Why must intelligent design be stopped

[Az]

Stupid idiots - it's god punishment for inventing plastics!

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
He believes in micro evolution but not macro evolution.

One more note. When you see something like this, that somebody is drawing a distinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution," chances are that person is a Creationist.

This is a very old tactic used by Creationists. Tthey can't deny that evolution takes place, evidence such as drug resistance cannot be denied. So they tried something else, that species (and upper groupings) cannot arise from evolution. However, this has also been decisively refuted by observations.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Az
Stupid idiots - it's god punishment for inventing plastics!

You know it- Almighty Jehoover has a real downer on clingy static man made fabrics and retro-kitsch bakelite radios.

The Seventies were clearly meant as a worldwide punishment and evidence of the Divine Style Nazi's wrath.


The horror that was crimplene high-wasted flared trousers- like something an evangelical Christian would wear.

http://www.anzwers.org/free/lisafashion/70sfashion.html#early70s

[Az]

Makes sense to me - Praise the lord!

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Az
Makes sense to me - Praise the lord!

Or are you a secret nylon y-front wearer ?


Do you crave heretical North Korean Dear Leader style man made fibre crafted blouson jackets or Soviet era nylon jumpsuits ?


Do you spend hours luxuriating in the ungodly caress of rayon against your nipples ?


Will twilight find you sporting polyester nightgowns and slipping between heathen nylon sheets ?


Beware- they never expect the Spandex Inquisition.

[Ming]

How about posting on topic...

[LDiCesare]

How about posting on topic...

In an off-topic thread?

[Az]

*hangs head*

I seriously think that this thread was such an utter victory for the supporters of science and evolution that this thread will die pretty soon. I was sort of waiting for a relativist, "there is no such thing as one reality" approach, but then I understood that they couldn't use this line for then a problem with other moral positions will occur.

[Patroklos]

[quote]

Why am I not surprised by Patrokolos being an ID'er?

Being a person trying to reconcile the differences between to fueding kingdoms who long ago passed the point where either remembers what they are fighting for, ID is a perfect compromise.

Do you not understand that ID actually gets Christians and other religious types to ACCEPT EVOLUTION!!! Does the fact that they believe the system of evolution is the design of a higher being interfere with the mechanics of the theory at all? NO!!!

As a Christian, does the fact that a person accepts the science of Evolution, which is the point of you ID belief, interfere with the fact that you now know more about Gods universe? NO!!! Even more importantly, even if a scientists says evolution is pushed by something other than divine design, it is currently outside the realm of science to prove that one way of the other, so that is just an unscientific opinion.

It is so pathetically simple and obvious to understand that ID and evolutionary biology are not at odds with each other. Both the Christian insistence of getting some official recognition of it and the Science zealots crusade to bury it are nothing but a futile play of semantics.

ID is not in the realm of science, so why are scientists so up in arms about proving it wrong. Evolution is not at odds with ID, so if some unbeliever does believes in one but not the other who the **** cares. Both sides are just measuring dicks, and while they are busy doing that neither is getting laid.

So for you scientists who think Christians are idiots for believing in a concept from a field completely unrelated to your own field, realize you are equally fools for getting worked up over what amounts to a troll.

The traditional method the creationists use to discredit all the evidence that they are wrong is to claim the scientific method is some sort of religion which people accept purely on faith. Since, they claim, science is nothing but pure faith it cannot be better then their own religious faith.

That of course just shows they have no understanding of what the scientific method is and what it can and cannot do.

It is neither traditional nor commonly used.

However, your blindness to the fact that most people treat their belief in science little different than their faith in God is troubling, because that is a far greater threat to science (if they are being fundies about it) than any minority held Christian opinion about putting a line of text in a book will ever be.

[Patroklos]

It would be better if both sides realized they are fighting different wars, and just got over themselves.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Patroklos
ID is not in the realm of science, so why are scientists so up in arms about proving it wrong. Evolution is not at odds with ID, so if some unbeliever does believes in one but not the other who the **** cares. Both sides are just measuring dicks, and while they are busy doing that neither is getting laid.

This so misses the point that it's ridiculous. Scientists aren't "up in arms" about proving ID wrong. Hell, they don't have to be: there's no proof in favor of it, so nothing more needs to be said.

