Bush Says 'Intelligent Design' Should Be Taught

[Velociryx]

Too right on all counts.

Truth be told, God is probably a transvestite with a LOT of fake id's.....

-=Vel=-

[chequita guevara]

God is a Buddist.

[techumseh]

Was. He's dead.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by techumseh
Was. He's dead.

Are you saying it's his widow we are stuck with ?

[techumseh]

I think he was unmarried and died without an heir.

[Velociryx]

Egads! If so, that would explain a lot of stuff that's been going on these past several years.

Methinks she needs to pull a "Zeus" come down to earth, get laid (seduce a few score men), and things should calm down a bit....



-=Vel=-

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Sandman
Let's teach stork theory alongside womb theory. After all, there are gaps in our knowledge of embryonic development.

What about the K-Mart Blue Light Special theory? Should work for the US, at least.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by Sandman
Let's teach stork theory alongside womb theory. After all, there are gaps in our knowledge of embryonic development.

You have a flair for satire!

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I don't know...this actually kinna makes sense to my brain, and here's why:

* A bedrock, scientific fact isn't a fact unless it's true all the time.

* Natural Selection CANNOT be scientific fact, because Bush is ALIVE. That he exists at all, flies in the face of natural selection.

* Since Bush's existence cannot be explained by natural selection, we must look elsewhere.

Thus, perhaps Intelligent Design isn't the BEST place to look, it is a start (tho as has been pointed out, if it explains Shrub's existence, then it very definitely needs a new name!)

Nonetheless, our sitting President is a MOST excellent poster child for their cause.

-=Vel=-

But wouldn´t the Theory then have to be altered into
NSID (not so intelligent design) or even SD (stupid design) to fit the facts?

[MarkG]

Originally posted by techumseh
Like Mark G, I didn't read the article fully before posting.

that fact that the article is pro-gates doesnt mean that gates knows quite well how to hide his pro-ID funding....

[Az]

Plato 7.8/10

[Pekka]

ID supports the idea of creationism, and when ever something actually can be proven against ID, it can always change it's claims to suit the new premise. How convinient. It's like the ultimate theory that never will change itself or can be proven wrong because it just is.

It's like mathematician proving a theory, and making the number 2 into number 10 so you can move on further, just because.

ID is built around faith. It's not science, even bad science. It's just not science at all.

You would first have to prove God exists through scientifical methods, which currently is impossible.

SO, ID is not scientific theory. It is, like religion, faith. Faith has no room in science.

[Velociryx]

But wouldn´t the Theory then have to be altered into
NSID (not so intelligent design) or even SD (stupid design) to fit the facts?

I'd be all for the name change!

-=Vel=-

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by PLATO
I find it humourous that people call supporters of ID "creationist freaks". I suppose that is how Galileio felt when persecuted for his beliefs.

One of the oldest historical documents we have (the Bible) supports ID. Just because science is unsophisticated enough to explain it doesn't disprove it...hehe

Galileo Galiliei, unlike his persecutors, was a scientist who based his ideas and theories on experiments and observations, not wish fulfilment, religious dogma and superstition and ignorance- the foundations of creationism and (un)intelligent design.


The Bible is not one document, but a collection of texts, by many authors, from different periods, none of whom appear to have been interested in experimental science of any kind.

It has been extensively revised over the centuries, with 'dissident' texts rejected and is internally inconsistent, as well as out of joint with what is known of the history of the Middle and Near East from other states' documentation and inscriptions.

I suggest you do a course in the history of Bible translation into English- and then perhaps start on the tricky subject of biblical attribution.



Be prepared for some unpleasant surprises.

[Jon Miller]

once more, you don't know what you are talking about...

you can follow the translation processes... and you can study the books that got rejected... (which happened in the 4th century AD, not in the last 1600 years)

and I actually recommend that, I have spent many a day reading up on it, it is fascinating stuff

yes, in the first few hundred years there were many people who beleived quite different things then what the majority of Christiandom believes today, but the arguments one way or another are known

like one group that believed different, had beliefs that were very close to a greek mysticism cult, so (just based upon that, not on the beliefs in question) it would be easy to disregard them as being corrupted by that cult

study it, be prepared for some surprises.. but then see that the Bible is still good

Jon Miller
(wtf do you get the extensively revised over the centuries.. you can see the current translations, and the older ones, and I think, if you read latin, that you can even read one of main three that is currently used by most bible version writers)