so why dont you either educate yourself on the issue or just shut up and get out of the way of progress?



Alacarte - You just said ID argues that evolution cannot explain blah blah.

JFK_Lib - *Random mutation* does not account for EVERYTHING. And that is not synonymous with asserting that evolution does not account for 'blah, blah.'



Alacarte - If ID actually had an hypothesis for how all this diversity, which wasn't 'magic,' then we could take it seriously. Until then there is nothing to test.


JFK_Lib - So you again imply that without a completely natural, materialistic explanation, there can be nothing 'taken seriously'. You admit to such bias and then try to pose as though you are open minded on the subject!

Your paradigm is coming to an end, and I look forward to it. The Twentieth century was dominated by deterministic, materialism and it nearly destroyed mankind. Thank God that point of view is being eclipsed by new scientific Truth.



Alacarte - The bottom line is that without evolution's science to attack, there is absolutely nothing scientific about ID.

JFK_Lib - The bottom line is that you still dont have a clue about what ID is about as you continue to confuse it with Creationism, which it isnt. Your view of 'science' is loaded, prejudicial, irrational with presumption, and obsolete.

[Alacarte]

JFK_Lib - Eliminative assertions are specifics. To assert that A cannot do B is assertive, good greif. You're just slinging the polemic around like rich fertilizer, no?

Alacarte - You are reiterating my point, criticizing one theory does not make another, separate theory valid. ID presupposes that if evolution cannot account for all the diversity (which it can), then there must have been some higher power that did it. This logic is terribly flawed and the furthest thing from science possible. If other realms of science took the position that whatever we cannot currently explain cannot possibly have a natural explanation and must therefore have been caused by magic, progress would stop. Why is there no movement to stop physicists from trying to figure out why all atoms in the universe are attracted to one another? Well? According to your logic, since we currently don't know the answer, it is obvious the answer is god, so just stop all physics research now, we got all the answers!

JFK_Lib - No, it is not or else evolutionists would not find it compatible. It is compatible with evolution, but not materialism as expressed in Darwinistic evolution. Again, Darwinism <> evolution.

Alacarte - Irreducible complexity is just the watchmaker argument dressed up in a pretty gown. And who are these evolutionists you speak of? Possibly there are a few evolutionists who question the power of selection pressure and mutation to cause speciation. But I assure you they don't throw their hands in the air and say we should give up, it must be magic. They think there may be another, better, natural explanation.

JFK_Lib - Not everything that goes beyond the natural is 'magic'.

Alacarte - What do you call it then? There is nothing in the natural world that is not natural, there are only things we have yet to explain. The supernatural, whether it be ghosts, gods or leprechauns exist only in people's heads. What would you have me call the unnatural power of your great designer then, if not magic? Divine intervention? If ID really were a theory it would explain exactly this sort of thing in its own model.

JFK_Lib - Hahahah, yeah, right. You admit that you have not read up on the issue, so why dont you either educate yourself on the issue or just shut up and get out of the way of progress?

Alacarte - No, I asserted there is nothing within ID that constitutes a theory. Irreducible complexity is tantamount to saying we should stop all scientific research right now since we've obviously discovered all we are going to discover. We'll just fill in all the unknowns with 'magic.'

JFK_Lib - *Random mutation* does not account for EVERYTHING. And that is not synonymous with asserting that evolution does not account for 'blah, blah.'

Alacarte - Why can't it? Your 'magic' explanation isn't exactly convincing either. Regardless, surely this is a decision for evolutionists, the people who study the effects of random mutation and selection pressure (BTW, there is nothing RANDOM about diversity other than the genetic anomalies during cross-over), and they say it is possible. But let us say for a second that evolution doesn't account for all the diversity, what bizarro world do you live in that the answer must be magic (or divine intervention, or rogue leprechauns, whatever 'intelligence' implies...)? Wouldn't the logical conclusion be that the answer is a different natural explanation?

JFK_Lib - So you again imply that without a completely natural, materialistic explanation, there can be nothing 'taken seriously'. You admit to such bias and then try to pose as though you are open minded on the subject!

Alacarte - In what other part of life do you apply faith instead of science? Really! Would you get on a plane if your pastor said god will protect you, but that engineers had told you was not safe? Of course not! Would you eat meat that the meat inspectors said had ecoli, assuming you said grace beforehand? No... Being open-minded is one thing, being stupid is another. Why don't you leave cookies out for santa at christmas? Don't believe in him? You that closed minded!?!?

JFK_Lib - Your paradigm is coming to an end, and I look forward to it. The Twentieth century was dominated by deterministic, materialism and it nearly destroyed mankind. Thank God that point of view is being eclipsed by new scientific Truth.

Alacarte - We tried what you are referring to, it's nick-named the "dark ages." It ended with the enlightenment, when the west told christianity to sit down and shut-up, then embraced secularism. What you want is a christian version of iran.

JFK_Lib - The bottom line is that you still dont have a clue about what ID is about as you continue to confuse it with Creationism, which it isnt. Your view of 'science' is loaded, prejudicial, irrational with presumption, and obsolete.

Alacarte - The few proponents for ID who are not fundamentalist christians are orthodox jews. I don't have to ask you if you are religious or not, only someone driven by an ideology would persist in arguing something is scientific, after scientists say it is not (see NAS website). If ID really was an alternative to evolution rather than just an attack on the gaps, it would have its own explanations for how life came about the way it is today. It does not. It merely says that one specific part of evolution is wrong, therefore deism must be true. The mere fact that ID proposes a higher power eliminates it from being scientific, since the supernatural cannot be tested, otherwise it would be natural...

The evolution/creationism debate was ALWAYS a debate over the validity of evolution. As if it was a given that should evolution be proven false, god musta dunnit. There was never ANY debate about creationism itself. Why? Because there was nothing to debate! All creationism said was, 'god dunnit.' Well, ok, the 6 day story, which can be summarized into one page. This scenario sound familiar? It should, because creationism 2.0 (ID) uses the same tactic. Irreducible complexity is just the defunct watchmaker argument rehashed. Evolution can stand on its own as a theory, but without evolution, intelligent design is left with 'god dunnit,' hardly a theory of anything.

BTW, why do you keep saying "Darwinism <> evolution."? Without self-replication/inheritance/variation/selection (darwinism specifically), evolution would fall apart.

Again, if we want to know what colour pants god wears, we'll consult the theologists. If we want to understand the natural world, we will consult scientists. Scientists overwhelmingly accept evolution, and reject ID (google for what the NAS says about ID). Case closed.