Joe G
Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007
|
| Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ May 03 2018,17:28) | | Quote (Joe G @ May 03 2018,16:12) | | Quote (k.e.. @ May 02 2018,21:10) | | Quote (Joe G @ May 03 2018,04:30) | | Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ May 02 2018,20:27) | | Quote (Joe G @ May 02 2018,20:22) | | Quote | | First, by any reasonable definition of the term, intelligent design is not "religion".- page 441 under the heading Not Religion- Signature in the Cell |
| Quote | | "Intelligent Design is based on scientific evidence, not religious belief."- Jonathan Wells "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design" |
"The Design Revolution", page 25, Dembski writes:
| Quote | | Intelligent Design has theological implications, but it is not a theological enterprise. Theology does not own intelligent design. Intelligent design is not a evangelical Christian thing, or a generally Christian thing or even a generally theistic thing. Anyone willing to set aside naturalistic prejudices and consider the possibility of evidence for intelligence in the natural world is a friend of intelligent design. |
He goes on to say:
| Quote | | Intelligent design requires neither a meddling God nor a meddled world. For that matter, it doesn't even require there be a God. |
Guillermo Gonzalez tells AP that “Darwinism does not mandate followers to adopt atheism; just as intelligent design doesn't require a belief in God.”
But I am sure that will be ignored also... |
Good one Joke! A bunch of religiously motivated IDiots claiming they're not religiously motivated. :D |
What an ignorant asshole you are timmy. They were talking about ID and not about themselves, loser |
Why are you wasting time here creationist Joe trying to change our minds?
Get yourself onto Wikipedia and fix this NOW!!!!
Wiki ID page
| Quote | Intelligent design (ID) is a religious argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins", though it has been discredited as pseudoscience. Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, so is not science. The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a fundamentalist Christian and politically conservative think tank based in the United States.
Though the phrase "intelligent design" had featured previously in theological discussions of the design argument, the first publication of the term intelligent design in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 creationist textbook intended for high school biology classes. The term was substituted into drafts of the book, directly replacing references to creation science and creationism, after the 1987 United States Supreme Court's Edwards v. Aguillard decision, which barred the teaching of creation science in public schools on constitutional grounds. From the mid-1990s, the intelligent design movement (IDM), supported by the Discovery Institute, advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula. This led to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial in which U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III found that intelligent design was not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," and that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
ID presents two main arguments against evolutionary explanations: irreducible complexity and specified complexity. These arguments assert that certain features (biological and informational, respectively) are too complex to be the result of natural processes. As a positive argument against evolution, ID proposes an analogy between natural systems and human artifacts, a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God. ID proponents then conclude by analogy that the complex features, as defined by ID, are evidence of design.
Detailed scientific examination has rebutted the claims that evolutionary explanations are inadequate, and this premise of intelligent design—that evidence against evolution constitutes evidence for design—is a false dichotomy. It is asserted that ID challenges the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science though [ID]proponents concede that they have yet to produce a scientific theory.
.... |
All you have to do Joe is become an editor on Wikipedia.......bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! |
Umm, Wikipedia is not a trusted resource. It even admits that it isn't to be used as an academic source.
And even if I edited the page it would just be erased and put back to the way it is. |
That is because Wiki has standards. |
Nope, wiki doesn't have any standards at all. It is all group-think/ mob mentality
--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth
"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton
Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code- Acartia bogart, TARD
YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism
|
