marc9000 writes:
Anyone who is the slightest bit religious, anyone but the most militant of atheists, should show some interest, however slight, in Intelligent Design.
Since you believe deists are just atheists by another name, this deist/atheist is so interested in intelligent design that he dedicated an entire forum of his discussion board to it.
What that seems to have resulted in is an attractive looking place for atheists to shout down Intelligent Design, and give each other more and more ideas in how to further shout it down in places other than just these forums. If it was your attempt to genuinely search for new knowledge about Intelligent Design, and how it may fit with your religion, I don’t think it worked out very well for you. A quick glance through that forum showed me one of your messages on it, a complete dismissal of ID.
Your messages are full of statements that reflect extreme unfamiliarity with the very people you're debating with. Your opinions never seem influenced by your experience, or even the dictionary for that matter.
I never did have all that much trust for evolution proponents, and my experiences on forums like these, as well as books and internet reading, have caused my trust to go down even lower. You seem to be mistaking my mistrust with unfamiliarity. Im not alone, many other creationists experience less and less trust of evolutionists once they learn more about just what's going on in the politics of science. It’s the reason they're more likely to label some theistic evolutionists as atheists, and it's my best attempt to answer the questions you posed in your opening messages of this thread.
___________________
Science doesn't reject the concept of intelligent design. It rejects claims that intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory supported by a broad body of evidence that deserves more serious consideration by scientists and should even be taught as accepted theory in public school science classrooms.
So Science doesn't at all reject its concept, it just rejects that it's a legitimate theory? Sounds like a dance to me, does nothing to garner an increased trust in me. Here is a list at Wikipedia;
LIST OF SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES EXPLICITLY REJECTING INTELLIGENT DESIGN
Notice how the title, or the list, do nothing to distinguish between a concept, or a theory. They all reject it, period. And there’s no indication that anything that ID proponents ever do is going to change it. Because atheists don’t believe in the possibility of designers other than humans, and atheists control science. (there is evidence for it)
Any hostility you might feel is not directed at the concept of intelligent design but at the exaggerated claims of its legitimacy as an accepted scientific theory.
So you believe atheists aren’t opposed to the
concept? Another important question, the second one. No. 1 has thus far gone unanswered. (repeated below)
Since you have stated many times that science is hostile to intelligent design, and since this misunderstanding has been corrected many times, could we finally reach a resolution on this?
Corrected??
Do you now understand that science is not hostile to the concept of intelligent design? Can we hope to have seen the last of this claim, at least from you?
Only after you and I do a great debate on it. You provide evidence that science is not hostile to the concept of Intelligent Design, and I'll provide evidence that it is, and we’ll see how they compare. Shouldn't take long.
______________________
This post [message 303]has received a POTM nomination from Minnemooseus and a 2nd from NoNukes, but what I see is a message where almost every sentence contains something that is either wrong or misunderstood, much of it about things that Marc has been wrong about in the past and already been corrected multiple times, and the comments about Bryan Rehm are just the same despicable Christian bigotry Marc has been spouting since he joined. Perhaps Moose and NN, who haven't yet participated in this thread, can chime in here and help Marc defend that post.
Here's another idea, you could attempt to refute that post. Please address the bigotry in these paragraphs;
quote:
Also, creationists are aware that conflicts, such as the creation/evolution conflict, are almost always a disagreement between TWO opposing forces. It’s a rare conflict that has three or more equally opposing forces. I've never seen the creation/evolution controversy labeled as the creation/deist/evolution controversy, for example.
In the rare conflicts that do involve three or more, I can’t imagine any that have two extremes, along with one or more central ones that don’t heavily favor one extreme or the other. We all know which side Deism and/or theistic evolution favors.
And this one;
quote:
It would be interesting to know if his teachings in school are compatible with his teachings in Bible class, or if he teaches conflicting things depending on where he is.
And this one, from message 304;
quote:
What is the difference in the beliefs of how the world works, between a Deist and an Atheist? Why is it important for Deists to (in one way) separate themselves from atheists? If you’re really looking for understanding in how creationists think, I think that's an important question for you to answer.
(important question No. 1)
Minnemooseus showed the POTM (whatever that means) for all three of my messages there, 303, 304, and 305, which I appreciate of course. I suspect, and he somewhat confirmed, that this statement of mine is one of the main sources of his approval;
quote:
I’m not bumping this thread to attempt to sway anyone’s worldview, or start a flame war. I’m just going to try to better help you understand why the creationists at Dover, and sometimes forums like these, react to all evolutionists the way they do. It’s a logical reaction.
And he probably suspected that I'm not going to feed the trolls. If any of them have asked me something that you think to be an on-topic question, repeat that question and I’ll answer it.
™ Version 4.2
