Again, not what I was talking about. I was talking about appeals to emotion for the consequences of not accepting the theory. ID as an example from you:
Why have laws against murder, why believe in human rights? All those things are based on the idea that this is an order in the universe that has preferred outcomes. If there is no order to the universe and there are no preferred outcomes of any kind. Then anythings goes.You are appealing to my emotions, saying an "anything goes" world would be the result of not accepting your theory. Such a factor is outside of the actual science. Your theory is not on solid ground if you must resort to such appeals. Same with global warming saying we're all going to die if we don't get in lock-step.
This certainly doesn’t describe ID-
It most certainly does. You've had a large religious movement promoting it from the beginning. Even using your view of the Discovery Institute, you have a large, well-funded, very activist organization with admittedly non-scientific goals that is almost solely responsible for all of the pseudo-scientific (and admittedly sometimes scientific) work done to promote the theory, and promotes any other work done on it.
The credibility is not helped due to most of the arguments basically being a rehash of Creation Science arguments. But you might help me by showing me a decent percentage of athiest IDers and some ID organizations that have absolutely no connection to any religiously-motivated organizations.
you’ve got a legitimate objection to global warming ‘science’ because the ideology of global warmign science is infact NOT based on science
Global warming has a lot more legitimate science behind it than ID does. IMHO, they're just reaching the wrong, politically forced, conclusions.
How has ‘ID been poisoned’?
See above.
Are you lumping ALL ID scientists and research in with the those who happen to present both the evidnece AND their OPINIONS?
Those opinions are their non-scientific motivation.
[[You are appealing to my emotions, saying an “anything goes” world would be the result of not accepting your theory.]]
Actually no “I” wasn’t- If that was part of my post- it was somethign I skimmed over and didn’t read- copy/paste- I wouldn’t suggest that and have argued against such a notion on philosophy forums infact
[[Your theory is not on solid ground if you must resort to such appeals.]]
My arguments are infact on solid ground
[[It most certainly does. You’ve had a large religious movement promoting it from the beginning.]]
LOL- first you post somethign fro mwhat you call a ‘prominent ID’ist’ Demski denouncing relgious thought, now you’re turnign aroudn and saying ID started off as a r’religious movement’ lol-
[[Even using your view of the Discovery Institute,]]
Psssst- DI and even organizations liek IRC aren’t the sum of ID- you shoudl really look into this a bit better- I personally beleive God is the creator and intellgience behind ID, but there are soem that don’t beleive in God yet who find Darwinism innadequate, and think there’s soem kind of ‘intelligence’ behind irreducible ocmplexity- (althout they are confused and think nature is capable of producing it—)
[[very activist organization with admittedly non-scientific goals that is almost solely responsible for all of the pseudo-scientific]]
Lol- ‘non-scientific’ apaprently means that IF somethign in science does infact agree with the bible and Creation, and an institution tries to promote that fact, then by golly they mustn’t be ‘scientific’- Swell reasoning there- Apparently ‘sciecne’ means that if somethign agrees with hte bible, it must be suppressed and not allowed in debate to you- Not sure why you folks have to keep resortign to spurious accusaitons and why you feel your hypothesis isn’t on solid enough ground to stand against ID- but maligning somehting because it muight happen to agree with hte bible, sure isn’t one of your strogner ‘coutner-arguments-
and tell me Anti0- Was it ‘activist’ of science books to promote missing links when they don’t have al lthe facts? Or to promote Eukoroytes as ‘evolution in action’ when it was nothign more than a symbiotic relationship which those doign hte promoting KNEW FULL WELL, but kept hidden? Or was it activist to promote a ‘nearly compelte evolution of hearing’ by deceitfully showing skulls of vastly different sizes set next to each other and drawn hte saem size in order to try to impress a nice neat little progression? Or settign a skull from a rat sized animal next to a hippo sized one and claimign they are ‘close kin’?
Don’t even start abotu ‘activism’ when evos have been nothign BUT activists all along- Cripes!
[[The credibility is not helped due to most of the arguments basically being a rehash of Creation Science arguments.]]
Your ignorance of ID is really showing through
[[Global warming has a lot more legitimate science behind it than ID does.]]
Just when I thought you couldn’t get much more ignroant about ID you go and post somethign like that- Well done! (I have REAMS of evidence showing that the IPC scientists were FORCED to state thigns they KNEW wasn’t correct- that isn’t sicnece)