"Novak is clearly proof that intelligent design is a failed concept
What intelligent maker would leave him with a workable mouth?"
In case you are wondering: What is Intelligent Design? I'll fill you in with as little misleading information as possible.
Ostensibly its main purpose is to investigate whether or not there is empirical evidence that life on Earth was designed by an intelligent agent or agents. Intelligent design advocate William Dembski in his book "The Design Inference" lists God or an alien life force as two possible options.
President Bush (bible thumper or alien minion) told reporters Monday that schools should teach the conservative Christian doctrine of intentional or divine creation, called "intelligent design," along with evolution. He refused to discuss his personal beliefs but said, "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought.
Gee, when I went to Christian school we called it “God’s Creation” not "intelligent design".
If the problem with evolution is that it can't be (well it hasn't has it?) proven without question, then how does replacing one flawed theory with another help matters? What? So you’re trying to make it palatable for the “non-believers”? Christians are going to annex another culture like they did with other pagans? Or didn’t you know easter, the yule log, the creation of all saints day
"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." Max Blumenthal, 2004 "Avenging angel of the religious right."
Huh, what do you know? I’m so smart.
Well, being open minded, I always thought everything that is not proven should be presented as theory, not fact.
The National Academy of Sciences has said, intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because their claims cannot be tested by experiment and propose no new hypotheses of their own, instead they find gaps within current evolutionary theory and fill them in with speculative beliefs.
Okay, maybe I’m not so smart. It can't be called a science.
Suppose for an instant that you could prove the intelligent design movement’s concept of “irreducible complexity”. The idea is that some organisms are so complex that all of their parts are essential and thus could not have evolved, because any missing part would mean the organism couldn’t survive. So if you could prove that, you still have another major scientific problem. You can’t prove the existence, origin, or methods of the designer. (Wheew thank the faithful skeptic for that one. Better than I could do)
So you can’t prove the existence, origin, or methods of the designer. Well but that would be right for Christians because “…faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” Hebrews 11:1
It's not science. It's not religion. I guess I can't explaine it. I can't even fill you in as I had hoped.
To me it looks like Christianity is either watering down their belief or looking for proof of God
PS. Christians....Either way God is sooo gonna kick your asses for this one.
Signs are for unbelievers and God hates the Luke warm Christian
posted by Perdita @ 3:32 PM
3 comments
3 Comments:
I am so tired of the people who are pushing (so-called) Intelligent Design. I don't see anything intelligent about their cramming religion down our children's throats.
I do want to thank you for adding the link showing that Christians have usurped many previously existing holidays. It drives me nuts every time I see the signs that say "Jesus is the reason for the season."
Thanks, I enjoyed your post very much. No noun verbing over here. :-)
I keep meaning to pipe in somewhere on this whole intelligent design debate (and since my site strives so hard to focus on things on the opposite side from serious, that leaves fewer opportunities). I guess all I will say as a teaser is that I don't think that evolution and intelligent design are mutually exclusive ideas, and in fact I personally have mixed and matched them together quite satisfactorily in my own brain.
The ID camp can't seem to separate evolution as a process from the whole "monkey" thing, and evolutionizers can't seem to admit that evolution effectively explains squat about jack, even though I think it's a totally sensible theory for a process; but it's a process and not a cause or a reason.
Evolution is completely a "how" theory and ID is totally "who or what". I'm not really sure why people think it's one or the other (or both or neither), as they're really not even talking about the same thing. Evolution will never ever be able to tell you a who or what (and probably doesn't care to) and I.D. can't possibly begin to explain a how.
There's not space in a comments section to expound more on any of this, so I probably shouldn't have even started. Especially since I hate arguing. In fact, I've already tuned myself out...
That asses get kicked, burned, drowned, swallowed up in mudslides and eaten alive by cancer is obvious and the random nature of this is also obvious. ID is a belief of desperation and egotism and an attempt to retain the comfort of belief by embracing the irrational. the only way all the contradictions and absurdities go away is when you give up and admit that there are no invisible beings controlling things and that we are not the center of the universe or the pinnicle of existence. It's all vanity.
That Christianity is a pastiche of other religions is well known by anyone who has studied comparitive religions, but of course this is true in some degree of every religion. Monkey see, monkey do. . . . .
Post a Comment
<< Home