"Ironically, the only reason Florida Darwinists would have to fear that this bill might protect intelligent design somewhere down the road is if they already have concluded they cannot win the debate over whether ID is science."
37 comments
We already won the debate over whether ID is science. Maybe in your mind, Mr. West, but courts in the United States have consistently stated that it isn't.
... I think we need a "Edwards v. Aguillard, bitch!" image similar to the Treaty of Tripoli one.
When it came time to give evidence in the Dover Trial, the discovery institute was nowhere in sight. William Dempski et al knew they would lose and decided it was better not to appear. Now all they can do it try to get in by going to the ignorant public, putting on their dog and pony show and hoping Ben Stein in shorts will fool enough people into buying their snake oil.
Only cause IDers (hah!) have not provided us sufficient proof. While they sit behind irreducible complexity, we have tried to understand how complex things work.
ID is not science, it is the use of science terms to hide creationism under.
Wear them down tactics. Of course you want us to ignore you while you try to load school boards with creationists. Although that Dover trial said no, it was after they had snuck it in,got discovered and kicked out, then the trial.
They can't be trusted to take the proper route or to be honest.
"Intelligence" at the cellular level allows all successful organisms to adapt to fresh opportunities. That's called Evolution.
When has any designer of anything created a perfect prototype? Also, if some special entity were actually designing and producing lifeforms (something new appearing as if from nowhere), we would have very specific evidence to support that phenomenon, and the activities of a stipulated "creator" would not be questioned.
As it stands, there is no evidence to that effect. Thus, no case can be made for ID, either in the realms of research or the courts of law. "g0ddidit" can be classified as Ignorantology.
"they already have concluded they cannot win the debate over whether ID is science."
There is no debate. It isn't science. We could debate which tastes better: bacon or purple. It would mean about as much.
"Ironically, the only reason Florida Darwinists would have to fear that this bill might protect intelligent design somewhere down the road is if they already have concluded they cannot win the debate over whether ID is science."
Either that or they're worried that all of their scientific and technological industries will move to a state where the employees wont say "Goddidit" in their reports and be completely serious as they do it.
Firstly, scientists don't seek to "win" debates, they seek to "end" debates, with a logical conclusion.
Secondly, the reason they can't "win" the debate, is because the ID brigade are out there to "win" themselves, rather than learn anything.
How does it go again? Always send a stupid person into an argument you can't win - you'll eventually win because the opposition will give up trying to persuade the stupid person in logic.
No, it is pretty clear that ID is not science. As long as they continue to postulate that the world is explained by invisible, immeasurable, supernatural forces that could more easily be explained naturalistically for the purposes of science, it is NOT science. It could easily work as philosophical argument (a bad one, albeit) but not actual science.
we can't "win" the debate because you refuse to have the debate and even when you do have the debate and we cream you, you refuse to admit you got creamed.
Also, your method of getting your BS in schools is to lie through your teeth about it being "science" and not being religiously motivated, but that won't work anymore because the Dover people proved it's religious crap.
@ Mattural Selection:
Actually, the answer is bacon no matter what the concept against it. Shoot, we could argue which tastes better, bacon or GOD, and it'd be a tie.
Oh, that "debate" that you lost a long, long time ago?
Clue: if your religion requires you to believe in ridiculous and untrue things instead of the evidence, then that religion is not you friend, and you should hide your face in embarrassment at your stupidity.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
