Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Science and Technology » Intelligent Design? Don’t Make Me Laugh.

Intelligent Design? Don’t Make Me Laugh.

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Let me get this straight. The purveyors of Intelligent Design argue that evolution can’t account for the incredibly complexity of life–ergo (Latin for duh) there has to be some intelligence (religious twinkie code word for God) that designed life.

Well, if that’s true, that intelligence certainly didn’t design anyone I know. Let’s look at how well we’re designed.

–The second I turned 40, I had to go out and get reading glasses. Then I needed mid-range glasses so I could see my computer screen. What, he couldn’t design an eye that didn’t weare out before the rest of me?

–Talk about design flaws, there’s this little valve between your esophagus and your stomach. If it doesn’t work right, stomach acid backs up into your esophagus. It’s called acid reflux. Should this happen when you’re sleeping, you’ll swear some vampire hunter mistook you for Dracula’s spawn and drove a stake into your heart. Nice work, Mr. Intelligent Designer.

–And advanced planning? Forgetaboutit. First you put all this good stuff on the earth like chocolate, whipped cream, hamburgers, onion rings, french fries, Oreos, HoHos, Irish whiskey, cognac and armagnac–and then we find that we’re supposed to steal food from rabbits if we want to live long and prosper. Nice gesture. The intelligent designer has a vicious sense of humor.

–Speaking of intelligence, Mr. I.D. creates human brains with the capacity to develop extraordinary technological achievements such as the atom bomb, napalm, plastic explosives, cop-killing bullets, global warming, holes in the ozone layer…but without the maturity and wisdom to control those technologies or use technology for some silly ass liberal program such as feeding and housing and teaching the poor.

Those of you who want to promote Intelligent Design have to do more than argue complexity–you have to explain why God (let’s call a rock a stone, shall we?) was such a lousy designer. I mean, I didn’t even mention baldness.

And just to rub salt in the gaping wounds of this idiotic theory, check out the latest news from a story in Monday, September 26th Washington Post that describes powerful evidence supporting the theory of evolution. Theories have to predict things that are testable. (Something for which we’re still waiting from the I.D. folks.)

“If Darwin was right, for example, then scientists should be able to perform a neat trick. Using a mathematical formula that emerges from evolutionary theory, they should be able to predict the number of harmful mutations in chimpanzee DNA by knowing the number of mutations in a different species’ DNA and the two animals’ population sizes.

“‘That’s a very specific prediction,’ said Eric Lander, a geneticist at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard in Cambridge, Mass., and a leader in the chimp project.

“Sure enough, when Lander and his colleagues tallied the harmful mutations in the chimp genome, the number fit perfectly into the range that evolutionary theory had predicted.

“Their analysis was just the latest of many in such disparate fields as genetics, biochemistry, geology and paleontology that in recent years have added new credence to the central tenet of evolutionary theory: That a smidgeon of cells 3.5 billion years ago could — through mechanisms no more extraordinary than random mutation and natural selection — give rise to the astonishing tapestry of biological diversity that today thrives on Earth.

I know there are serious, well-meaning people who believe that evolution represents a threat to religion. I know they’re afraid of our becoming a secular society rejecting Christianity to bow before the icon of Charles Darwin. I know they want the U.S. to be a Christian nation (in complete violation of the wishes of the founding fathers.)

Evolution is only a threat to religion if you’re still holding on to Bishop Ussher’s bizarre declaration that the world was created about 4,000 years ago (I forget the exact day and time, but he figured it out.)

Actually, it’s the I.D. fanatics that are the greatest threat to religion. Come to think of it, the I.D. fanatics are the best evidence that Intelligent Design couldn’t possibly be true.

Powered by

About Mark Schannon

Retired crisis & risk manager/communications expert; extensive public relations experience in most areas over 30 years. Still available for extraordinary opportunities of mind-numbing complexity. Life-long liberal agnostic...or is that agnostic liberal.
  • Baronius

    The ID crowd doesn’t seek to explain God, nor use ID to support the Bible. Testable predictions based on evolutionary theory don’t always work out – for example, the fossil gap – so ID presents an alternate theory. Or, as I’ve argued on these boards, it declares the absence of a sufficent theory of evolution.

    More importantly, you’re sitting too close to your computer screen.

  • The Searcher

    What testable predictions does ID offer?

  • D-Nice

    Everything that you just mouth off about was not congregated by God. He did not make Oreos and Hamburgers and Onion rings etc. Those are just products that man put together from resources that God made available.

  • JR

    The Fossil Gap is a desperate problem – recent finds in the Liaoning Province have given the Chinese a huge lead on us. Drastic action must be taken if we are to compete.

  • nulldevice

    You know, whether or not ID is true (I don’t beleive it is, but that’s beside the point for the moment) it’s not particularly useful.

    So. Life was designed. Great. That helps us further scientific knowledge how? Does this mean we stop inquiring as to why new disease virus strains form, and instead wait for a designer to come along and take care of it for us? Does it explain what the appendix is for (“well, it’s designed there” doesn’t tell you much)?

    No. It doesn’t. I know the ID camp likes to differentiate between “macro” and “micro” evolution to answer these sorts of questions but that’s just arguing semantics. If you have to separate evolution into different “kinds” then your understanding of evolutionary theory isn’t accurate, and it’s still at the core a non-predictive, non-testable assertion. Even if it’s right.

    Behe likes to make the mount rushmore analogy a lot – if we saw mount rushmore, we’d know it had to be designed. Well, we’d know that intuitively. But we couldn’t prove it without data. Just saying “well, it looks like a face” isn’t sufficient proof. I’ve found a potato that looks kinda like Ben Affleck, but that’s not sufficient evidence for me to say “well, Ben Affleck obviously designed this potato.” Unless I can show that Ben Affleck was sneaking into my garden, maybe by finding his footprints, some lost stubble or developing a workable mathematical model for Ben’s DNA to quantum tunnel into my potato patch, it’s conjecture, not scientific theory. Similarly, I can conjecture that Mount Rushmore was designed by very skilled stonecutters, but without evidnece, it’s again just conjecture regardless of how self-evident it seems.

    Basically, ID could be entirely right – God or Aliens or Ra or Leprechauns orwhatever may very well have designed all life on earth, and they may also have done things like creating male-pattern-baldness or Kenny Loggins just to mess with us. But we can’t know, short of said deisgner appearing and telling us so, and as a theory it doesn’t lead to the advance of any knowledge other than itself.

  • The Searcher

    Nulldevice: well written! Ultimately, doesn’t it just make us feel good to know that we’re not pointless?

  • http://parodieslost.typepad.com Mark Schannon

    Baronius, once more into the breach, dear foe.

    Of course some predictions don’t work out. That’s what theories are all about and how they “evolve” over time. There are some predictions from super-string theory that are about to be tested & if they fail, the entire theory has to be rethought. That’s science.

    What’s important about evolution is that many predictions have been proven.

    (I’m sitting too close to the computer screen?….I tried backing up & fell off my chair.)

    D-Nice, God didn’t make Oreos? Hah. Nothing that perfect could be made by man. But an omniscient God would have seen that man would create all the other things I listed and not do such a lousy job with our digestive system and metabolism.

    JR, I’m not sure what you mean by “desperate.” A gap, sure. The same kind of hole that Einstein plugged with his “cosmological constant,” which he later called the worst mistake of his career. Of course, today, many physicists believe he might have been right. That’s science.

    Also echo, good post Null Device.

    I have to keep repeating. People use the word “theory” in two ways. Scientists mean a testable series of propositions that explain a phenomenon. In ordinary language, we use it to mean, an idea or suggestion.

    I echo The Searcher–what testable propositions has ID proposed? (Hmmm…deafening silence out there.)

    In Jamesons Veritas

  • troll

    I don’t understand why proponents of ID see neo-darwinian failures as any sort of evidence for their notion – seems to me the inconsistencies and unanswered questions simply point to some as yet undiscovered physical/biological law(s)

    but don’t knock all ID thinkers – some of them might come up with interesting mathematical formulations…’left field’ can be a creative place

    troll

  • Moses

    You have a good arguement point.

    However, do you not agree that altghough the design can be great, it may not withstand misuse. e.g. using the brain to conclude there is no God.

    I wish to add also that the human language can never give a name for something that does not exist. How come then there is a word for “God” in all human languages throughout history.

    Why ancient civilization recognized the existence of upper powers and we can not see this in the 21st century?

    Thanx!

  • The Searcher

    Moses: “the human language can never give a name for something that does not exist”

    Are you a cunning linguist?

  • http://www.2001principle.net/gscv.htm Frankie

    Just read about Gerald Schroeder, PHDx2, Earth and Planetary Sciences from MIT and professor at MIT.
    http://www.2001principle.net/gscv.htm

    And don’t forget…
    http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/flew-interview.pdf
    Dr. Anthony Flew. After 65 years of professed athiesm and being a champion debater opposed to theism, Anthony Flew now finds that Intelligent Design best explains the creation of life.

    Regards,
    Frankie

  • The Searcher

    Appeal to authority?

    Ted Kaczinski is a brilliant and well-educated man with a PhD. May I mail you a package outlining his beliefs?

  • http://parodieslost.typepad.com Mark Schannon

    Moses, sorry, but we give names to lots of things that don’t exist.

    (By the way, if you’re really Moses, I have a question. I have it on good authority that God gave you 20 commandments on 4 tablets, but they were too heavy & you dropped 2. Truth or Fiction? Inquiring minds want to know. I’m working on reconstructing the lost 10 Commandments.)

    Consider Pink elephants, unicorns, dragons, a three-sided square, delusions, the 19th century concept of ether (not the gas, the stuff that filled in empty space in the universe.) Of course we can give names to things that can’t exist as long as we can imagine them.

    We can’t give names to things we can’t imagine, but that’s tautological. You ain’t gonna get to God that way.

    Frankie, I will check out those sites at some point but you make a critical point we always seem to gloss over in these discussions.

