"Intelligent Design": Stealth War on Science

Revolutionary Worker ^ | November 6, 2005

[Doctor Stochastic]

And is still true. That is the way I read your comment. It was blatant.

[Right Wing Professor]

That assertion was made by you already at post 309 and I responded at post 312.

Yeah, you threw in the straw man of 'materialist happenstance', and then added pedophilia to infanticide. Thanks for reminding me.

I'm frankly disgusted at the pseudoscientific waffle, intolerance, and mystificationism on this thread. I'm going go write a paper about hydrogen bonds, and try to forget there are people like you (pl.) in my country.

[Alamo-Girl]

What an excellent essay-post and meditation, dear marron!

[Stultis]

(to Vade Retro) Too bad you're on their side.

Actually the commies should be counted on the side of antievolutionists who want to dictate science curricula via political or popular pressure, overriding professional review. This, after all, is what the communists themselves did for decades in the Soviet Union and other states they controlled. (The Soviets didn't outlaw evolution per se, but they did persecute advocates, and some of the architects, of "neo-darwinism," along with others who accepted or researched mendelian genetics.)

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for sharing your view on that point!

[hosepipe]

#314.. Scathing review.. No wonder the "scathed" go mute late in these threads... The first reality and second reality concept is new to me.. but it speaks.. thanks..

[Stultis]

Nuts from the other end, such as those who say "Evolution is a concept that applies to all sciences, from astronomy to chemistry to geology to biology to anthropology.”

We just call 'em "creationists" for short.

[Alamo-Girl]

I'm frankly disgusted at the pseudoscientific waffle, intolerance, and mystificationism on this thread. I'm going go write a paper about hydrogen bonds, and try to forget there are people like you (pl.) in my country.

You might enjoy a nice glass of wine or coffee, too - and perhaps some favorite music.

Our debates are always vigorous but I suspect they are also quite interesting to the Lurkers.

I look forward to our next discussion!

[js1138]

Must resist posting.

[Louis Foxwell]

Drama queen much?

You missed the joy.

[Louis Foxwell]

Drama queen much?

You missed the joy.

[Louis Foxwell]

I'm not impressed by sanctimonious protestations. I'm impressed by actions. Protesting you love Dawkins and Pinker while smearing them with the taint of infanticide is nothing less than sinister.

The sanctimony is all on your side. Try to distinguish between the action and the actor. As to smearing, they did it to themselves.

Once again, you require ad hominem insults to have a leg to stand on.

[hosepipe]

[ Yeah, you threw in the straw man of 'materialist happenstance', and then added pedophilia to infanticide. Thanks for reminding me. ]

If abortion is not murder...
Then my FETUS, I mean sister, whom is a seven month premmie.. thats over 50 years old now.. is just tax paying carnal tissue..

Sure shes a pain in the ass but at least shes human.. and was so a seven months.. When exactely does a human become human.?... SIX MONTHS?.. five... when..

But then to "evolution" we ALL are merely tax paying carnal citizens.. pretty much what not only Darwin said but Marx too.. They both seem to imply that humans are parasitic lifeforms on a beautiful blue planet.. and wish to understand and control the parasites..

"How do you tell a Socialist:- It's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an Anti-Socialist someone who understands Marx and Lenin" -Ronald Reagan

[Stultis]

Maybe you "evos" will learn how Christians have felt for decades and try to support the separation of school and state, but I doubt it.

Possibly you haven't read these threads before. If so you would know that many "evos" here do support that.

[Alkhin]

Rather, I believe that public school science classes should focus on teaching students how to understand and critically analyze genuine scientific theories. Unlike biological evolution, "intelligent design" is not a genuine scientific theory and, therefore, has no place in the curriculum of our nation's public school science classes.

thank you! thats a point I am always trying to make to creationists and it goes in one ear and out the other like wind through a desert.

Personally, however, I do have a personal philosophy about creation that is a close match to ID. I just dont think God created the minds that we have only to tell us "don't use them."

[Diamond]

I'll let alone the bizarre idea that an entirely hypothetical ' divinely-ordained natural order of things', in your topsy turvy world, is designated as the 'first reality', and point out that this is nothing more than a religiously bigoted attempt to associate with infanticide failure to accept one particular set of values. And yours is simply an account of the history of this pathological fantasy, which interests me not in the least.

Is there something wrong with failure to accept failure to accept one particular set of values? It would seem that judgments such as "bizarre", "topsy turvy", "religiously bigoted", "pathological fantasy" regarding failure to accept one particular set of values is self-refuting in that such judgments constitute a failure to accept one particular set of values.

Cordially,

[Louis Foxwell]

Must resist posting.

Good idea.

[Diamond]

Actually the commies should be counted on the side of antievolutionists who want to dictate science curricula via political or popular pressure, overriding professional review.

You should be more afraid of the courts dictating science curricula. Anyway, I thought the ACLU types prosecuting this case were the commies, not the creationists or ID'rs.

Cordially,

[Stultis]

ID is nothing more than an attempt to get at some of the important questions about natural life processes.

Actually it's more of an attempt to avoid doing so. Note that ID'ers only "infer" the "presence" of "design". Any further questions are studiously, even actively, avoided. When were/are instances of "design" instantiated? How were/are they instantiated (or by whom/what)? Where were they instantiated? Upon what entities were given instances of "design" first impressed?

ID possesses no mechanism or model whatsoever (in every other known instance a crucial component of any "scientific theory") and refuses to pursue, or even speculate regarding, any question whatever of mechanism, mode, history, or any other substantive issue.

Science has sometimes been called a "way of knowing". ID is a "way of NOT knowing". (Or, for political reasons, to better serve as a umbrella movement and stalking horse for antievolutionism, pretending not to.)

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOLOL! Thank you so very much for your hilarious post!

The quote you used needs repeating:

"How do you tell a Socialist:- It's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an Anti-Socialist someone who understands Marx and Lenin" -Ronald Reagan