ID is BS and is NOT science- rant thread

[WindRavenX]

Holy fucking shit, if I hear any more scientific illiterate dumbasses try to even say ID is equally as scientifically valid as genetic evolution, I will shit a brick.

It's NOT science, it's NOT testable, so SHUT THE HELL UP.

:rant:

[SaveElmer]

1. It's the same strategy the RW and fundies always emply...

They count on the ignorance and apathy of most people - led by our glorious commander in chief who has made being a dullard cool again - to pound home a point. If they continue to say it enough, it just sinks in and people don't bother to look further. And of course, in this effort, they are aided and abetted by an ignorant and apathetic media

I do have to give kudos to the Washington Post who has been running stories on this all week, and have been very well done!

[moggie]

21. The Ray Mummert quote

One of my favourite quotes from an ID supporter was uttered by "pastor and parent Ray Mummert" in Dover:

"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture"

:rofl:

See it in context here:

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/160018.htm

Yes, Ray, you just can't trust those pesky intelligent people and their book-larnin'.

[WindRavenX]

23. omfg, are you for real??

someone actually *said* that??

[dwckabal]

2. I hope

you have a Kevlar asshole, 'cause you'll be shitting bricks for a while:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/09/23/life.evolution.reut/index.html

The school board says there are "gaps" in evolution, which it emphasizes is a theory rather than established fact, and that students have a right to consider other views on the origins of life. In their camp is President George W. Bush, who has said schools should teach evolution and intelligent design.

The Dover school board says it does not teach intelligent design but simply makes students aware of its existence as an alternative to evolution. It denies intelligent design is "religion in disguise" and says it is a scientific theory.

[WindRavenX]

6. ORIGINS OF LIFE??

Stupid fucking dumbasses! Evolution is NOT origin specific!
Stupud, stupid asshole!!
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[lazarus]

10. Would someone

PLEASE EXPLAIN TO THESE NITWITS WHAT A FREAKING "THEORY" IS????


GAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!

Sorry for the rant.

[rman]

19. In other news: "theory" is now equivalent to "view".

F'in sophists and their word games.

[beam me up scottie]

3. Sure it is.

This guy's got a formula and everything:

Mutation And Morphology

Neo-Darwinists suppose that genetic mutations within certain species can account for speciation, yet, while genetic mutations do occur, the kind that are beneficial have only been found at the molecular level, accounting for things like resistance to certain diseases. For Darwin's macroevolution theory to be true, the mutations necessary to change one animal into another would have to affect the animal's morphology (the shape and structure of its body). To date there has been no evidence that beneficial mutations affecting morphology have occurred in the wild. Mutations of this sort have proved to be either benign or detrimental to the survival of the mutant, utterly contradicting the Darwinist view.

Based upon the evidence gathered so far, both micromutation and modification from natural selection seem to be mechanisms which actually preserve the species they affect, as opposed to turning them into other types of organisms, as Darwinian theory assumes.

Intelligent Design Theory

The basic theory of Intelligent Design as it relates to the origins of life on Earth, can be explained by using the following formulas:

1.) M (matter) + T (time) + E (energy) + I (information) = ABIOGENESIS

2.) C (cell) + T + E + I = ALL SPECIES

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/daley/050923

[WindRavenX]

4. Obviously this guy has never heard of quantum evolution

That's a morphological change that can result in drastic punctuated equilibrium (which, btw, is the norm in nature instead of Darwin's idea of gradualism).

This guy is getting a lot of things messed up:

"For Darwin's macroevolution theory to be true, the mutations necessary to change one animal into another would have to affect the animal's morphology (the shape and structure of its body)"

It's not about changing at the level of organisms- it's about changing the allele frequencies of specific traits at a population level. And there HAVE been observed morphological mutations that have resulted in completely new species.

Like, for example, the opposable thumb. Which is probably also a good example of quantum evolution.
The other example off the top of my head is a jaw structure in snake, which I can't recall the name.

[Ediacara]

5. You've read Stanley's "Macroevolution - Pattern and Process" I see

I'm glad I'm not the only one :-)

[Bill McBlueState]

12. nice formulae

Because, as any hack knows, the way to make a formula is to come up with some idea that sounds good to you, and replace all the words in your idea with their initials. Throw in plus signs, times signs, and equal signs wherever they look nice, and there's your formula!

I + D = F + J

See?