    ID may try to explain the creation of life, which is fine. As Gonzo would say (and where the hell are you Gonzo???), that’s metaphysics and perfectly legitimate for study.

    Evolution doesn’t seek to explain the creation of life but the process by which life evolves.

    In that sense, ID & evolution are in completely different realms–there’s no contradiction. In fact, there’s no point to the discussion…but I’m sure we’ll keep at it.

    In Jamesons Veritas

    (When the heck are the Jamesons’ people going to see my posts and send me a free case for all this publicity???)

  • http://parodieslost.typepad.com Mark Schannon

    Searcher–now now, one needs to examine the authority before one labels him or her a lunatic.

    Well, one should examine the authority.

    Ah, the hell with it. Go for it.

    In Jamesons Veritas

  • JR

    Those of you who want to promote Intelligent Design have to do more than argue complexity–you have to explain why God (let’s call a rock a stone, shall we?) was such a lousy designer.

    That assumes we were meant to be the end product of God’s design.

    However, genetically modern humans appeared ca. 50,000 years ago, yet the world did not end; therefore humans must not have been the goal.

    Civilization was established ca. 4000 years ago, yet the world did not end; therefore civilization was not the goal.

    Modern democracy appeared ca. 200 years ago, yet the world did not end; therefore democracy was not the goal.

    Socialism appeared ca. 100 years ago, yet the world did not end; therefore socialism not the goal (although you could be forgiven for thinking so after reading the words of one J. Christ.)

    My guess?

    Reasonably priced, mass-produced flat-screen TV’s – that was what the designer was trying to achieve. By my reckoning, in about 18 months when flat-screen TV’s drop below $500, the world will end.

  • http://parodieslost.typepad.com Mark Schannon

    By George, JR, I think you’ve got it.

    Hmmm. 18 months left. The hell with this posting shit. Where’s my Jamesons?

    (Thanks for the tip.)

    In Jamesons Veritas.

  • Mary

    Wow…I must say you are pretty clever. You used humor in your article to make people think that the idea of Intellegent design is crap. First of all baldness is your problem buddy. Oh, and there is something called ‘Just For Men’ Maybe you should try it out sometime? Oh and it’s pretty obvious that God, or the “intellegent Designer,” didn’t make chocolate or whipped cream..” But I guess that was just another one of you tactics in trying to making intellegent design sound stupid. Wow. I’m fifteen and I can see straight through your article!! That’s pretty sad! Also you should take into consideration the idea that those who believe in Intellegent Design don’t necessarily believe in God or the Bible. Considering the complexity of the human body,(and the fact that evolution doesn’t even make sense), is usually the exact reason why scientists and people don’t believe in evolution. Those who have responded to your article have heard you out and your ideas on evolution. I hope you do the same with intellegent design even though you obviously disagree. Also in this article you discuss all of your physical flaws. Well, if you’re thinking that God designed you and you have flaws, so be it. In Genisis God didn’t say that the human body was perfect! He said it was good. There are even those who were lame and blind in the Bible. Also, I don’t think you could make a human being from the dust of the ground. Based off of that idea I would call anyone that could an Intellegent Designer.
    P.S. I have this book and I’m no idiot.

  • http://parodieslost.typepad.com Mark Schannon

    Mary, it doesn’t take a genius to see through my post–all of mine rely on humor & satire to make a point. (Actually I was too lazy to go back and find the list of fairly serious design flaws in the human body that scientists have described to question ID.)

    More important, self-deprecating humor is my way of trying to create an environment in which people can share ideas without being attacked.

    You sound pretty intelligent for a 15 year old, but you need to be careful about broad statements such as “evolution doesn’t even make sense.” Evolution–as a scientific theory–makes enormous sense. That it still can’t explain everything shouldn’t be a surprise.

    Would you say that quantum physics makes no sense? (Actually, Nels Bohr, one of the founders said, “If you think you understand quantum physics, you don’t”–but that’s besides the point.)

    The point is that “scientific” theories, such as evolution and quantum mechanics offer testable hypotheses, they describe how the world works in ways we can affirm or dispute. That’s how theories change and grow and more accurately describe our world.

    This is my third post on evolution and ID. We evolutionists have been begging the ID folks for some testable hypotheses offered by ID–to no avail.

    I’m beginning to think that we’re talking about two different things, as I noted above. ID talks about “creation,” which evolutionary theory doesn’t touch. Evolution examines how change occurs once creation occurs.

    The former is metaphysics, and as a former grad student in philsophy, I love metaphysical discussions. The latter is science. And never the twain shall meet.

    However, I am curious. If God isn’t the designer, then who do you think is?

    You’re too young…but remember when you hit the right age…

    In Jamesons Veritas

  • Will Clark

    Bottom line is this. Intelligent Design is not a theory and is not science. For those of you who think it is either or both, you need to go back to high school and pay attention this time ! That is the final, bottom line.

  • nugget

    What most people posting in these threads don’t realize is a very simple philosophical truth about the absence of the supposed dichotomy that is evolution and ID.

    Thinking people of faith will agree that creationism is entirely compatible with evolution. ID doesn’t describe this truth. Niether does evolution.

    People: They are compatible. There is no argument. You’re ALL wasting your time.

  • nugget

    In other words, just because something is TRUE physically and can be proven by science doesn’t make it suddenly unable to have been created.

    SIMPLE. Whatever scientists prove, I can accept as physical truth.

  • nugget

    furthermore, and this is for those who BELIEVE in the afterlife of eternal oblivion, will you elucidate the physical rules and parameters that govern unconsciousness?

  • http://www.evolvedself.com Shaun Johnston

    I support intelligent design in evolution, that does not involve a god.

    I think evolutionists are misguided to claim natural selection is the source of all variation and speciation. That is an unproveable claim until you have full knowledge and can rule out other possible mechanisms. That is not yet so. I think evolutionists should stick to defending the process of evolution, but leave the matter of mechanism open.

    1. Take Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas. They have evolved to support speech since speech appeared (50,000 years ago?)in a species population of average 5 million in around 3000 generations. That seems too few of everything to me for natural selection to accomplish such a major rearrangement of brain structure.

    2. Our intelligence is so extensive yet appears so swiftly, I assume that intelligence has all along been incorporated in animals, though not as brain function. The genome has been evolving for at least 10 times as long as brains, and I believe it has in the course of its evolution developed huge intelligence. In late mammals I suppose it began investing some of that intelligence in brain function, particularly generously in us. The intelligence of the genome has been involved all along in its own evolution, I believe. Thus intelligent design is the primary mechanisms of evolution. Natural selection is no more than a subsidiary mechanism that is detectable with current technology.

    If my idea were to be accepted as possible, would it be even theoretically possible to prove that natural selection was the only mechanism? I don’t think that can be scientifically proved. I think evolutionists are unwisely narrowing down the range of possibilities in their field out of a misguided fear of theocracy.

  • nugget

    yes shaun, but you’re missing the point. the philosophy of ID does not exist without a creator.

    What you’re talking about is some bigger, more complicated, specialized version of evolution. Simply, another physical argument.

  • cr33py

    nugget – maybe evolution is “some bigger, more complicated, specialized version of evolution”

    we have started to genetically engineer everything….

    in a million years they my call us the “designer” or “god”, and they may not be “human”…

  • Baronius

    I hate to belabour the point, but has anyone, anywhere, ever seen a potato that doesn’t look like Ben Affleck?

  • http://www.magicpictureframe.com michael s. class

    Who wrote the following words describing the evolution of life on earth, and life’s beginning with the breath of God?

    “It is interesting to contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent upon each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. … There is grandeur in this view of life, HAVING BEEN ORIGINALLY BREATHED BY THE CREATOR INTO A FEW FORMS OR INTO ONE; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.”

    Just imagine — God creates life and places it on the earth in a few forms, and then that life evolves according to the physical and natural laws that God put into place in the universe.

    So, who wrote those words?

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .
    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    The words are from:
    ————————

    On the Origin of the Species
    By Charles Darwin

    (Chapter XV, Recapitulation and Conclusion)

    Michael S. Class

    Author / Photographer / Publisher
    Magic Picture Frame Studio, LLC
    Web Site: http://www.MagicPictureFrame.com

    ———————–

    Anthony and the Magic Picture Frame
    Written by Michael S. Class
    Published by Magic Picture Frame Studio, LLC

    The Story of the Boy Who Traveled into the Past
    by Stepping through the Picture Frame on His Bedroom Wall

    Go here to LOOK INSIDE the book: http://www.MagicPictureFrame.com

  • nugget

    excellent post, michael.

  • nugget

    cr33py:

    perhaps. That was Aldous Huxley’s idea. Eventually, man becomes God because man doesn’t need God anymore. If an abolishment of established religion ever becomes an agenda of democracy and a consenting populace, it will be interesting to see which aspects of morality will be kept and which will be tossed.

  • Baronius

    Nulldevice raised an interesting point. There’s an assumption that ID negates science, and would prevent future scientific research. I remember someone posting that he was happy his dad had been cured of cancer before ID came along.

    Why?

    ID isn’t anti-science. It’s pointing out that the current scientific theory is insufficient. It speculates that science may not be able to answer the question of species origins. It doesn’t deny genetics, or similarities between species’ DNA. Random development may be a working assumption that’s good enough for basic genetics, much as Newtonian physics is sufficient for aerodynamics. But this idea that modern evolutionary theory is necessary for scientific development is myopic at best.

  • cr33py

    ID may have a place in scientific discussion-
    evolution explains adaptation of life in nature, it does not prove that all life on earth originated ON earth, or from a single source. Although ID does not scientifically prove the existence of a “designer”, Science has yet to disprove the existence of a(or many) “designer(s)”.

    Can we definitively say that no life on earth has ever been modified? (i hesitate to say “created”).

    As the scientific community searches for proof of life OFF earth, it would be naive to throw out the possibility of seeding, or past genetic engineering, as a possibility in “species origin” or manipulation, in whole or part.

