INTELLIGENT DESIGN: An Engineer’s Approach

I believe the insult is Dawkins and other Darwinians willfull ignorance of the creationists and the ID movement.Edited by Charley, : No reason given.Edited by Charley, : No reason given.

---

KJV Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

What, are you joking? More often than not, the creationist of the day around here knows so little about their own creationist arguments, and is so incompetent at delivering them, that the evolutionists have to deliver their arguments for them before they can be refuted. The proof of this, of course, is Answers in Genesis's infamous "Creationists arguments that you should stop using already" list, which details creationist arguments so stupid or easily refuted that they're an embarrasment to the movement as a whole.The ignorance of creationists and evolutionists in regards to their opponents arguments is not symmetric. Creationists are universally even more ignorant of evolutionary biology than they are of creationism, and considering that they can't even seem to agree amongst themselves which arguments should be used, that's pretty ignorant.If you don't believe me, there's about a dozen threads here where evolutionists take on the role of creationists, and it's always a dead-on impersonation of the arguments. Of course, creationists don't know enough to supply the arguments of evolution, even in parody.

I think some people take it as an insult because they are also ignorant concerning the meaning of the word "ignorant".

quote:

---

The "pro-science" crowd is afraid that teaching Intelligent Design will result in final exams of reciting "Hail Marys" for graduation.

​

Maybe their afraid that if Darwinian orthodoxy doesn't keep every other opinion out they'll be passing the offering plate and singing hymns in the cafeteria by lunch time.

---

Imagine that you spend your life studying evolution and how it works. You have personal research experience reconfirming the existence of evolutionary principles. You spend night and day considering all the implications of your study from every concievable angle. You know evolution is true because you have personally shown that it happens. And then, some guy comes along and tells you that your research is wrong. Not that he has studied your subject directly, but he knows you're wrong. And although he might not say it, the main reason is because some thousand or so year-old unrelated book says that your research is wrong. Do you honestly think it is fear that prevents you from excluding this man's views from your classrooms? The only thing you are afraid of is his IGNORANCE affecting your students.

Since the creationists and the IDers agree that micro-evolution (natural selection) trumps macro-evolution they are not ignorant of evolution. They are not willfully ignorant of the evidence of evolution but simply following where the evidence leads.They are scientists thus basing their belief on the evidence in the natural that macro-evolution is not evident in the natural. The evolutionist's like Dawkins say they are insane to believe the evidence. This all makes one wonder if Dawkins is simply being willfully ignorant of the evidence.

Since you (Or anybody else that I`m aware of in these fora) have not presented a workable definition of what macro/micro-evolution is (and the difference between them), your post might as well haVe been written like this:

An example of what trumps macro-evolution is that there are no different kinds of wings today from those found in the fossil record.This is the kind of evidence that Dawkins and Darwinians are willfully ignorant.This kind of evidence does not support macro-evolution in respect to the origin of the species.Edited by Charley, : No reason given.

Let us pray.To get this thread back on topic, is it sufficient to ask what ignorance on either side has to do with an engineering approach to intelligent design?

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

You seem to think that things that have evolved should not be represented in the fossil record.You are wrong. Oh, don't be silly. Any fact that you know about science is certainly known to scientists. Yes it does: it is what we expect to see. A creature without possible ancestry in the fossil record would be a problem.---Sorry, back to the engineering.

Scientists (I said SCIENTISTS) are use to having long held notions one day challenged. Science knowledge can advance in just that fashion.Michael Behe for example is not just "some guy" but a scientist. And when his challenge to macro evolution theory based on molecular biology that was not available to Darwin comes out, it should be considered and taught.Instead some zeolots hoot it down. You see some Darwinists have to convince themselves that it is impossible for scientific curiosity to question Darwinian macro evolution. They have to pursuade themselves that all such challengers have only religious motivations in mind. There are challenges to Darwinists that I have read which contain no quotations from the Bible. These are the ones which some Darwinists must convince themselves either do not exist or are secretive religiously motivated.I agree that there are for some of us theological by products to accepting macro evolution or rejecting it. But good science would allow competent competing theories to be taught.Are they afraid that kids will think for themselves and decide that there are indeed holes in Darwin's theory? Seems like some parental groups are scared to let challenges to Darwinian theory be examined by their children.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

We have proof of Evolution. My carrot plant grew from one inch to two inches over the last two weeks. See! How can anyone say Evolution does not take place?The finches had short beaks when food was plentiful. Then as food became scarce they gradually all developed long beaks. See! Evolution takes place.Of course the beaks go from long back to short back to long back to short back to long - back and forth. Still that proves that all life evolved from an original one celled animal.I think if we just broadly define Evolution as change we might be able to dupe the public to believe that all change in living things is proof of Evolution. That way the ape to man paradigm is safe at least in the subconscience of the public for the foreseeable future.Hey, there's big money out there for papers proving Evolution. There's the prestige of National Geographic Magazine and PBS specials. There's grants and scholarships. Who wants to be a starving scientist publishing papers on problems with Darwin's Evolution?There's income. There's money into my pocket. That's the "Natural Selection" that really matters around here.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I knew him, Horatio!Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous digressions. Or to take arms against a sea of diversions, and by opposing end them?My Shakespeare gets worse - don't make me do it!

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

That is not evolution. That is evolution. Of course, no-one claims that such observations are sufficient evidence for common descent.However, fundies love to pretend that this claim has been made. I think that if you lie about the definition of evolution, you might indeed dupe a segment of the public, i.e. creationists. Someone has been pulling your leg. Is William Dembski starving? Michael Behe? We could have a whip round to buy them food. Was Michael Denton starved out of his position, or did he just change his mind? I think we should be told. Ah, I see you've decided why scientists disagree with you about science. They're all corrupt. This discovery has also been made by people who can overturn the law of gravity, square the circle, and build a perpetual motion machine if only they had enough funding.

It should not be taught if, in the stage where it's "considered", it's found to be junk. No, of course not. it is not necessary either to "convince myself" that "either [Behe's arguments] do not exist or are secretive religiously motivated" in order to see that they're wrong. My emphasis. I think the point is more that school time, and children's minds, shouldn't be wasted on rubbish, by teachers who, if they're competent, would know that they're teaching rubbish.But of course, that's only my opinion of what my opinion is. You may prefer to make something up.

I think the only one who can bring this back on topic is the creator limbosis, since he offered such a unique viewpoint. Maybe since we got some creationists here, we can ask for their viewpoints, assuming they have read this thread.Question: What do you think of the argument that a designer exists, but that the evidence in his products of creation points to an evil, incompetent, and stupid creator? Is this also a misinterpretation of the evidence? Or are we ignoring aspects of the design debate?