What is scientific about ID?

Post Reply New Topic

Evolutionists view the unknown as the unknown, and something to be discovered, whereas creationists/IDers simply subscribe the unknown to God - oh I'm sorry, "higher power."

Irregardless, Darwin won.

which means /monty.

For years now, I've noticed that sometimes a derider will often subconsciously, accidentally describe himself or his own postion in his critique of that which he disagrees with. And this is one of those cases.



1. Anyone who has read Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" can plainly see that is not scientifically or logically coherent.
2. But it's modern formulation is scientific-sounding sophistry designed to mislead students away from the highly-evidensed fact that we were intelligently designed and created.
3. And evolutionists wish to manipulate public opinion through endless repetition of "Evolution is a fact!" and the like, into legislating these adamant, religious-style declarations into science textbooks.

Actually, Darwin was overly ambitious in globally applying his theory (beyond the Galapogos Islands).
His theories worked best in microcosm, but when applied universally they are very sketchily described, with most of the actual mechanism he implies requiring the reader's imagination.

I would have no complaint if evolutionists truly viewed the unknown as the unknown.
But instead, they inject a mechanism toward macroevolution into nature,
when there is no supporting data proving that such occurs or has occurred.

I know they want evolution to be true. They want their research to continue to be funded.
Hence, the severity of their protests.
But as Captain Picard once said, "Wishing for a thing does not make it so."

My thinking is that, although we say God created the heavens and the earth, the barest sliver of that creation has been revealed to Man. Saying that all of Creation can eventually be known and by Man is equivalent to proclaiming our own godhood.

It's ironic that this is coming from you.


I have never yet seen or heard an objection to evolution that was not spiritually or politically motivated, even if the objection is dressed up as science. I would be pleased if you were the first exception. You can make a start by trying to be specific.


Have you read it? Can you show what is incoherent? I can tell you at least one idea that didn't work, but Darwin didn't know the relevant maths and accepted the state of biological knowledge of the time. If Darwin had been a mathematician as well, he could have predicted that the biologists of his day were wrong in a major way. Modern evolutionary theory is consistent with the discoveries Darwin might have predicted.


Please do tell. Give specific examples of "sophistry designed to mislead students" if you know them. In your own words, preferably. The more I read what you have to say about evolution, the less I think you know about it. I would like to be wrong about this.

Then please do show the evidence for the alleged fact that we were intelligently designed. You said on Friday it would be absurd to call ID science. Does that mean your evidence is not scientific?


Do tell us what makes it "religious-style". I have previously heard allegations that evolution is religion, but never yet with any substance behind the claim. Can you do better?

I recently noticed a trend that you ignore me as soon as I ask you to back up your general claims with anything specific. Can you offer anything better than generalities?

Wow, that is a genius way of putting it in a concise fashion. I like it.

True.
It makes a tempting religion to believe that humans are basically gods, and that they will eventually fully become as powerful as the God of the Bible, through scientific advancement and/or further "evolution" of our species.
But, and rather poetically, that was Lucifer's downfall. So we're back to the "square one" of failed ideals.
(Mankind is really laughable, aren't we?)
Lucifer believed he was basically as great as God, and that he was rightfully so.
But he was out of line, not to mention incorrect, for thinking that way.
He deceived himself, just as many of us are deceiving ourselves right now,
into thinking we don't need God because we'll eventually become his equivalent.
Not so.
God is the greatest being in the universe, and He always will be.
Mankind will always stay mankind. We won't evolve into any "godlike" species -- ever.

Well, we both knew I left myself wide open for that accusation.
Nonetheless, it had to be said, because it's a real phenomenon I notice:
other people precisely describing themselves when criticizing others.
(It's the precision of how they do it that is most startling.)

Many parts of it, yes. And I was truly taken aback by how ironclad and specific modern scientists claim his mess of theory to be.



I have done, and if you'd like to know more (which I'm 100% sure you don't), visit http://www.evolutionthelie.com.
In modern times, the internet allows you to be your own teacher. Use it!

The first thing I saw on that evolutionthelie.com website is the absurdity of irreducible complexity, which has been shown the be completely false. The eye CAN evolve from reducible complexity.

Sorry, that site is a farce to anyone who knows anything about evolutionary biology.

Yes, it may seem absurd (that they eye evolved), but it isn't . Read more about evolutionary biology, instead of reading that religious hogwash.

The main point they make -- and it couldn't be presented more clearly then they do -- is that DARWIN HIMSELF said that the evolution of the human eye seems absurd.

So, with that one, erroneous complaint of yours, you're now blasting the entire website?
Have you read even half of it? No.

Not to promote reading facial expressions as a serious argument,
but this guy seriously doesn't look like a dim bulb to you?





Genius:




Dolt:





Genius:




Dolt:




See any difference?

NO

Oh my god..

Have you been to any college campuses? All my professors look like that way. I can't believe you just made the argument that someone's looks tell anything about their cognitive abilities.

Ah yes, "3. They make use out of context quotes. One example is the Darwin and the eye quote often used by anti evolutionists."



He said it "seems absurd". What don't you understand? Darwin is using this to set up for the follow up, where he says that the eye can evolve. I remember that from a very long time ago, and you're complete unfamiliar with this passage makes me wonder if you've ever read anything about evolutionary biology. This site is absurd!

No, its the complaint that you guys believe in irreducible complexity, which has been shown to be completely false.
Stop taking things out of context. You're completely wrong.

Last edited by Kalister1 on 07 May 2008, 2:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

All this is supposed to be intelligent design?

I would hate to see the stupid designs.