    I think if ID is introduced into science, the designers of ID may be even more horrified by the scientific discussion that will evolve.

  • willcodfish

    No wonder our educational system has been in so much decline over the past several decades. No wonder SAT’s have been lightened up so that damm near anyone with a pulse can now get into college. Again, ID IS NOT Science – the sooner those of you who think it is become educated in the tenets of science you will be able to emerge from the mire of such staggering ignorance.

  • Baronius

    Cr33py – Sure. Given the gaps in the terran fossil record, and the similar genetic code of terran life, the Razor would suggest that Earth is periodically seeded from some other planet, one which has the age and conditions to promote evolution.

  • troll

    Must have been a misprint in some of Ockham’s editions…he recommended that we choose the simpler of two competing otherwise equivalent explanations not that we choose the simple minded one – hope that clears things up

    positing any Designer introduces(irreducible) complexity and moves away from explanatory simplicity

    the idea of a Seeder is little better though at least it remains in the realm of the physical sciences

    of course (as a troll) I disagree with Ockham…when confronted with two competing ideas choose the more mystical and mythical I say

    troll

  • Les Slater

    The Intelligent design debate is healthy. It undercuts the literal belief in the Bible. The God that comes out of this will be easier to slay.

  • The Searcher

    Troll: Eloquently and humorously stated.

  • Steve

    I am a Christian who fully accepts the value and validity of the theory of evolution. But I find your sarcastic comments regarding design flaws to be juvenile and supercilious. Only if God had created the world by some divine fiat could you fault the designer for your failing eyesight. Hey, I’m 54, wait til your prostate starts ballooning and you gotta get up to pee twice a night! Intelligent Design does not teach that God created the world the way a model shipbuilder creates model ships. This is not Paley’s external designer, but an argument that there are principles of order and design that are the condition of life and evolutionary development itself. Your main argument against ID is meaningless.

  • Nancy

    Sorry to go back this far, but – “The Chinese [have] a huge lead on us; drastic action must be taken if we are to compete.”

    Compete? With fossils? JR – this isn’t the space race, we’re talking FOSSILS here. FYI, paleontologists generally don’t ‘compete’, they share. What someone discovers in China helps US paleos just as much. And anyway, what would you suggest we do, make some & salt the badlands? Get a grip.

  • http://parodieslost.typepad.com Mark Schannon

    Steve, since I’m 57, I share your pain– or at least late night trips to the bathroom.

    However, my intentionally light tone and humor has distracted you from what underlies a serious problem with I.D.–that living things have major design flaws. As I said earlier, I was too lazy to go find all the examples of extraneous body parts, poorly working body parts, etc. I’ve read, but take one simple example, the appendix.

    At one point in the development of the species, the appendix played a valuable role. Today, natural selection (evolution) has rendered it useless.

    Or the fact that our ability to create technological marvels far outstrips our ethical or emotional ability to make decisions about how/when/if to use it.

    If God is the designer, then who or what is? If it’s not God, then what was God doing? But any intelligent designer, by definition, must have powers far beyond that of mortal men so why was the design so poorly done?

    If my main arguments against ID are meaningless, it’s because those promoting it have never been able to describe what exactly it is or how we test it.

    I actually think I’ve been pretty respectful (hey, if I can make fun of myself, I can make fun of ID), calling it metaphysics rather than science, which is in no way an insult since I studied metaphysics in grad school.

    In Jamesons Veritas

  • nulldevice

    > ID isn’t anti-science. It’s pointing out that the current scientific theory is insufficient.

    Okay, so maybe it is. Most scientific theories are not complete because we don’t have 100% of all the data possible, ever. Scientists won’t argue that point. No scientist will say that the current theory of evolution is 100% concrete and explains absolutely everything. We don’t need ID to point that out, we knew that already, which is why people still study evolution, and why the current theory bears little resemblace to Darwin’s initial proposition 150 years ago.

    (Evo does do a pretty danged good job of it – it’s been predictive of new data, it sufficiently explains a lot of existing data, and the theory is testable whenever we find new data.)

    But yes, there are a few holes. The mechanisms of abiogenesis are still debated, as are certain mechanisms. ID doesn’t do anything to close these gaps, though, because it basically throws up our hands and says “well, we can’t find a physical explanation right now, so we’ll just say a wizard did it.” It closes the book on futher inquiry by introducting a non-verifiable, preternatural force as a motivator for the process. This in and of itself is entirely antithetical to science.

    Is there an intelligent designer? Maybe! Perhaps God constantly intervenes in a very physical way in biology, or perhaps extradimensional aliens built us like clockwork toys. It doesn’t matter from a sceintific standpoint because we have no way of testing it, and no way of using that idea to build new questions and models.

    In short – ID is anti-science cloaked in the language of science.

  • Baronius

    Troll – Thanks for the assist, but I think a truer reading of Occam’s Razor is that one should choose the explanation requiring the fewest additional hypotheses. Gould’s explanations for gaps in the fossil record seem to require different mechanisms than random mutation and natural selection. So I’m saying (not earnestly!) it’s simpler to assume that gradual evolution takes place, just not here.

    Nancy, I think JR was joking about the US falling behind, poking fun at the “fossil gap”.

  • Baronius

    Null – Science historically has moved in lurches as often as it’s subtly refined a theory. (Think of it as scientific punctuated equilibrium.) While I recognize the explanatory power of our current model of evolution, I also see areas of failure. I also detect the stink of orthodoxy among scientists. It may well be that the next step in learning requires a paradigm shift.

    I think scientists do need ID to tell them where the errors are, because some of the problems in modern evolutionary theory are ignored by the orthodoxy. If I may use an analogy: after his relativity theory, Einstein tried to create a unified field theory but was unsuccessful. Many people consider his adult life a failure. But he contributed immensely by studying the tiny flaws in the theories of his youth. These maddening weaknesses in post-Einstein physics contain the seeds of the next big theory.

    Ditto Evolution. If the orthodox tenured crowd won’t acknowledge all the areas of weakness in the theory, someone else has to. And a theory isn’t defended by saying it’s mostly right. Confidence in future improvements isn’t enough. The goal is truth.

  • Oliver

    I have proof for an intelligent designer. The Chinese designed the goldfish, and the Mexicans designed the chihuahua.

  • http://www.anthropic-principle.ORG island

    Unfortunately for honesty in science, I agree with Baronius, but it may very well be that the next step in learning requires a paradigm shift… backwards to a day when purpose existed in nature without god.

  • nulldevice

    Okay, I’ll grant you the slight aroma of orthodoxy, but I think that’s more a lapse in education than the actual theory. Most of the biologists I know – and that’s a fair number – will happily admit that there are unresolved issues with current evolutionary theory. And I personally take issue with the way most – not just evolutionary – scientific theory is taught in primary and secondary schools.

    (Although, frankly, if you’ve spent the past 50 years having a very workable, useful and demonstrable theory bashed with the same tired arguments you’d probably get a little snippy about the whole thing too and just want to teach it as a given and move on)

    This however does not mean that:
    1) we pitch evolution right out. Just because we have some unanswered questions doesn’t mean the theory is faulty. Our theory of gravity is full of holes, too, but that doesn’t mean things stop falling.
    2) ID is entirely a step in the wrong direction if we want a paradigm shift. Replacing an empirical system of naturalistic inquiry with a pseudo-metaphysical set of assertions will get you to an endpoint quickly – life is designed, case closed! – but the nature of science as a study is really to come up with more questions, not just answer existing ones.

    I think part of the problem lies in wording – the press is fond of talking about “the scientific community” as though it were either a condo association outside Cleveland or some sort of sinister conspiratorial organization dedicated to forwarding an immoral agenda. Really, they’re just like the rest of us, except they get to wear tshirts to work and use words like “polyploidy” and “gluon” more frequently. Some even vote Republican. They have differences of opinion on theory; I’d wager that none of them thinks any theory is orthodox or beyond question, and if you put 50 evo-devo guys in a room you’d get 50 different subtheories on mechanisms of chordation in zebrafish or something. To get them to agree that evolution is a good theory at its core and that ID is Bad Science isn’t a testament to the close-mindedness of science, it’s a triumph of a theory if that many incredibly skeptical people can be convinced of something. This sort of stuff isn’t taken lightly – it takes a LOT of data and evidence for something to gain widespread acceptance in any scientific discipline. The reason so many peopl seem so passionate about it is becasue there *is* so much evidence for it, and chucking it in favor of some vague analogies and untestable assertions seems mind-bogglingly, jaw- droppingly *wrong* on so many levels.

  • nulldevice

    Oop, that should read “ID is a step in the *right* direction”, as I forgot I was using negation in the thesis.

  • cr33py

    wiltcodfish – your attack also “is not science” and may be one reason for the growing chasm between science and religion. science rejects pretentious religion, and visa versa – and it IS education that suffers. It is true, my point is more appropriate at a cocktail party than in programmed school education….but your remark is more appropriate on the playground.

    So tell me, what would it take to determine definitively that every living thing on earth came from one source? then do it. We havent even FOUND every living thing on earth.

  • cr33py

    “Intelligent Design” is just another wonderful political move from the people that brought you “climate change”, however i think that one backfired on them.

    What i propose is that science hijacks the term “ID” and uses it for genetic manipulation….

    will we still call it evolution, when the mutation is forced by genetic scientists? will we say the “broccoflower” evolved? will we call it “designed”? ……….will we call it “intelligent”?

  • http://www.anthropic-principle.ORG island

    ‘More of a natural balance, the apopolyptic predictions of proponents of… “Global Warming” are just another wonderful political move from the ideologically motivated “free-thinkers” that brought you “The Copenhagen Interpretation”, however, I think that one backfired on them’… too.

    What makes you think that you can fool nature?

    What makes you so arrogant as to “believe” that we huaman actions can possibly be separted from those that motivate squirrils to bury nuts for the winter???… humans instinctively warm the climate in order to counterbalance the long-term global tendency toward glaciation that is predicted by Milankovitch models.

