Re: ID -lack of a mechanism might not be so bad


"hamilton" <kwandongbrian@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1134344330.516650.138000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> I feel after the title that I need to start with some qualification on
> my statement. I firmly believe that physics and geology research have
> shown the earth and universe to be ancient. Evolution is clearly the
> best explanation for our DNA and the fossil record.
>
> Still, despite all that is wrong with Intelligent design; lack of real
> research, being a subterfuge for bringing creationism into schools...,
> complaining about the lack of a mechanism seems unfair to me.
>
> By lack of a mechanism, I mean no hypothesis on how a designer could
> make it's changes. I suppose, no suggestion as to when the changes
> were made or who made them could also be considered part of the
> mechanism but I am particularly talking about how the changes could be
> made.
>
> It's useful to comment that ID doesn't describe a mechanism but I don't
> think that can be a deal-breaker. Almost 100 years past before Watson
> and Crick showed the world the mechanism for evolution. Darwin had no
> explanation for how or where changes occured or how they could be
> inherited.
>
> This is how I understand evolution and the current ID claims. Do I
> have this right?
>

The problem is that IDiocy *does* have a mechanism -- God. And we're
not allowed to ask about God because 1) it's pointless since God can do
anything including contravene the laws of physics and 2) any answers would
immediately disqualify IDiocy from being taught in public school since it
would be an upfront admission that IDiocy is really (as another poster put
it) cretinism in a suit with its Bible in an inside pocket.

If you don't believe me, I direct you to the Dover trial transcripts. There
you'll find books on cretinism with the word God scratched out and the
words "Intelligent Designer" written in. Or you can ask, Behe and others
whether the Designer is aliens or robots or time travelers. They'll tell
you "Could be. But I think it's God."

IDiocy is a scam, a political movement to get religion into public schools.
It has nothing to do with science, and it's part of the scam to make you
think that it has.

Deadrat

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: God=G_uv Proof of Intelligent Design
    ... Sam Ende says Intelligent Design ... > does not exist and is therefore not a proof that God exists. ... There exists an absolute physical reality. ... > Classical Physics holds that the human brain and sensory system ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Detect Intelligent Design...
    ... >The order behind physics can only come from a Mind. ... >Biochemical order is the best evidence for intelligent design. ... >>>All there is is predetermined order. ... Einstein wasn't saying that a god existed.- Hide quoted text - ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: God=G_uv Proof of Intelligent Design
    ... Sam Ende says Intelligent Design ... >> does not exist and is therefore not a proof that God exists. ... >> Classical Physics holds that the human brain and sensory system ... Hammond has discovered that no one ever actually ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Zoe obviously hasnt done any reading about the Origin of Life or Darwinism
    ... There are no such laws as far as we know. ... so much for 'intelligent design'. ... so i guess physics is wrong and we can replace it with 'god did it' ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Newsflash Extra Extra Proof Of Gods Existence
    ... existence of God, an argument that predated my studies in Sociology. ... permitted and discovered in God’s freedom to not be, a diversity that, ... consciousness, freedom expands. ... macro world to the physics of the micro world produces some revealing ...
    (talk.religion.buddhism)