(OTOH, this is kind of how the Drake "Equation" came about, and plenty of PBS documentaries give that one some respect.)

[Pepperbelly]

7. I have given it serious research ...

by plowing through a number of rather tedious papers written on it because on some level, it felt kind of satisfying. As I went through the literature, I was searching for some detail, some notion of proof upon which I could hang my hat but alas, I found none.

Of course, faith is faith and science is science. I do not understand the necessity of conflating the two except that without the Garden of Eden, there is no original sin and without original sin ...

[bananas]

13. Is there any science at all in it?

I haven't looked at any of the papers.
What are they like?
Have they proposed testable hypotheses,
and performed experiments?
Or is it all speculation?

on edit:
I just looked at the wikipedia entry, It says:
Indeed, ID proponent Behe concedes "You can't prove intelligent design by experiment". <7>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

[Pepperbelly]

14. Actually the papers look more like ...

compilations of opinions from research on other matters. I saw one actual concrete example of complexity that Behr (?) thought might be the reslt of complexity because natural seclection would not have evolved a particular cellular mechanism (I cannot recall exactly what it was ... it is yet very early to me, tho) but there were others who published papers asserting that it was indeed the result of natural selection.

I do not recall the specifics of it right now but mainly, no, I saw no research, experimentation, hypothesis, or measurements. Nothing that W would associate with the method.

[FM Arouet666]

8. Intelligent design is just different form of sciense.

If you would take the time to read the enlightnd works of Michel Behe, you would understnad irreducable complexty. When you began to analyze evilution, you see that it falls apart, incapable of esplaining the minutia. This is where ireducable complxity extablishes inteligent design as the only viable theory.....
Did you shit that brick yet? Sorry, I was incredibly board, the image of a shit break drove me to this inexcusable baiting.

[onager]

9. Damn, that was good! For a moment, I thought I was...

...visiting the forum at Dr. Dino's website.

Would you like to learn the importance of Creation, the impossibility of the Big Bang, how to prove the Earth is not billions of years old, the truth about Cave Men and Dinosaurs, why Evolution is dangerous, lies in the Public School Textbooks, where Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas comes from, how we can see light from Stars billions of light years away, and much, much more?

http://www.drdino.com/

:rofl:

As Someone Smarter Than Me once said: "It's really too bad that ignorance isn't painful."

[WindRavenX]

11. lol

evolution is dangerous :rofl:

[Odin2005]

16. Um, No

As a Biology major, I can tell you that ID is total BS, it's a god-the gaps argument.

[beam me up scottie]

17. psst!

(he's a doctor)

And a smart ass one at that. ;)

[Orsino]

15. There IS real work to be done in this area...

...work that would be valuable to science; trouble is, the loudest mouths don't seem willing to do it. Even I can see that it would take a mountain of scientific evidence to begin to establish the probability of abiogenesis occurring spontaneously on the primitive Earth.

It's far too early to start postulating alien intelligence as a likely factor. As has been pointed out many times, this just places the real causes of abiogenesis safely out of our reach, and forces us to go hunting for the alien bastards who did it. Let's not paint ourselves into a corner just because "math is hard." Do the work; then broadcast your opinions with real support.

[OldCurmudgeon]

18. there's *always* work to do

there's *always* work to do...but let's get one thing straight:

abiogenesis != evolution

Evolutionary theory has little to say about abiogenesis. ID has even less ("goddunit!" is NOT saying anything useful, scientifically).

But once one has that first organism, evolution has a tremendous amount to say about what happens subsequently.

[htuttle]

20. I.D. isn't even good fiction

The one book they are basing their 'theory' on is FULL of self-contradictions.

Were 'man and woman' created at the same time, as in Gen 1:27, or was man created first, then the animals, THEN woman from man's rib, as in Gen 2:18-22? There are characters who are introduced, then never heard from again: “There were giants in the earth in those days,” Genesis 6:4. And who were these Nephilim? Silly plot device, if you ask me. The book of Genesis is full of them.

I've seen better continuity checking in Saturday morning cartoons. Who the hell is this guy's editor?

[seasat]

22. Saying ID is a science is sin according to the Bible

ID would have to be a testable hypothesis. Assuming that God created everything is the hypothesis then you would have to devise a test to attempt to disprove the hypothesis. You would have to test God which is forbidden in the Bible. Anyone claiming that ID is a science is saying that God can be tested.