    At best, extremists on both sides represent half of reality, since their point keeps the runaway effect in check… in every case.

    I can’t imagine living my whole life with half a clue, tho…

  • http://www.anthropic-principle.ORG island

    Althoug, “apocalyptic” predictions may have been a better word… 😉

  • http://www.anthropic-principle.ORG island

    I can’t resist the next example, although I’m sorry for making example of anyone:

    will we still call it evolution, when the mutation is forced by genetic scientists? will we say the “broccoflower” evolved? will we call it “designed”? ……….will we call it “intelligent”?

    Yeah, if we “intend” to create broccoflower, then it is the intelligently designed result.

    But why would you think that you can speparate humans from nature to say that the predisposition that humans have toward “design” can be any different than the “predisposition” that pre-inclines fungi to make fairy rings… is the only real question?

  • Duane

    Mark (#39): If it’s not God, then what was God doing?

    Ha. That’s an excellent question. I never thought of that. Did God subcontract to the lowest bidder?

    Baronius (#42): Yes, Einstein did search for a unified theory. He was a physicist who spotted shortcomings in physical theories, and, using physics, tried to develop a new physical theory. He did not give up and say, “Well, it must be God or some superalien because I don’t understand this.” That’s where your analogy breaks down. Einstein and the rest of the physics community did not rely on the impatience of unitiated detractors to point out flaws in physical theories. How could they have pointed out anything to Einstein anyway? Physicists are the ones to find the flaws and deal with them. They do this with great enthusiasm. Simiarly, biologists are the ones to find flaws and deal with them. They don’t need to have bloggers pointing this out to them. You claim that there is an “orthodoxy” and that this is a bad thing. The program that has seen the rise and fall of orthodoxies in physics seems to be working just fine. Why do you think biology and biologists are so different?

  • http://www.anthropic-principle.ORG island

    Einstein “believed” until the day that he died that there is a higher-level methodical structuring to nature that falls out of the cosmological application of relativity.

    He was goaded into relinquishing to science in Copenhagne because he could not prove that the universe is finite, even though he did not believe that the arguments for an infinite universe were anything more than “lame” rationale.

    Evobiologists are equally “anti”-fantical, (typically), and they get it from fighting with fanatical creationists. It comes out as a knee-jerk reactionary response that comes from playing the devil’s skeptical advocate to death, and they find ways of denying the significance of any real science that accidentally gets mixed-in with creationist’s arguments.

    Goal-oriented design in nature, would be one example of science that evobiologists typically refuse to recognize simply because Behe, Dembski, et. al. use evidence for design in nature as “proof” of intelligent design.

    In other words, Creationists have them believing exactly what they want them to believe, so they’ll even go as far as to deny the existence of “design in nature” at all, much less “goal oriented” design.

    That’s what makes ID necessary.

    Purpose in nature.

  • Pat

    I think all of you are missing the real issue in question here. The ID movement isn’t saying that Evolution shouldn’t be taught. All it’s saying is that the dogmatic approach to its teachings should be reviewed and modified. ID merely says, “Hey, there seem to be some problems we that evolution doesnt explain, such as irreducible complexity. Why don’t we be candid and honest about that with our students instead of teaching evolution as the simple, undeniable truth.” If proponents of evolution continue to oppose the teaching of views other than their own, they are being hypocritical, and just as narrow-minded as those creationists who opposed the teaching of evolution in the schools years ago.

    Willcodfish- I’d be interested to know your SAT scores, and your definition of science. If it happens to be “the complete blind following of 1 person’s ideas, while disallowing the spreading of another’s,” then I believe your prior post was on track.

  • willcodfish

    PAT- I had 1480 on my SAT’s back when they meant something. I’m a MCL Electrical Engineering graduate of Penn State University and have a Masters and Ph.D. in Biomedical Engineering from USC.

    Your quote tells you and I everything we need to know. “. . . following of one person’s ideas . . . .” Two things, one – it’s not one person, two – they’re not ideas. What you just said confirms my earlier posts. Thanks for living down to all my expectations.

  • willcodfish

    CR33SPY-

    My comment wasn’t an attack and has nothing to do with a chasm between religion and science. There is and always will be a chasm between the two. Reason ?? One is Science and the other is Religion.

    Please spare me from infantile comments and questions. Your question posed at the end of your comment to me in no way responds to my aforementioned comment. You appear to be exactly the type of person I was referring to. Thank you for the confirmation.

  • concerned

    My whole reason for visiting this site was to gather some information about the argument of teaching ID in public schools. But as I read the comments I felt the urge to continue reading all of them because I was shocked and intrigued by your beliefs. I am a Christian, and for those of you who do not know what a Christian is… I believe that Jesus Christ (the Son of God) lived on this earth, died on this earth and came back to life on this earth and ascended into heaven (a place that God has prepared- for those of us who believe in Him- to live forever perfectly after our life here on earth is over). If you would like further explanation please refer to the Holy Bible, New King James Version. I recommend the Children’s Ministry Resource Bible because it is very easy to understand.
    I’m guessing that most of you commenting on this article are not Christians and do not believe that this universe was created by God. And you’ve probably all have read many books on science and have long titles on your names. I think science is wonderful. Many wonderful doctors have found cures for many terrilble diseases using science and medicine. My point being that Bible believers are not against science. Without God you would not have anything to study, what am I saying, we, nobody would be here if it were’nt for God. Please continue working, studying, theorizing, etc., but as you do all of this, please also read the Bible. I’m not trying to force you to read it or force my beliefs on you. But in order for you to make an educated decision you must familiarize yourself with ALL of the information given. (The book of Genesis is about creation)

    Thanks for reading,
    Dana

  • http://www.anthropic-principle.ORG island

    I’m not trying to force you to read it or force my beliefs on you.

    Then you don’t support ID, because there is no realistically plausible science to it, and ID is 100% totally motivated by creationists that want to force religion into the schools.

    But in order for you to make an educated decision you must familiarize yourself with ALL of the information given.

    The stereotypical reply to this is that the book of genesis belongs in a humanities class then, not a science class.

  • willcodfish

    Making an educated decision on the topic above has NOTHING to do with the Bible. Again, read my earlier posts.

    Whew !! This is really amazing and quite sad, frankly. But, I suppose that we’ve known that you’re out there.

  • willcodfish

    Island !!

    God Damm !!! What a breath of fresh air to see you here.

  • http://www.anthropic-principle.ORG island

    As usual, I’m making few friends… 😉

    Thanks!

  • cr33py

    island – sorry broccoflower was a wrong example since it is naturally occuring.

    My serious question is:
    when we(humans on earth now) do; clone, hybridize, genetically engineer plants or animals how will we discuss these in 10,000 years?

    we now breed chickens for voluptous breast meat, suddenly we have an animal that has not adapted for survival advantage….in fact to their disadvantage at the moment, but could be an advantage in future survival.
    “Yeah, if we “intend” to create xxx, then it is the intelligently designed result.”

    10 points if willcodfish or island can answer without an insult!

  • willcodfish

    Perhaps not on this particular page, but fortunately anyone with a sound education knows your (and my) pain !!

    I sometimes question why I bother, why waste time on this ignorance. It is nice, however, someone finally “gets” it.

  • willcodfish

    I fail to see how your posit has anything to do with the nature of the discussion. THAT is why you fail ! The fact that you don’t see that is SAD. That’s not an insult(though you may CHOOSE to take it that way). It’s a comment.

  • http://www.anthropic-principle.ORG island

    cr33py, I allowed your example without challenging the error.

    I see no insult in using proper terms in context. Generally, the only people that find insult in my statements are chock-full-o preconceived prjudice that slants their perception of evidence and everything else.

    We intend to create something when we breed chickens etc… even if we blow it… nobody said we were perfect, nor that we know everything about what we’re doing, but on the whole, given purpose in nature, we can’t help but maintain nature’s balance, even if the system does work “in spite of” both sides.

  • cr33py

    insland – sorry, i shouldnt have put you in the same catagory as 1480.

    the question is, how we discuss things that change with “intelligent” input, evolution will need an addendum. im not talking specifics, im not talking about the past, and im not talking about “god”… only that, from this day forward, you will no longer be able to use strict evolution as an explanation of species traits.

  • willcodfish

    Clearly you don’t recognize distinctions related to many areas. That’s not something I or anyone who deals with “real” Science has time for.

    I also recommend a basic logic class centered around the principles of argument and debate.

  • http://www.anthropic-principle.ORG island

    the question is, how we discuss things that change with “intelligent” input, evolution will need an addendum.

    You’re absolutely correct, in the sense that there is a “heirarchy problem” in physics that defines some form of natural preference as it applies via “fine-tuning”.

    It’s totally relevant given only the observed universe, while disallowing speculative “reasoning” like multiverses.

    The problem with neo-Darwinism is that Random changes in DNA alone do not lead to speciation. It was like confessing a murder when I discovered I was not a neo-Darwinist. I am definitely a Darwinist though. I think we are missing important information about the origins of variation. I differ from the neo-Darwinian bullies on this point.

    -Lynn Margulis

  • troll

    Cod – feel free to stop wasting time on this ‘ignorance’ any time

    snide plays poorly – if you feel the need to be insulting (a feeling with which I empathize) try to be a bit humorous in the process

    take your academic arrogance off my bridge

    troll

  • troll

    sorry about the meaningless ’empathise with a feeling’ thing – crappy writing

    troll

  • troll

    sorry about the ’empathise with a feeling’ thing – crappy writing

    troll

  • willcodfish

    Guess I’m also not in the business of taking orders from another person who also hasn’t done their research. I’d like you to cut and paste the body of text where I was insulting BEFORE being insulted myself.

  • troll

    orders – ? A BLT and some iced tea please

    troll

    PS – you are too smart to engage in tit for tat

  • willcodfish

    teeeheehee.

    Just as I thought.