What they and educators are up in arms about is the thinly-veiled attempt by religionists to wedge in a religious concept that, as you acknowledge, has NOTHING to do with science into science classrooms.

Why should educators "compromise" by introducing something that is so blatantly unscientific into science courses? When has that been the case for any other princept taught in schools?

If IDists want their "theory" taught in science classrooms, they have to go about it the same way all other scientific theories are vetted: through rigorous research, experimentation, peer-review and mainstream acceptance by the scientific community. No special passes for people's pet religious idea.

Why not introduce Hindu reincarnation into biology courses as well? There's no evidence against it, after all. One could argue that instinct is garnered from past lives. Better start revising the syllabi now...

[Patroklos]

This so misses the point that it's ridiculous. Scientists aren't "up in arms" about proving ID wrong. Hell, they don't have to be: there's no proof in favor of it, so nothing more needs to be said.

What they and educators are up in arms about is the thinly-veiled attempt by religionists to wedge in a religious concept that, as you acknowledge, has NOTHING to do with science into science classrooms.

Why should educators "compromise" by introducing something that is so blatantly unscientific into science courses? When has that been the case for any other princept taught in schools?

If IDists want their "theory" taught in science classrooms, they have to go about it the same way all other scientific theories are vetted: through rigorous research, experimentation, peer-review and mainstream acceptance by the scientific community. No special passes for people's pet religious idea.

Why not introduce Hindu reincarnation into biology courses as well? There's no evidence against it, after all. One could argue that instinct is garnered from past lives. Better start revising the syllabi now...

I already said I don't want the text in.

This long ago moved past simply the text issue, and while you personally may limit your officially disgust to that, there is an effort to discredit the "idiots" and "fundies" who believe in ID wether they are forcing it on you or not. This thread is a good example, until Ben came and put it textbooks back into the arguement.

For some reason it just bothers the **** out of the scientifically faithful that someone believes something other than their grand theories, in no different fashion that they bash the religious for.

And both sides are stupid, because they only bother on another by throwing themselves in front of one anothers cars.

[SpencerH]

I have no doubt about evolution. How could I, since I see it in action virtually everyday in my lab. I am not overwhelmingly convinced, however, by the evidence that supports macro-evolution. That doesnt mean I deny evolution as a theory nor does it mean that I dispute specific evidence that suggests macro-evolution per ce. It simply means that I think that evidence supporting macro-evolution, such the fossil record for example, is over-interpreted by the experts and over-publicised by the media to an audience with no background to critically analyse the evidence.

ID is not science. Hypotheses that are by definition un-negatable are not science. Therefore, ID has no place in a science classroom. Clearly, it is another attempt by the christian fundamentalists to foist their beliefs on everyone else and ID must be opposed for that reason. I sincerely hope that the case in PA is not won by those that support ID otherwise we'll be fighting it here for sure.

[Cyclotron]

For some reason it just bothers the **** out of the scientifically faithful that someone believes something other than their grand theories, in no different fashion that they bash the religious for.

No, I'm pretty sure most scientists couldn't care less what people believe. What they care about is the imposition of those beliefs in a place where they categorically do not belong. I cannot understand why this is so difficult to accept. If you will note, the whole issue is one sided - the IDers are trying to shove their non-scientific blather into a science environment. I don't see the scientists trying to impose their scientific theories in churches - do you?

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Patroklos


I already said I don't want the text in.

This long ago moved past simply the text issue, and while you personally may limit your officially disgust to that, there is an effort to discredit the "idiots" and "fundies" who believe in ID wether they are forcing it on you or not. This thread is a good example, until Ben came and put it textbooks back into the arguement.

For some reason it just bothers the **** out of the scientifically faithful that someone believes something other than their grand theories, in no different fashion that they bash the religious for.

And both sides are stupid, because they only bother on another by throwing themselves in front of one anothers cars.

You say you don't want the text in.
And here most scientists agree with you and most IDer (and most Americans it seems) disagree with you.
Yet you call both sides stupid.

I don't see how you can call a scientist who wants this stuff out of science classes, something with which you agree, stupid for asking this...