Re: [creationevolutiondebate] Re: Question for IDers
- On 30 Nov 2008 at 21:53, tykemorris wrote:
> --- In email@example.com, "Ralphkru"Talk about crocodile tears! If the NCSE had even a FRACTION of the
> <ralphkru@...> wrote:
> > [Ralph] Let us consider, for the sake of argument, that there may
> > some sort of intelligence, or even an intelligent designer, at
> > within biological entities. If such a thing does exist, then it
> > part and parcel of natural biology and, of course, it would have
> > effect on evolutionary theory. The Darwinian theory would have to
> be > re-worked to include this element. Much work would need to be
> done to > answer a number of questions about the nature and scope of
> this > intelligence. It would be an exciting time to be a
> Tyke: I completely agree with all of this (except I would say
> Darwinism is replaced, not reworked) and I like your description of
> what ID science is about. It is exciting when dogmatic paradigms are
> exposed as failed and revolutionary new ideas and findings arise.
> Ralph: >> However, at the end of it all, we would still have
> evolution as a > naturally occurring event. The existence of an
> intelligence, or even > an intelligent designer, would not supplant
> evolution; it would be > subsumed into general evolutionary
> Tyke: Completely agree.
> Ralph: >> So, my question is: what is the payback for IDers?
> Certainly, they could say "we told you so", but this seems a goal
> really commensurate with the effort being expended. Are they
> motivated by a pure and unsullied love of truth? If so, huzzah, but
> why make the scientific acceptance of their idea more difficult by
> not using established scientific methods to make their point? I'm
> just curious.
> Tyke: We use established mehodology as funding allows, but there is
> going to need to be a reversal of some heavy PR moves made against us
> by well-funded organizations such as the anti-science NCSE. Plus
funding available to anti-evolutionist propaganda mills they would
probably all become believers in the power of prayer!
> until you get in the door in academia, it is always an uphill battleYouu do a very good job of making people "not like you" without any
> to get funding. So far, the effort being expended has been exceeded
> by an entrenched minority fighting hard to make people not "like" us
> very much. You might ask what motivates them to stifle any branch of
> science. Hey, if the Darwinists are right they'd have nothing to
help from mainstream science. You do it by engaging in mendacity and
by uttering LIES, clearly DESIGNED to deceive the ignorant for
>Uh, this is somewhat mendacious, since the whole ID argument was
> If you are insinuating that some Creationists promote ID or random
> accident theory in an attempt to spread their religion, I would say It
> that does happen, but those people soon expose their true agenda and
> are not indicative of mainstream ID. True ID is not exactly palatable
> to the religious set, although it proves intelligent guidance.
basically created in order to attempt an end run around the US
constitution's prohibition of an established religious teaching. Any
other construction put upon the history of the "movement" is clearly
mendacious and DESIGNED to cover up the underlying intent.
>Then consider the ORIGINAL doctrine of creationism--the one still
> I can only speak for myself. Personally, I just can not accept
> believing in something without reason to believe it, and I want to
> know the truth about what caused me to exist. Why I feel the need to
taught in orthodox Christianity. It teaches that GOD creates a new
soul for each sentient being, according to its nature.
> delve into this I probably can't put into words, but I can think of noWhen you actually have evidence of special miracles punctuating the
> more intriguing exploration of scientific investigation than what
> caused us to be. Also, as a lover of science, I hate the fact that the
> Materialists have highjacked science and turned it into something it
> was never meant to be, by presuming a pre-determined answer and
> refusing to bend when the evidence refutes their beliefs.
natural history of biological life, you may find scientists less
disdainful. But when all you offer is essentially an elaborate
argurment from personal incredulity, coupled with a lot of mendacious
attacks on straight-up science, they tend to get testy. And whining
about that is not helping your case.
> I would ask your question of those on this board who advocate teachingWhat I don't want is your fallacious and mendacious "evidence" to be
> schoolkids misinformation that they KNOW isn't true. I would ask why
> they say the evidence shows one thing, but they believe another. I
> would ask why anyone would NOT want to know what caused them to exist.
presented as FACT. Maybe it's because my religion teaches me that
false witness is a SIN...
> > Tyke: Oops. Isn't it RANDOM CREATION first and THEN selection?Tin: Not in the case of poker Tyke.
In the case of poker, you have it EXACTLY assbackwards.
How do you manage to get so much so wrong ?
At least you have *a* talent. <giggle>