  • cr33py

    (keep in mind i do not support the ID movement, i merely seek to subvert the intent)
    =====

    island-
    So assuming we call current gene manipulation (by humans not by “god”) “intelligent design”….”I believe there may be a place for “intelligent design” in science”,

    ID proponents define intelligent design as…

    “..intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause…” and

    “In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose.”

    from- this link

    so, if i clone myself, will science know its a clone? if my clone kills someone, will i be arrested with matching DNA? If a zygote is manipulated to eliminate a cancer gene, could we tell that it was done? or would it appear as a naturally occuring mutation? or none at all? could we tell with dna evidence from the parents?
    some of these are easy but could we tell in all situations if evolution has been tampered.

    And now my point: The future may require the ability to detect genetic manipulation, you can call it whatever you like, but we can start with one clear example of an “Intelligent Designer”….that designer is a scientist.

    If there actually was ONE “Intelligent Designer”, we would prolly find the same answer.

  • Tevita

    Well Have you ever thought how the world was ever created, as some Scientist would say it began as a big boom, yeah right a boom which created earth,come on, a boom of some how, a boom which created all things on earth, how was the plants and living things like us being created,a boom won’t create a single living thing but to only destroy,well you have it all in the bible, well ever thought of reading the bible Genesis, these acient words were prophesized onto the bible thousands of years ago before Christ, and that was even before scientists of being so political of nowadays, stop it I know you fight for stuff that you can’t even prove of any evidence.

    But I would ask you this question, Have you seen your own brain?
    nope, but you know you have a brain
    yes that is like God, we haven’t seen him but we know he lives and he is the creator of all things, he has all the answers,to all our questions.

    Bye you all!

  • Luke

    responding to moses post no.9:

    “You have a good arguement point.”

    “However, do you not agree that altghough the design can be great, it may not withstand misuse. e.g. using the brain to conclude there is no God.”

    you’re saying that thinking is bad, unless it confirms god? We should all think less then, so that we don’t misuse our brains, it’s safer to not use them at all.

    “I wish to add also that the human language can never give a name for something that does not exist. How come then there is a word for “God” in all human languages throughout history.”

    You’ve contradicted yourself, by your logic if evolution doesn’t exist, we could never have given it that name.
    There’s a wod for god in every language because ppl are generally the same, we all need to believe there’re powers greater than us that have some clue as to what’s going on, and it gives us a warm fuzzy feeling inside.

    “Why ancient civilization recognized the existence of upper powers and we can not see this in the 21st century?”

    The obvious answer is that we’re smarter than they were, ancient civilization believed that disease was caused by evil spirits, why can we not see this in the 21st century? Because we’re not ignorant, we know that disease is caused by germs, the tiny invisible creatures that get inside you and make you sick.

    “Thanx!”

    You’re welcome

  • willcodfish

    ~3 knocks of the gavel~

    Gentlemen, I rest my case.

  • http://www.anthropic-principle.ORG island


    ..intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause…” and

    Purposeful design in nature doesn’t prove intelligent cause.

    “In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose.”

    An arrogant leap of faith to presume that cause for a purpose requires an “intelligent” designer, or even a designer if “design” is perpetually inherent, which is all that we actually have evidence for.

    If there actually was ONE “Intelligent Designer”, we would prolly find the same answer.

    The best that you could get out of this star-trek episode is a very powerful NATURAL entity.

    Figure the odds… makes the implausibility far outweigh any realistic hope of being fairly compared to evolutionary theory.

    Makes it null and void to science without some seriously hard evidence, like an alien space craft with the blueprints for human design hanging on their drawing board.

    Goal oriented design in nature only proves that there is method to nature’s apparent madness.

  • http://www.anthropic-principle.ORG island

    ~3 knocks of the gavel~

    Gentlemen, I rest my case.

    LMAO@ BIGBOOM!!!

  • Luke

    Tevita,

    the big bang didn’t create the earth and all things as they exist now, the big bang only created physical matter, it’s really silly the way you simplify scientific theories about how the universe came into existance, there’s supposedly 10,000,000,000 years universe construction happening before the first life ever appeared on earth, it wasn’t simply BOOM, you can’t generalize 10,000,000,000 years of the universes history into one sentence.

  • http://www.anthropic-principle.ORG island

    You can, but it’s a very LOOOOOONNNNNGGGGGGG sentence.

    She said:
    Bye you all!

    So low-blows are legal… 😉

  • willcodfish

    My apologies – LADIES and Gentlemen.

  • cr33py

    island-forget it, point missed….
    it would require a couple pints to get my point across.

  • http://www.anthropic-principle.ORG island

    You’re saying that you could identify an intelligent designer by comparison to human intelligent design.

    I say, so what?

    Because it takes mega-proof, which you ain’t got.

    So, all the booze in the world isn’t going to make your point anymore realistically plausible to science.

  • cr33py

    Im not trying to prove there is an “intelligent designer”

    im tryin to reappropriate the term to actual forensic science. with no god.

  • troll

    Cod – please study up on the proper use of personal pronouns…you’ve a PhD for Christ’s sake and you’re giving higher education a bad name

    and while you’re reviewing your comments for improper grammar learn to read – my objection was to (what I considered to be) your snide attitude of superiority not to your insults

    troll

  • willcodfish

    “. . . if you feel the need to be insulting . . ..”

    Your quote, not mine. Please attempt to read your own writing before criticizing mine.

  • cr33py

    i find 1480 Codpiece’s reactions as the digital equivalent of “the compensator”
    ….we have all seen em….
    big truck, little di….,
    sports car, no hair,
    big mouth, no brain,

  • http://www.anthropic-principle.ORG island

    im tryin to reappropriate the term to actual forensic science. with no god.

    Okay, so then you can say that you have a means for detecting intelligent design by humans, but just to cover my bases… that doesn’t justify the leap of faith beyond purposeful natural causes to assume that:

    certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause

    nor that:

    In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose.

    Nor does it justify speculation that there could be “one intelligent designer”

    I’m good now, you?… 😉

  • cr33py

    Understood, your points were correct, i didnt write that crap…

    “one designer” is silly musings…

    all good here…

  • cr33py

    although “certain features of the universe” could mean a house, we could prove it did not evolve.

    and “the science of design detection”….well is there allready a term for genetic forensics?

  • willcodfish

    Cr33py – hey think want you want my friend, here are the stats – 8.5, nice thickness, I drive a Nissan even though I make in excess of $200,000.00USD per year – who gives a fuck what your or my car is ??

    I’m sure someone in your life told you you were clever, maybe 2 people. The fact is that you are embarrasing yourself on this page. I know you don’t think so and the reason is because you can’t absorb what it is you’re missing. You’re not alone – you’re among the large, very average mass – you’ve made that ubundantly clear.

    In response, and I suppose out of your frustration, you stoop to sophomoric personal attacks. Guess you didn’t take that advice regarding the logic class, or much other advice it seems.

    Save your debating skills for something like The proper way to make a grilled cheese sandwich or perhaps How to wash a shirt – things more suitable to your intellect.

  • http://www.anthropic-principle.ORG island

    Yeah, I’d recognize the DI’s illogic anywhere.

    My bitch is that they get away with it.

    Neodarwinists would rather deny that goal oriented design in nature can even exist, than to simply shoot down the plausibility of the science as simply as I did, and be done with it.

    Thanks to Dembski and company, they “BELIEVE” that purpose in nature necessarily proves god’s existence, so they deny its existence to the point that the mainstream laughs in their face. ID is necessary because extremist creationists carry an extremely vital feature of science in their agenda that gets lost otherwise, and this will remain the case, until Einstein is vindicated.

  • cr33py

    good stuff codpiece…
    but you havent proved you are smarter than anyone here, including me.

    In response, and I suppose out of your frustration, you stoop to sophomoric personal attacks.

  • willcodfish

    I don’t need to prove something that is clear to anyone who will read this page. The word you’re looking for is “proven” – not proved.

    Again, I thank you for confirming my initial and subsequent comments and observations. You’re apparently too much of a forward fumbling fool to realize what those are, but that’s ok – people like you are the reason I make so much damm money !

  • cr33py

    hmmmm…..
    you think 200k is a lot of money?

  • willcodfish

    Much, much more than you make, that’s clear.

    And yes, it is a lot – statistically and otherwise.

  • Blue State

    “yes that is like God, we haven’t seen him but we know he lives and he is the creator of all things, he has all the answers,to all our questions”

    My wife and I drove by a church that had a sign in front reading “Jesus is the Answer.” My wife laughed and said, “hey look, a big cheet sheet for an Intelligent Design Science Test!”

  • Duane

    Oh yeah? Well, how much can you bench press? Let’s get to the really important stuff.

  • cr33py

    thats like ID science….
    lets see….he is not an evolution expert, therefore he makes less money.

    we should teach that in highschool math.

  • willcodfish

    Well, unless you’ve inherited millions or are among the less than 1% worldwide that is in athletics or entertainment – then the conclusion is simple.

    Again, and for the last time, you’ve revealed yourself. If you need advanced explanation to that you’ll have to resolve that yourself – I’m not a hand-holder.

  • cr33py

    island

    My bitch is that they get away with it.

    I here that, thats why i suggest twisting their marketing campaign and throwing it back in their face. evolutionary/genetic science is not my area of expertise as 1480 pointed out but…

    if they say that ID is “the science of design detection”, this has science fiction level implications, with respect to genetic engineering….ie does DNA evidence become useless in crime investigation when we clone human tissue? or does it leave a trace?

  • nugget

    hahaha!

    willcodfish is lame.

