We know intelligent design is religious creationism dressed up in lab coat with black horn rimmed glasses and a fake beard in an attempt to appear as “science” in a vain attempt to circumvent the Constitution and push their religious indoctrination into the public schools.
We have the transcripts from the Dover Trial where the revealed truth of ID’s religious subterfuge was put on display. The Wedge Document has not been forgotten nor Discovery Institutes continued attempts to infiltrate public schools with religious creationism.
The OP is nothing more than a shill for Discovery Institute and this submission is yet another attempt to further the wedge strategy.
Intelligent design is religious creationism regardless of the cdesign proponentsists protests to the contrary.
We learn from it that AZPaul3 does not like the ID folks; he thinks their motives are creepy.
Your motives are not creepy but are a lie, a subterfuge, a cover behind which you work to undermine the rule of law in this country.
At least vocal creationists are honest, open, upfront with their desire to once again have their version of their god with their version of righteousness rule all of American society as they once did.
Your stance is pure charlatanism.
Even if AZPaul3 is hopeless, I trust that some others will respond ( as some have) with logic and evidence.
You and yours have already presented your evidence at Dover and in the Wedge document.
Science, as well, has seen your logic and your evidence and all of it has been rejected many hundreds of times in the last few decades.
You carry your history with you in everything you say. That history is one of fakery, misdirection, and its rejection by science.
Squeal all you want about how illogical your opponents are on this subject.
You are not the first and will not be the last DI shill to fake the non-religious nature of, and the religious goals of, ID.
I have no problem with you and others discussing the faulty logic of the cdesign proponentsists yet once again. You can start by showing us the exact model, the equation, for determining specified complexity.
Have at it.
Just so everyone understands that your position is not one of honesty but is, in truth, religious creationism with a mask.
What bothers me most is accusing them of "hiding" the truth.
Creationism: God done it so you can't teach anything else.
Federal Court: Separation of church and state. Get out of my court.
Creation Science: OK, God done it but in a scientific way so we fit in the science class.
Federal Court: Separation of church and state. Get out of my court.
Cdesign proponentsists: OK, OK, how bout this. The Designer (who ever that is) done it and ... uh ... He done it with science, kinda.
We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.
For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child. (page 24)
A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity. (page 26)
The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. (page 31)
--Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005)
Intelligent Design is a hidden god-centered creationism.
Such lack of knowledge would appear to an open-minded investigator not as disproof of the hypothesis, however, but as an opportunity for further research.
Then do that research. You have an entire "Institute" supposedly dedicated to doing just this sort of thing.
I’m thinking you are new to the Intelligent Design movement. You seem not to know that ID has been around a while. When first begun after creationism’s disaster in Edwards v. Aguillard they came up with lots of sciencey sounding hypotheses from specified complexity and irreducible complexity to the tautologies of a fine-tuned universe and the weak anthropic principle.
All of these were seen by the scientific community (yes, peer reviewed) and, in each and every case, these hypotheses were cast down.
Now you come in here complaining that your favorite pseudo-science is not given the respect you think it deserves. ID has already received its due review and has been rejected. No one is going to waste their valuable scientific talents on already reviewed and rejected junk science. That is what the Discovery Institute is for.
I asked you to show us the model, the actual equation, for determining, in the strict rigid way real science requires, the attributes of specified complexity. You probably did not even know that there actually was such a thing. See Specified Complexity.
“Dumbski” himself put it out there but when he went to apply it to his favorite flagellum of E. coli he failed. He could not calculate the specified complexity of the flagellum mechanism and was left to insisting in his prose, not from his formula, that the answer was *huge* and thus the mechanism was designed.
All of ID has been the same kind of fumble bumbling around whenever they were required to show their science in any open revealing way.
As a science, Intelligent Design is a disaster of its own making.
Unless you have something new to present to us, some new hypothesis for the community to inspect and assess, if all you have left is bitching about how unappreciated ID is as a science, then I suggest you go read your bible. It is the only consolation you are going to get.
quote:Aug 23, 2019 - Spend time with someone you love today, Pisces, but keep things light and easy. Don't go too deep, and don't expect others to necessarily feel the things you feel. You might feel slighted when others don't give you the attention that you think you deserve. Don't take it personally. Others may be unfocused and short of attention. Don't expect any major commitments or deep conversations right now.
Hmm ... keep things light and easy. Don't go too deep...
Well, I guess today's not the right day to answer this, RAZD. Maybe tomorrow.
ID is the poster child for pseudoscience. And all your religious butt hurt cannot change that.
You think it is worse than astrology?
quote:AUG 24, 2019 - You've been so absorbed by your own life lately that some of your friends may be wondering whether something is wrong with you. There's no law against having your head in the clouds once in a while, but be sure not to leave the people you care about in the lurch. Make sure you follow through on an upcoming social commitment—it will give you a chance to show them that you're doing fine and you're just as eager to hang out with them as ever.
Hmm ... can't leave you in the lurch, I do have the social commitment to answer, yeah this is good. I can answer today.