“Gord,” over at forumopolis.com, weighs in on the contemptible standards of ID theory:
***QUOTE***
There are no peer-reviewed papers (that meet standard definitions of peer-review) featuring intelligent design and original experimental research in the same paper.
As Judge Jones noted in his opinion, while ID is an interesting theological argument, it is not science.
http://forumopolis.com/showthread.php?t=31086
***END-QUOTE***
Well, ya learn something new every day.
I, for one, had no idea that Judge Jones’ opinion was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal—much less that his opinion was the result of original experimental research.
Do you know of any "peer-reviewed papers (that meet standard definitions of peer-review) featuring intelligent design" or "original experimental research" on behalf of the "intelligent design" theory? Or, just the tu quoque attitudinalism we have come to expect from you?
ReplyDeleteWhy do you even acknowledge such tired lies as "there is no peer-reviewed articles on ID."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1343
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0604883103v1
Just to name one. But Michael Behe and Stephen Meyer have also been in peer-reviewed journals. And the editor who let Meyer's article be published was persecuted for it. Cheers. Ignorance is bliss isn't it veronica.
Hey Veronica,
ReplyDeleteJust letting you know that it is perfectly legit to point out hypocrisy and double standards.
When a group engages in double standards they seem so, well, how should I put this.... un-scientific.
Now, why would someone engage in hypocratic maneuvers and employ double standards just to "kick some people out of their turf?" Doesn't seem very scientific to me.
Hmmm, maybe scientists are religiously biased afterall?
Thanks for your comments, honey, we always like when non-Christian "scientists" provide evidence of what we've beem saying for a long, long time now.
Even if ID were proven, which it is very far from being, that says absolutely nothing about Christianity. In fact, without the biblical version of creation, where are you? No Adam and Eve, no Fall, no Original Sin, no need for Redemption.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, the brute facts of the universe don't support a loving Christian God as the Intelligent Designer. What kind of designer would create and destroy 99% of species that ever walked the earth? What kind of designer would create 3,000 species of cockroach? What kind of designer would engineer the manifold kinds of disease that plague humanity? One might just as well conclude this was an evil, whimsical demonic being.
"Moreover, the brute facts of the universe don't support a loving Christian God as the Intelligent Designer. What kind of designer would create and destroy 99% of species that ever walked the earth? What kind of designer would create 3,000 species of cockroach? What kind of designer would engineer the manifold kinds of disease that plague humanity? One might just as well conclude this was an evil, whimsical demonic being."
ReplyDeleteSo you believe in the objective existence of evil. Haven't you opened a can of worms.
I think Dilly has quite admirably proven above that there is a connection between the biblical record of creation and the fall with the gospel. Unbelievers hate the idea of redemption. They don't think they need to be "saved". Hence the attraction of the theory of evolution, and the embracing it at all costs. Some will even accept ID, as long as the Bible and the God revealed therein can be rejected....
ReplyDeleteDilly said:
ReplyDelete---
Even if ID were proven, which it is very far from being, that says absolutely nothing about Christianity.
---
Man, where were you when the judge in PA ruled that ID was just a hidden form of Creationism?
Consistency, consistency, wherefore art thou, consistency?
Calvindude, unless Dilly and "the judge in PA ruled that ID was just a hidden form of Creationism" are one and the same person, there's no onus on Dilly's part to sign onto the Judge's ruling.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, you might want to check out AiG’s views on the Intelligent Design Movement which states:
The Intelligent Design Movement’s motivation appears to be the desire to challenge the blind acceptance of the materialistic, godless, naturalistic philosophy of Darwinian evolution. They confront many of the philosophical underpinnings of today’s evolutionary thinking. As a movement, they are unwilling to align themselves with Biblical creationism.
Notice that last statement in bold. Did you see that?
And you're concerned with someone else being consistent?
Busthon,
ReplyDeleteDude, you seriously need to learn to recognize satire and sarcasm.