    “look at me 200k nananana! i’m so smert! ”

  • cr33py

    codpiece
    i understand that you just like to get a rise outta people and show off….but

    ignorance is being uneducated in a subject, and i will confess my ignorance in the case of ID and related science that it ignores, and im not embarrassed….thats why im here, we lose our ingnorance through discovery and discussion. I work in science/engineering and yet you still attack, childishly. I consider many here intelligent and they have engaged and taught me many things. I have learned nothing from you, other than your claimed stats, that you are not nice, and that you have no interest in making the world better through open dialogue. Scientific arogance is actually a big problem in the US today, and it contributes to educational difficulties, we need to open doors for those raised with religion so that they may understand that the two are not in conflict, they are just different things…shuting the inquisitive out will only perpetuate the problem.

    another idiotic remark will only result in silence, add to the discussion or piss off.

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    So at this point in the “conversation” can we say Intelligent Design failed?

  • willcodfish

    I haven’t shut anyone out or closed any doors – quite the contrary. You attempt to debate on my comments, yet you can’t even put together a coherent and relevant thought – that’s not my problem if you can’t handle that or accept it. I’ve made several positive recommendations on your behalf, yet you’ve chosen to ignore those. They’re still on this page for you and for everyone else to see. Therefore, once again, your argument holds no water.

    I’ll posit the same question to you that I did to your friend Troll. Please cut and paste the insult I made BEFORE I was insulted first.

  • willcodfish

    Here’s the first piece where you directly mention my name and make insulting comments: Log # 47

    wiltcodfish – your attack also “is not science” and may be one reason for the growing chasm between science and religion. science rejects pretentious religion, and visa versa – and it IS education that suffers. It is true, my point is more appropriate at a cocktail party than in programmed school education….but your remark is more appropriate on the playground.

    I’d like you to show me where it is – before that – that I first insulted you ??

  • troll

    #19 *you need to go back to high school and pay attention this time ! *

    #32 *you will be able to emerge from the mire of such staggering ignorance.
    *
    your snarkhood began with you first comment

    So what’s your point – ?…get on with it

    troll

  • willcodfish

    Not insults – please read the entire bodies of each – these are recommendations.

    If you felt they didn’t apply to you, then you should have disregarded them, and moved on – yet you did not, you personally attacked.

    Big difference

  • troll

    I don’t object to your insults – it’s your humorlessness and snide attitude that drew my attention

    see *69

    Do you have any objection to ID that goes beyond *Intelligent Design is not a theory and is not science. *

    troll

  • willcodfish

    I don’t object to your insults – it’s your humorlessness and snide attitude that drew my attention

    Oh, sure – you seem to have a big problem. I’ve read 69 before and commented on it once earlier – and it clearly states that you DO have some sort of problem. And, you chose to jump in on the question posed above to CR33. You can say what you want in 111, but your earlier comments and your action don’t match up.

    Nor did I begin with a snide attitude. You may CHOOSE to read my text as such – that’s your issue, not mine.

    As far as my humor goes, you know nothing about it and I don’t really care if you do – unfortunately, there isn’t anything funny about the original issues and their ramifications.

  • troll

    You are perseverating…

    your analysis of *69 is incorrect and your question about insults is nonsensical

    true – I don’t know you and only respond to your tired comments which strike me as being humorless and snide and which offend my palate

    our little exchange has been fulfilling though -yummy

    what have you got to say except that people who think that ID is a scientific theory are stupid and/or uneducated – you’ve made that most edifying point

    troll

  • willcodfish

    Not an error of analysis – that seems to be your forte:

    My question is not nonsense -you have twice made claims of my insults – I asked you to validate your claims – and you have failed to do so. My question was in response to your INITIAL, personal, direct attack on me.

    Cod – feel free to stop wasting time on this ‘ignorance’ any time

    snide plays poorly – if you feel the need to be INSULTING (a feeling with which I empathize) try to be a bit humorous in the process

    take your academic arrogance off my bridge

    troll

    Once again, as I mentioned earlier – please do your research and be specific.

  • troll

    *My question was in response to your INITIAL, personal, direct attack on me.*

    *69 was a ‘recommendation’ (as you would say) concerning your writing style…self-aggrandizing arrogance is a dull read

    personally insulting – ? that’s a matter of choice

    *87 on the other hand was intended as a personal insult

    troll

  • willcodfish

    No, you’re wrong again. The fact that you can’t even comprehend your own writing is a bit lame:

    They’re your words, not mine – to anyone with a mild comprehension of English, they’re clear. But, a nice try on your part.

    Fact is, you seem to feel you can apply any standard or any label to whatever you like and that then that becomes law. Too bad, but the world doesn’t work that way.

    For example: Your use of perseverating in 113 is incorrect in terms of both meaning and usage, and demonstrates an inability on your part to be accurate in both the manner you think, reason and relay said thoughts.

    If anyone is closer to “perseverating” as you would like it to mean, it is you. You have yet to demonstrate anything remotely substantive regarding your initial claim, yet you continue to pursue a course of floundering, unintelligible shortsightedness.

  • http://parodieslost.typepad.com MSchannon

    >Temple asked, “So at this point in the “conversation” can we say Intelligent Design failed?”

    The discussion is degenerating badly, but my take is that ID fails as science but has value as a metaphysical discussion–which I add for the nth time is not a bad thing. And it sure seems to me that ID deals with creation while evolution deals with how things change after creation.

    Just as physicists will admit they can only speculate as to what happened before the “big bang” (a term many dislike because they’re not sure it was one or many explosions)evolutionary scientists will free admit they can only speculate about the creation of life…except to say that people weren’t created in 4004 BC…

  • troll

    sorry Mark

    troll

  • Timmy

    Fishboy,

    Nobody likes a bragger with a thesaurus.

    TIMMY!

  • willcodfish

    Didn’t brag – I was answering questions earlier – if your reference is to SAT’s, cars or income – just stating the simple statistics.

    Thesaurus is not the term you’re looking for and I didn’t use one – or a dictionary (the term you imply).

    Braggart is also another word you’re looking for.

    These things can usually be found in most respectable high school English classrooms.

  • troll

    true – I take liberties with the language when meaning seems clear – not always successful though

    and yes – I do enjoy interacting with bottom feeders

    with apologies to all who would prefer to read a thread about ID:

    questions for Cod – were your comments throughout the thread concerning the stupid the ignorant and the uneducated really sincere recommendations or were they general insults…was it really so unreasonable to interpret them as insults…was I really so off base in pointing out to you that I found them to be snide arrogant and humorless

    just wondering

    troll

  • willcodfish

    If you notice my initial posts – there are two of them – they were general comments – directed at no one in particular only at the greater theme.

    Your first message to me was directed TO me.

    Both of my items do end in a recommendation. It’s not simply good enough to say, because I want it so, it should be so (in the case of ID). There are procedures, rules and laws, etc, etc that govern the conduct of science. Maybe I’d like to say that 2+2=7. I’d like that to be taught in high school math. Problem is, things don’t work that way. The word “theory” has taken on a bit of a casual meaning over time that may confuse people – as in “I think Tiger Woods is the greatest golfer of all time.” – and the reply – “Well, that’s your theory, not mine.” – Meaning: – Opinion. In the world of science-again in all true forms – theory has a wholly different meaning.

    So, yes – I would recommend one or two high school science classes – of any discipline.

  • Timmy

    No, you’re wrong. I meant “thesaurus” and “bragger.” But wouldn’t a PhD know that?

  • troll

    *There are procedures, rules and laws, etc, etc that govern the conduct of science. Maybe I’d like to say that 2+2=7. I’d like that to be taught in high school math. Problem is, things don’t work that way. The word “theory” has taken on a bit of a casual meaning over time that may confuse people – as in “I think Tiger Woods is the greatest golfer of all time.” – and the reply – “Well, that’s your theory, not mine.” – Meaning: – Opinion. In the world of science-again in all true forms – theory has a wholly different meaning.*

    no argument here – ID is a notion – belief – idea – and explanation (metaphysically speaking) but not a scientific theory

    troll

  • cr33py

    well allright big boy, you actually stepped up with statement…

    calling ID a theory is interesting, i have been trying to figure out exactly what the ID proponents are saying, because everything i read from them defines it more like a movement, they call it a “science”…which is even more troubling. After which they support their “science” with theories…and these opinions (you are correct) are much farther from the scientific method then the mission of the “movement”.

    I would personally describe ID more as Lobbyists, political special interest.

  • willcodfish

    Timmy:
    No, you’re wrong. I meant “thesaurus” and “bragger.” But wouldn’t a PhD know that?

    Well – if that is what you meant then your scope of language is lacking more than I initially thought.

    CR33:
    I’m not sure if your statement is directed my way – or not. If so, I’m not labeling ID a theory, but proponents of it generally do and those at the forefront of the ID view most assuredly do.

  • cr33py

    cod – yes i was, are you speaking of ID statements in the media, the trial, or the movements documentation?

    from what i can dig up, this seems to be the “mission” from their top “experts”:
    http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/NCBQ3_3HarrisCalvert.pdf

    I have not read the full document.

  • willcodfish

    Mostly from spokespersons of the movement. The fact is is that is doesn’t have a sensible name because it is a hodge-podge of cluttered nonsense.

    That red alarm in itself (the lack of an agreed-upon qualification from ID itself) should be enough to perk up the ears of anyone who really doesn’t know either side of the issue (our lawmakers).

    To name it a theory, as I have heard several of their national spokespeople refer to it – is the only way they can possible fool lawmakers into thinking it is legitimate science.

  • willcodfish

    “possibly”

  • http://www.anthropic-principle.ORG island

    Theory gets equated to opinion because both are approximations of reality that are based on the interpretation of evidence.

    Some approximations are more accurate than others, and that’s the difference, since theories are testable. Some, like relativity, have been experimentally vindicated to an extremely high degree of accuracy, while others, like evolutionary theory, are well tested in some areas and weaker in others.

    IDists have enough solid scientific evidence for something besides purely accidental coincidence that’s behind our existence to justify scientific investigation, and that’s what they’re using to try to get-over on them that would deny that this evidence even exists.

    Scientific investigation into this evidence has never not been the case though. There are many articles in the archives of scientific papers that use “anthropic reasoning” to make real testable predictions, for example, but it will always require an unfounded leap of faith to assume that this evidence indicates an intelligent being over natural causes.

