What is scientific about ID?

Post Reply New Topic

A few.



And that's supposed to surprise me?
Higher education has largely turned incompetent
(and become the prime breeding ground for spewing far-left-wing idealogies and hatred),
so you just supported what I already knew!

Last edited by Ragtime on 07 May 2008, 3:03 pm, edited 3 times in total.

You do know there is a sizable Objectivist movement in the U.C. system? Its as far from left wing as you can get. You have no idea what you're talking about. Besides that, I am at a loss for words, because I can't believe some of the things you are saying.

Last edited by Kalister1 on 07 May 2008, 3:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Then look up Rube Goldberg.

Actually, the way human jaws are designed is horrible. Many of us require braces, because the teeth do not grow in the correct fashion. If we were designed, this would be a very apparent design flaw from an omnipotent god.

Evolution explains this because evolution is a constantly ongoing process. In other words, we're never going to be perfect, but just another step towards what nature is pushing us towards.

Well if that's they're main point, then it's doubly silly. First of all, a more complete quote from The Origin is as follows:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."


The site is quoting a small bit out of context to dishonestly make it seem as if Darwin was saying the opposite.

The other source of silliness (aside from the dishonestly cropped quote, I mean) is the expectation that because Darwin said something that it should be relevant to whether someone believes evolution occurred. Biologists don't treat Darwin as a prophet, just as the guy who came up with the idea of natural selection as the mechanism of evolution.

Quoting Darwin as though that proves something is just a flagrant appeal to authority and carries no weight at all.

Well said. Biology has come a long way since Darwin. He didn't even know of the existence of genes, though if I remember correctly, he had a small inkling of an idea that they may exist. The gene centric view of evolution in the 70's completely changed biology, etc. The world of biology is much more complex now; Darwin wasn't a prophet, he was just the man who got the ball rolling.

Do you happen to go to a Madrasa?

"Horrible?" Really? How many of us can chew food well and without pain?
Want me to make an actual poll, or do you get my point?



That's not an explanation. That's an "I don't have an explanation. Wait several million years..." yawn.



Nature is not an entity, and it is not a force for good. It has neither a will nor a plan to make us better.
If it did, it would be God -- which some people actually believe.
Stop bowing down before "nature" and "science", and start seeing the truth:
that God created you and me.

That's their main point in using Darwin's quote!
It's not the main point of the website!

Teeth would have been my first example. s**t design. Very poor. Must try harder.

You sound like you'd like to have a few words with the Designer...
If so, then you clearly believe He exists.
(C'mon, you know it deep down -- don't deny it.)

And BTW, I've just finished spending several thousands of dollars on dental work,
but I'm not upset with God for designing my teeth the way He did.

Any complaints about Mozart's talent?
Einstein's and Hawking's profoundity-grasping intellects?
No? Okay then... they seem pretty intelligently designed to me.
In fact, world-class conductor Georg Solti said in his autobiography
that the only reason he believes in God is because of the evidence of Mozart's superb talent.
Solti contended that such superlative and mind-boggling gifts simply could not be a random accident.
And I agree.

Last edited by Ragtime on 07 May 2008, 4:07 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Your logic is flawed, as is his. Just because something look designed does not mean it is. Again, read some books on biology before making such a false conjecture.

Also, Einstein and Stephen Hawking's are both atheists. They used the word god in an non-theistic fashion.

You are totally correct. Because something looks designed means that it might be designed.
And that's what is banned from being taught in schools -- that it might be designed.



As with everyone, believing in God is a personal decision.
And both spoke of "God" (in the capitalized version)
in ways that overlap the Christian version.
In other words, they describe God as the force that joins the universe together,
which is true. God is that -- but He is also more than that.
So, they got it partially right. Neither scientist denied God's existence. For, what true scientist could?

EDIT:
On Hawking:


So he would at the least be agnostic, not atheist.

Last edited by Ragtime on 07 May 2008, 4:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

there's a distinction you're missing... yes, the abilities are made "randomly" but selection is by no means accidental.

I took that into account, and I think Solti was brilliant enough to do so as well.
In his estimation, it was more likely that Mozart was intelligently designed than that he was not.

You dont even have the ability to use a dictionary.

Atheist means you don't believe in a god.

Agnostic means you don't know if a god can ever be proven or disproven.

Im an agnostic atheist, as is he.

Edit: Yes, and a^2 + b^2 = c^2 is only a thereom . They don't teach the maybe that it might not be true. The design hypothesis has been shown to have so many holes so many times, that its not even a theory, just a false hypothesis. You are simply trying to inject religion into the school.