Great article about intelligent design in science without being religious (page 2)

prologos

Simple UNintelligent natural processes make very complex (and beautiful) things all the time! For example: a snowflake. wfbandit.

The snowflake embodies the number 666, 666, 666

prologos

found in a camper blog:
I have determined that every last Automotive Engineer is an atheist.......it is quite apparent that not a single one believes in intelligent design

Wow, a lot of bias against ID here! Creationism here, religion there...courtroom here, no peer-reviewed papers there... many red herrings. Why? Don't want to talk about god? Ok, just leave him out of the discussion, simple as that. Check and consider all available info... infer from reality and experience... do not condemn too fast... For instance... ID has peer-reviewed articles, although it's certainly not the holy grail. It's about the arguments, honesty and a healthy dose of logic right? Not about an agenda, which almost every group seems to have anyway (including some evolutionists).

Not everything is what it looks like, and this can be a double-edged sword!

Vidqun

Amen! Oops, musn't say that here.

cofty

Check and consider all available info... infer from reality and experience... do not condemn too fast... - redpill

I have already invested many many hours investigating the claims of the ID movement. I would not criticise something I didn't understand.

It is 100% biblical creationism.

Heaven

redpilltwice

I have already invested many many hours investigating the claims of the ID movement. I would not criticise something I didn't understand.

That depends. With all respect, mindset matters.

It is 100% biblical creationism.

100%? Then show me the verses Cofty..

cofty

That depends. With all respect, mindset matters.

I don't understand what you are saying here.

100%? Then show me the verses Cofty..

"In the beginning god created...."

ID is nothing more than Gen.1:1 dressed up in pseudoscience.

See Dover v Kitzmiller for an expose of the dishonesty of ID

redpilltwice

I don't understand what you are saying here.

Your many hours investigating the claims of the ID movement mean as much as my hours of investigating the claims of Darwinism. It's our mindset that influences us regarding what data/arguments we tend to embrace.

"In the beginning god created...."
ID is nothing more than Gen.1:1 dressed up in pseudoscience.

Oversimplification, way too easy. Show me the verses and their context in ID articles that are used as core argument for their conclusions.

See Dover v Kitzmiller for an expose of the dishonesty of ID

I did, not impressive (although I admit Behe could've done better). But hey, WT also won a few court cases in the past, and what does that tell about their doctrine in detail? Not very much...

In turn, did you see these for an expose of some dishonesty of Dover v Kitzmiller? I'm not pushing you to give vent to some more scepticism towards evolution, but you use the word "fact" a lot. It's not always black or white Cofty (like: evolution is correct, otherwise you're uneducated/intellectual dishonest), there's still a lot of grey (gaps/contradictions) when it comes to things like macro-evolution and universal common descent. What about a more modest "We still don't really know" or "Not enough empirical evidence yet"?

Ten Myths About Dover: #1, "Judge Jones Addressed theActual Theory of ID, Not a Straw Man"

Ten Myths About Dover: #2: "Judge Jones Is a Brilliant, Neutral Legal Scholar Who Figured Out ID"

Ten Myths About Dover: #3, "Intelligent Design Has No Peer-Reviewed Research or Publications"

Ten Myths About Dover: #4, "The Dover Ruling Refuted Intelligent Design"

Ten Myths About Dover: #5, "Discovery Institute Supported Dover School Board Policy"

Ten Myths About Dover: #6, "Judge Jones, No Activist, Stayed Strictly Within His Authority"

Ten Myths About Dover: #7, "The Dover Case Showed ID Is 'Religious' and a Form of 'Creationism'"

Ten Myths About Dover: #8, "Michael Behe Admitted that ID Is No More Scientific than Astrology"

Ten Myths About Dover: #9, "The ID Movement Had Its Day in Court"

Ten Myths About Dover: #10, "The Intelligent Design Movement Died After the Dover Decision"

cofty

there's still a lot of grey (gaps/contradictions) when it comes to things like macro-evolution and universal common descent. What about a more modest "We still don't really know" or "Not enough empirical evidence yet"?

There is a great deal that has still to be resolved about the details of evolution. I have said that many times. Why do you think scientists still go to work on a Monday morning? However we do know beyond all reasonable doubt that common ancestry is a fact.

It's our mindset that influences us regarding what data/arguments we tend to embrace.

Not in my case. I was convinced evolution was an atheistic plot.

The ID movement is totally vacuous. It was nothing more than a pathetic and dishonest attempt to get biblical creationism into American classrooms.

Great article about intelligent design in science without being religious

Share this