    Neodarwinians who insist on denying that this constitutes plausible scientific evidence for something other than “accident occurrence” must take an extremist position that requires that they must make leaps of faith to untestable theoretical speculation.

    That hard-lined attitude may well get em hung in court, but it won’t have anything to do with intelligent design.

    They’ll die in Dover for their fanatical ideological “beliefs”.

    Will that learn em?… no they’ll just move further off into left field and farther from reality, but at least they’ll know in their hearts that they’re right via the same kind unfounded leaps of faith that their advisories use.

    Praise fanaticism on both sides…
    OhMan!

  • willcodfish

    Well said. I suppose the problem I have is the idea of taking something – anything, really that hasn’t met a certain level of exacting standards – and teaching that to our children.

    If the belief turns out to be solid scientific theory then by all means, lets give it a run. Until that time, it doesn’t wash.

    I can remember my classes well when I was younger and there was often conjecture and questioning of areas that straddled the line of science and spirtuality, science and mythology, astrology, etc. But these things were isolated into disciplines unto themselves and rightly so. Speaking of Astrology, perhaps I’ve stumbled upon the thing that, in my mind, best relates to the analogy of this situation. Millions of people suscribe to the beliefs of Astrology and a similar number will swear on their mother’s very lives that it is the real deal. But – it’s guesswork, a belief – and we don’t see it being taught in 10th grade classrooms.

  • willcodfish

    Correction to the above:

    Well said. I suppose the problem I have is the idea of taking something – anything, really that hasn’t met a certain level of exacting standards – and teaching that to our children.

    If the belief turns out to be solid scientific theory then by all means, lets give it a run. Until that time, it doesn’t wash.

    I can remember my classes well when I was younger and there was often conjecture and questioning of areas that straddled the line of science and spirtuality, science and mythology, astrology, etc. But these things were NOT isolated into disciplines unto themselves and rightly so. Speaking of Astrology, perhaps I’ve stumbled upon the thing that, in my mind, best relates to the analogy of this situation. Millions of people suscribe to the beliefs of Astrology and a similar number will swear on their mother’s very lives that it is the real deal. But – it’s guesswork, a belief – and we don’t see it being taught in 10th grade classrooms.

  • cr33py

    The issue is certainly an old one, when i was in 7th or 8th grade we were presented with a panel of science and clergy, who expressed their views and had a panel discussion. My problem however was the oposite, i grew up without religion and needed to understand what all the creation fuss was about, and i found it a truly rewarding experience…but it didnt go deep enough in either direction in the alloted time. I believe that education requires more studies in world religions and philosophy of science in general.

    US education definitely needs something with statistics such as this:
    55 percent of the public believes that “God created humans in their current form,” according to a New York Times/CBS poll last year.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/09/29/BAGK2EVDAE1.DTL

    That is the same spread as the vote for an administration that does not believe in science…’cept for flyin and killin things….

  • http://www.anthropic-principle.ORG island

    lol… oh me… so much for a whole clue.

    I give up…

  • cr33py

    yup, the problem with evolution is that people reject all science due to this one subject, tis why they dont understand global warming, and evironmental protection….

    its hard not to give up.

  • td

    Huricane Katrina has kiiled 1000+ people and destroyed a major city. Why coudln’t we have predicted that this would happen?

    We understand the basic parameters of weather systems, all of which are testable. Gravitational constant, water and air temperatures, the base elements involved.

    However, even knowing these factors we cannot predict nor fully explain such a seemingly complex end result as hurricane Katrina. Does our inability to fully understand and predict hurricanes mean they were designed by a higher power? No. We know that they are not designed.

    We cannot fully predict how weather systems will develope because of the volume and speed of interactions involved. We cannot track and predict the path of one electron, let alone the trillions upon trillions that determine how atoms in a weather system will interact and what these interactions will result in. However, just because we do not have the technology and computational power to fully explain hurricanes, this does not mean that they must have been designed.

    The same applies to evolution. What seem like random mutations in a population are actually the result of a seemingly infinite number of molecular interactions. While we fully understand the paramaters that these interactions take place within, and that given a sufficient number of individual basic interactions seemingly complex wholes can result, we still cannot track and predict said results.

    This lack of a complete explanation is not evidence for a designer. It simply means we cannot go back in time and collect all the information concerning every molecular interaction involved with the evolution of human beings and then throw that information into a giant supercomputer and say that some guys named Osama will blow up the WTC.

    If this is the ‘proof’ that you are insisting upon before believing in evolution then you need to reconsider your stance on realism.

  • td

    What I find most disturbing about ID is that it promotes selective believe in scientific reasoning.

    It teaches kids that if your don’t understand something, don’t try to hypothesize and test an alternative scientific theory, just imagine that an invisible creator is responcible.

    What is this teaching the scientific minds of tomorrow? What happens if in 50 years we need to dranstically reverse global warming because the ice caps are melting? Do we want the next generation of scientists to decide say

    “Well, we can’t fully explain why this is happening, so it must be designed this way and therefore we can do anything about it”

    or

    “Let’s start hypothesizing testable theories to save the planet because that’s what scientist throughout history have done to prevent us being harmed by other threats such as disease, volcanoes, uv rays, etc.”

  • willcodfish

    TD:
    “What I find most disturbing about ID is that it promotes selective believe in scientific reasoning.

    It teaches kids that if your don’t understand something, don’t try to hypothesize and test an alternative scientific theory, just imagine that an invisible creator is responcible.”

    Exactly TD !! That’s part of what I was getting at some of my earlier posts – this idea of: 1. Well, there’s a hole here. 2. So, let’s fill it with whatever we want – just so it’s filled. 3. It doesn’t have to fit, or make sense – just fill the hole.

    You can’t just say something is – and then expect that to be law or doctrine, or whatever. Doesn’t work like that.

    And you’re right-it’s beyond disturbing – it’s downright scary to think that a movement with such a glaring lack of logic and reasoning ability is attempting to infiltrate not only the world of science but our children’s minds as well.

  • Demi

    Yeah but… Bald men usually have incredibly hairy bodies, and I just LOVE hairy bald men. It’s my thing.

    Didn’t someone a few years ago determine that the appendix and tonsils had a relationship working in concert with digestion and weight control?

    Also…

    The Klingon is Adaptation perfected… multiple organs for damage control during battle, plus other attributes attributed to the evolution of the warrior.

    and lastly…. adaptation of the species was a separate Darwinian theory. Evolution was one and Adaptation of the species was another…. Adaptation was proven in the Galopagos archipeligo (excuse my spelling)

    Oh and finally… I’m really getting tired of the rehash of ID and Evo blogs… does this have something to do with the recent book heralded on NPR and the NYT? The author isn’t even a scientist, he’s a reporter doing an extended book report, and he’s not a bald hairy guy either.

    ciao

  • WTF

    And this blog and all the posts contained herein are exactly why I prefer Mathematics.

  • Baronius

    TD and Cod –

    What’s unreasonable about ID? If (I said if) statistical simulations and biochemical analyses indicate that random mutations and natural selection couldn’t account for the complexity of organic structures, then what is so scientific about denying it? There’s an old joke about looking for your keys where the light is better.

    ID mathematicians and biologists are using scientific methods. If the science works, then we should accept its conclusions, subject to future revision and correction.

  • willcodfish

    The answer is simple :ID is not Science – discover what science is, then you’ll have your answer.

  • willcodfish

    ID is centered around the Bifurcation fallacy:

    Also referred to as the “black and white” fallacy and “false dichotomy”, bifurcation occurs if someone presents a situation as having only two alternatives, where in fact other alternatives exist or can exist. For example:

    “Either man was created, as the Bible tells us, or he evolved from inanimate chemicals by pure random chance, as scientists tell us. The latter is incredibly unlikely, so…”

    Unfortunately for ID – science doesn’t work in this “Well if it’s not this, then it must be the thing I want it to be” arrangement. Nor does any other area of reasoned thinking or logic.

  • Fireboss

    Among stupid arguments this one is always at the top of my list right after “It isn’t blue, It’s azure”. It does tend to prove one thing. Whether we got our wonderful brain by evolution or intelligent design….it’s freekin’ being wasted. Actually, there is more “proof” of evolution in the Bible then a lack of proof for “ID” among the evolutionists. That is, IF you actually take time to study either rather than paying attention to talking heads. Ask yourselves a simple question. What tools might God have used to create life? First, name all of the tools used to build a car. Pretty simple: A diety may well have caused a “big bang” to create the heavens and the earth. Then the difference between clay/water and primordial ooze…….uh, mud is mud. Pay attention folks, niether argument proves or disproves the other. It was afterall science that proved that thalimide, bextra and so forth were safe for human consumption. Now, pretend you’re capable of doing something useful with your life (no matter where it came from) and go solve world hunger.

  • phil

    Intelligent Design is really quite a nice..old… theory. Trouble is the scientists we have today are not too intelligent themselves, or they might be able to grasp the concept of a divine power(besides themselves) in the universe. One which they will never understand. Which is pretty odd since stone age people thought up intelligent design 10,000 yrs ago

  • Joey

    “That’s part of what I was getting at some of my earlier posts – this idea of: 1. Well, there’s a hole here. 2. So, let’s fill it with whatever we want – just so it’s filled. 3. It doesn’t have to fit, or make sense – just fill the hole” — willcodfish

    Hmmm, sounds like a few college textbooks I’ve had the pleasure of being overcharged for.

  • willcodfish

    Phil: “Intelligent Design is really quite a nice..old… theory. Trouble is the scientists we have today are not too intelligent themselves, or they might be able to grasp the concept of a divine power(besides themselves) in the universe. One which they will never understand. Which is pretty odd since stone age people thought up intelligent design 10,000 yrs ago”

    Unfortunately, it IS NOT a theory. I feel like a broken record. Please – for your own sake – educate yourself !!! This “viewpoint” of ID is really very sad and has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the rest of your comment. That is what you fail to understand, because you are ignorant in terms of reason, logic and scientific principles.

