Re: What is Intelligent Design?

On May 16, 7:08 pm, Ron O <rokim...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 16, 12:10 pm, Bill <b...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On May 16, 7:14 am, Ron O <rokim...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 15, 3:22 pm, Bill <b...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 13, 9:04 pm, DJT <mousede...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 13, 6:54 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:> On May 13, 5:03 am, Ron O <rokim...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Ron is truly a mental
patient, completely ignorant to the fact that before 1859 ID-
Creationism was the majority paradigm of science.

He's "ignorant" of something that's not true. Creationism was never
scientific, and never the "paradigm" of science. At best it was a
default, unscientific position, which was replaced by a real theory by
Darwin.

Ron showcases for us
the average deluded evolutionist, mindlessly babbling and wholly
ignorant without an ounce of objectivity in his thoughts or actions.

Well, Ray, when it comes to "objectivity" or "ignorance", you are
hardly the one to talk. You have mistaken your own bizarre ideas
for what is "objective" and your own lack of knowledge for the
ignorance of others. Remember how you railed about my "ignorance"
about natural selection, when it was your own ignorance on display?

DJT

So, we have a choice: a point of view (evolution or creationism) is
correct or not based on who's says what about it or it is or is not
scientific. Either way we learn nothing about anything other than
people have opinions. How about the proposition that something can be
"true" regardless of whether anyone believes it or is even aware of
it? This frees reality from any dependence on the human imagination
and enables the human imagination to discover reality. Or' put another
way, reality maybe more than we can imagine and possibly, more than we
can know. There might actually be insoluble mysteries.

Bill-

Anyone is free to believe whatever they want. They are not free to
misrepresent their beliefs. To misrepresent creationism as science is
to lie. Good or bad, biological evolution is science. Nothing that
the creationists have come up with makes that grade. The anti-science
factions have tried to get evolution out of the classroom a number of
ways. They have banned it, and as recently as 1999 they just dropped
it out of the Kansas science standards. It isn't just evolution that
they tried to get rid of. They dropped other things like the age of
the earth out of the science standards, radio active decay, and the
big bang. They have tried to claim that evolution is a religious
notion, but that failed for obvious reasons. They have proposed
various alternatives like creation science and intelligent design to
try to compete with biological evolution, but they have never been
able to produce the science to support their religious alternatives.
That is just the reality that we live in. Some people can accept it
and others just lie about it. There is another group that are just
ignorant, but ignorance isn't any excuse when you claim to know what
you are talking about.

Ron Okimoto

My understanding of the textbook controversy was that the ID
proponents were objecting to an un-scientific presentation of the
theories of evolution. The textbooks, they say, gloss over or ignore
the controversies, inconsistencies and other difficulties with the
theories. To correct the problem, they propose either revising the
textbooks to more completely explain the problems of the theories of
evolution or stop presenting any theory, general or specific as
established facts of science. Why would that be so offensive?

Bill-

This is the switch scam that the ID perps are running. You will find
that it is just the old creationist obfuscation scam except they
refuse to mention why they are obfuscating. The scientific
creationists were honest enough to tell us why. If you look at what
the ID perps are selling instead of any intelligent design to teach
you will find the same obfuscationist arguments with no mention of why
they are obfuscating. You can't deny that these are the same guys
that claimed to be able to teach the science of intelligent design in
the science class, so why would you believe what they say about the
switch scam?

What you will find out if you look into the issue is they do not have
a scientific alternative to put forward, and they do not have any
science worth mentioning supporting their views. No alternative, and
no science, and all you have is obfuscation. Why blow smoke if you
know that your alternative doesn't even make the grade to be mentioned
as part of any scientific controversy? Why are the same guys that ran
the teach ID creationist scam running the teach the controversy scam
that doesn't even mention that ID ever existed if they really have an
argument?

Why take a dishonest switch scam from the same guys that lied to you
about intelligent design? Do you deny that the same guys that lied
about intelligent design are running the teach the controversy
creationist scam? If you don't think that teach the controversy isn't
a creatinoist scam, who are the major supporters of the creationist
scam? You can lie to yourself, but you know why the vast majority of
others support the scam. Do you deny that it is a scam? What is your
evidence that it is an honest effort? Isn't it being perpetrated by
the guys that lied about ID? Aren't the ID perps just using it as the
switch scam in a classic bait and switch ploy? Didn't they sell ID to
the ignorant and run in the switch even before they lost in court?
What are they doing today to anyone stupid enough to want to teach the
science of ID? Why is the dishonesty acceptable?

Ron Okimo

You've overworked the words "scam" and "perp" and the phrase, "bait
and switch" to the point that they don't have the emotive effect you
hope for. You just sound like an extremist. I think you probably don't
really understand what you think you're defending. The point should be
whether the points of view the ID defenders are defensible, rather
than rooting around looking for some sinister purpose. Regardless of
who says something or why, what should matter is what is actually
said. Forget the possible ramifications of some point view and just
consider the point of view itself. Your entire argument is an ad
hominem.

Bill

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Im done, I think weve won.
    ... creationism is about as far from science as voodoo. ... but the switch scam doesn't even mention that ID ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: EXPELLED: NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED - PART 1 OF 11
    ... Separate the scam artists from the ... members in Florida thought when they wanted to teach the science of ID ... running the bait and switch scam. ... teaching creationism or intelligent design any longer. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Commentary: The Worst Argument Against Intelligent Design
    ... science and many will go cross-eyed and begin frothing at the mouth. ... including the long and tortured history of creationism ... the most memorable, and idiotic, being "intelligent design is creationism ... intelligent design and watch how fast the switch scam comes in. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: PBS Special wrought with lies
    ... It is obvious to everyone but the scam artists and ... You can even make the case that teaching intelligent design has been a ... Ignorant, incompetent, and or dishonest. ... the first victim of creationism is christianity...creationists hate ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: What is Intelligent Design?
    ... Creationism was the majority paradigm of science. ... ignorant without an ounce of objectivity in his thoughts or actions. ... that it is just the old creationist obfuscation scam except they ...
    (talk.origins)