  • Geo

    Professing to be wise, they became fools.

  • http://ReliableAnswers.com Annette M. Hall

    You’ve got to be kidding. You can’t possibly blame God because you choose not take proper care of yourself. I’ve been quite impressed with the scientific data that has been gathered by Creation Science Institute. I have personally read their material and attended seminars put on by CSI and they put forth some pretty strong arguements in favor of Intelligent Design, perhaps you should do your homework? Thanks for the laugh.

  • gonzo marx

    it seems Annette is easily impressed and needs to learn and comprehend the differences between science, metaphysics, hypothesis and theory

    not to mention pure hokum

    but at least some seem to enjoy the kool aide

    Excelsior!

  • http://ReliableAnswers.com Annette M. Hall

    Let me guess… You aren’t familiar with their work so you choose to attack me personally instead? If you can’t debate the issues perhaps you should just sit back and read.

  • http://parodieslost.typepad.com Mark Schannon

    Annette, Gonzo never attacks anyone personally–most of the time. But those of us who’ve read the ID literature make a clear distinction between metaphysics and science. ID has no scientific foundation. In fact, if you’ve read the papers recently, scientists have found one of the critical missing links between fish and land amphibians.

    There’s no scientific debate about whether evolution is a sound theory–there is scientific about the details. One cannot have a scientific debate about ID because it’s philosophy, not science.

    and that’s the truth.

    In Jameson Veritas

  • gonzo marx

    quite the contrary…

    i am well Aware of the “work”…

    just as i am aware of the terms i spoke of…it was nto my intent to be insulting, rather to be a bit educational, so that if discussion on this very tired bit of nonsense was to ensue…

    we ate least could agree on the terms

    for instance..ID is NOT a theory, since it is unprovable…and NO experimental nor empirical data has yet been put forward to even test it as an hypothesis

    thus it remains Metaphysics…but NOT Science

    now…just so we are nto misunderstood…check the header of the Article….and you will note that Mark has it flagged as “Satire”

    thus some of his mad peckings should be taken as sillines intended to prove a Point

    as for this “creation science institute”…..as i stated, hokum…

    see the definitions of “science” and why the statements put forward by said organization remain in the realm of Philosophy and Metaphysics..but NOT Science

    my disgust, is not towards yourself…but rather the bogus institution that either is ignorant of a word’s Meaning, or deliberately attempts to deceive in it’s very Name

    i do hope that helps

  • http://ReliableAnswers.com Annette M. Hall

    Exactly which definition of science would you be referring to:

    1.
    a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
    b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
    c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
    2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I’ve got packing a suitcase down to a science.
    3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
    4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

    It would appear that we are talking about two different definitions.

    As for satire, some people take the discussion of God and His purposes very seriously and find this brand of satire offensive.

    I for one find it utter foolishness that anyone could believe in the Big Bang “Theory” or any “Evolution.” Even Darwin recanted those beliefs, yet people still can’t help but hang onto that hogwash.

  • My Opinion, That’s All

    Zimmer: Seems to me like all you’re doing is complaining. Life isn’t going your way and now you have to blame it on God? Or the ID people? Please.

  • gonzo marx

    that would be 1 a,b and c

    what you consider “hogwash” is, of course..your own perogative…all people are entitled to their Opinions

    opinions are NOT science either…but can lead to hypothesis which may then be tested, proven, disproven..improved upon…discarded….or proven enough to become a Theory ..which in turn is passed through such rigors again and again…

    as for what you find Offensive…that is also your perogative..i merely pointed out that this Article was quite clearly marked as such

    and, for the Record…i could care less

    again..my Objection is against those attempting to blur the distinction between Metaphysics/Philosophy and Science

    such as the “institute” you cite

    and i have no patience for snake oil salesmen, nor do i suffer gladly the Fools who follow their Lies

    nuff said?

    Excelsior!

  • http://parodieslost.typepad.com Mark Schannon

    And you consider it an objective scientific statement to call the big bang utter foolishness or that Darwin recanted evolution?

    If not for your intolerable ignorant arrogance, i’d apologize for offending you with my satire about God….if you read my other posts, I have the greatest respect for He who can’t be understood, perceived, or known. Hence, agnosticism but a respectful version.

    You, however, substitute big words and obscure concepts for facts. Try more alcohol & lighten up.

    (Gonzo, I’ve got it, let’s do a debate about evolution!)

    In Jameson Veritas

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Mark, I feel for you. If you click on my URL for my site you’ll find my post about the Bible should NOT be used as an accurate history text.

    I actually got a comeback from an intelligent designer, who told me that God created dinosaur bones and purposesly placed them in the ground so we could find them as a test of our faith, but that they actually didn’t exist.

    You’ve got your work cut our for you. I know

    …but of course that’s only my opinion.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    PS: Which “theory” best explains nipples on men?
    Intelligent Design or Evolution?

    Jet

  • Steve

    It’s my understanding, Jet, that the embryo’s gender is typically determined genetically after the nipples have been formed. Don’t think it has a bearing on the debate one way or the other.

  • gonzo marx

    it’s in the same league as the duck billed platypus

    a sarcastic shot at the very notion of underlying “intelligence” behind the designs of Life on our little planet

    so many other things…but the Idea is out there

    your mileage may vary

    Excelsior!

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Using that as an example gonzo, then one could make the case that the male has carried over female characteristics from the womb, which he could/would have no use for, but does. In that example, then sexual orientation in some cases could biologically be carried over the same way, as breast nipples on men would.

    Hmmmmmm?
    Jet

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Well, Mark, you sure got ’em going on mere satire. Especially since you knocked down a “straw man” like Intelligent Design.

    Now there is a version of cosmological development that has plenty of room for a Divinity and evolution – but I digress…

  • http://parodieslost.typepad.com Mark Schannon

    Ruvy, I’ve said all along that evolution and God are perfectly compatible. ID is also a perfectly reasonable philosophical topic–it just ain’t science. And you’re right about causing such a fuss over satire…and that this thread is active again after six months! Wow. I’m really powerful, lol.

    Jet, thanks. These be weird times that try people’s souls. Thanks to BC, I think I understand better why some Christians are so frightened, and I share many of their concerns about what’s happening to our society, but I don’t have a clue how to get people to throw off their idiological straight jackets and come together, singing, “Michael Row the Boat Ashore.”

    In Jameson Veritas

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Coombiyah(sic) “Mark the all powerful” and amen.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    I don’t have a clue how to get people to throw off their idiological straight jackets and come together, singing, “Michael Row the Boat Ashore.”

    Marc, the trick is to get them to teach you how to put on their ideological straitjacket. By the time the two of you are done learning, the jackets are off and you’ve taught them to dance the hora.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    I don’t know, that sounds kinda kinky to me!

    And I should know.

  • Earl

    There ought to be a law about this BLOG reappearing every so often….. this and the 100 Best Guitar Players.

    Someone bury this deep within the Archives… Gary Heeeeelllllpppppp!!!!!!

    Shoo, shoo! Get away….

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Now Mark Schannon is a very intelligent, entertaining, and convincing writer. If it’s worth reading, then it’s worth repeating.
    Do you think you can do better Earl?

    Rock on Mark

    :p Earl

  • http://parodieslost.typepad.com Mark Schannon

    Ruvy,

    I can dance the hora…I may be agnostic, but it ain’t true that Jews can’t dance…given enough alcohol.

    Jet, you are way too kind. And don’t worry, all you do with the hora is touch hands, although if Ruvy thinks I’m going to let some prevert born-again Christian extremist put a straight-jacket on me, he’s been spending too much time with the Sabbath wine!

    Earl–hey, don’t blame me for this thread reappearing. It’s all Annette’s fault. I’m as surprised as you. All I’m trying to do is make people laugh.

    In Jameson Veritas

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    and succeeding… I think

    Here let me help…

    Dave Nalle might enjoy this too, so pass it on.

    during a roast of Bob Hope, Henry Kissinger got up and announced that the House of Representitives had just pronounced Hope the funniest man in the world!!!
    He went on to comment that the vote was 268 to 267

    Ronald Reagon (he was still Governor then) got up and announced that both houses of California’s legislature had UNANIMOUSLY voted Bob Hope Californias foremost citizen. He paused a moment and then announced that he’d vetoed it.

    LOL
    Jet

  • http://parodieslost.typepad.com Mark Schannon

    Even then, old Reagan was two straws short of a malted. As for Kissinger, if he only spoke english, we could figure out what he was saing.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Dave Nalle, did you hear that?? did you hear what that that that that man said about Reagan???? are you going to let him get away with that????

    {EXPLATIVE DELETED!!!!!!}

  • http://parodieslost.typepad.com Mark Schannon

    Jet, please, Dave’s way to intelligent to stand up for the ‘credit card’ president….aren’t you, Dave?

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Are we talking about Reagon, Bush sr. or Bush jr.
    Oh, well I guess they’re interchangable aren’t they?

    My bad

  • SonnyD

    If I didn’t know better, I could almost imagine the US Congress was in charge of Intelligent Design. Of course, that’s impossible…unless…say, has anyone been suggesting that reincarnation be taught in science classes?

  • http://parodieslost.typepad.com Mark Schannon

    Why shouldn’t reincarnation be taught in science class? After all, Shirley Mclain (sp) can vouge for it. Lot’s of people believe in it.

    ergo, it must be science.

    In Jamesons Veritas

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Good point Mark.
    Obviously the answer to your question is that Pat Robertson doesn’t teach it from his bully pulpit.

  • inthetruth

    It’s not your fault; we were taught that we came from monkey… hence, we think like monkey.

    The Truth will set you free… seek the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

    Read the Word of the One and Only Living God and Creator of all living things.

    Don’t judge so quickly, read with the desire to understand God, not man.

    IntheTruth,
    Amen.

%d bloggers like this: