'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Unregistered
|
Hey Sal, did you forget my questions for you already? No problem. As always, I'm happy to post them again. And again and again and again, every time you show your face here, until you either answer them or run away (again).
*ahem*
1. What is the scientific theory of intelligent design, and how do we test it using the scientific method?
2. According to this scientific theory of intelligent design, how old is the earth, and did humans descend from apelike primates or did they not?
3. what, precisely, about “evolution” is any more “materialistic” than weather forecasting, accident investigation, or medicine?
4. do you repudiate the extremist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson, and if so, why do you keep taking his money anyway? And if you, unlike most other IDers, are not sucking at Ahmanson's teats, I'd still like to know if you repudiate his extremist views.
(OK, we'll scratch this one, since you seem to recognize that Ahmanson is a nutter and have repudiated his nuttiness -- I look forward to your helping OTHER IDers repudiate his nuttiness too. Although I am rather curious as to why, do you think, Ahmanson funds DI, and why, do you think, DI takes his money?)
5. Why are you undermining your own side by proclaiming here that ID is all about defeating "atheism" and "anti-religion", while your side is desperately trying to argue in court that ID has nothing at all whatsoever to do with religion or religious apologetics? Are your fellow IDers just lying under oath when they testify to that, Sal?
6. What did the designer do, specifically. What mechanisms did it use to do whatever the heck you think it did. Where can we see it using these mechanisms today to do . . . well . . . anything.
7. Hey Sal (or whoever you are), IDers keep telling us that ID is science and not just fundamentalist Christian apologetics.
Given that, why is it that IDEA Clubs only allow Christians to serve as officers? Why aren't Muslims or Raelians or Jews who accept ID allowed to serve as IDEA Club officers?
Is there a legitimate scientific reason for that, or is it just plain old-fashioned religious bigotry we are seeing?
8. Hey Sal (or whoever you are), the Templeton Foundation says that it asked IDers to submit ideas for scientific research projects into ID that it could fund ------ and no one submitted any.
Why is that? Is it because IDers are far more interested in using political methods to push their religious opinions into school classrooms than they are in doing any actual "scientific research"?
9. Gee, Sal (or whoever you are) I can't think of any scientific advance made in any area of science at any time in the past 25 years as the result of ID "research". Why is that?
10. How many peer-reviewed scientific papers have there been centering around ID "research"? (I mean the ones that were NOT later withdrawn by the journal on the grounds that they were published fraudulently). None? Why is that?
11. Why is it that leading DI luminaries (such as the, uh, Isaac Newton of Information Theory) never get invited to scientific symposia on Information Theory or Quantum Mechanics? Surely if ID were at the cutting edge of scientific research in these fields, professionals in the field would be dying to hear about it, right? And yet IDers are ignored in these fields. Why is that?
12. Why is it that IDers prefer to "debate" in front of church audiences and college Christian student groups, but not in front of scientific conferences or peer-reviewed science journals?
13. Hey Sal, why is it that all of DI's funding comes from fundamentalist Christian political groups and Reconstructionist nutjobs?
14. Why is it that the Templeton Foundation, which focuses on issues of science and religion (right up ID's alley, eh?) won't fund DI?
15. Hey Sal (or whoever you are), your pal Luskin told the press that there was a positive scientific theory of ID that was NOT based solely on negative arguments against evolution.
Why is it that you are quite unable to come up with any?
Or was Luskin just BS'ing everyone when he made that claim?
16. > I don't want ID or creation science taught in Public Schools nor college science classes.
Why not?
Please be as specific as possible.
17. >The scientific theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and life are best explained by an intelligent cause.
Explained how. How does ID "explain" anything. other than "something intelligent did, uh, something intelligent".
18. >Intelligent design is an interpretation of a fundamental physical law known as quantum mechanics.
What interpretation.
And why do quantum physicists think ID is full of crap?
19. >It it testable in 2 ways:
WHAT, specifically, is testable? How do you propose to test :"something intelligent did, uh, something intelligent"?
20. >1. When a designer is available to participate, such as a gene enegineering company we can test it directly such as in the case of www.genetic-id.com
Glad to hear it. Is the Intelligent Designer available to participate, or isn't it, and how can we tell.
21. >2. In the abesense of having a designer present, we can apply simlar tests but will not be able to obviously get direct observational evidence. However this is still consistent with accepted practice in Forensic science.
Glad to hear it. Is the Intelligent Designer available to participate, or isn't it, and how can we tell.
22. >An objective criteria would be something like the blueprints for genetically engineered food.
Great. Can you show me, please, the blueprint for anything that you think your Intelligent Designer designed --- the bacterial flagellum, the blood clotting system, etc etc etc?
Then can you show me how this blueprint is implemented by the Designer?
23. > www.genetic-id.com gives examples of how design is detected.
Why is it that genetic engineers, like other scientists, think ID is full of crap, then?
24. >If you think that ID applies only to "God made" designs, it only shows your misunderstandings of the theory
Really. So the design of life wasn't done by God?
Interesting.
Was it space aliens?
25. >The issues you bring up are creationist issues, not ID
issues.
But you ARE a creationist, aren't you.
If not, then I am curious --- what were you before ID appeared on the scene in 1987?
26. >No alternative is better than a wrong alternative.
Uh, I thought ID **was** the "alternative" . . . ?
Are you now telling me that it's NOT an "alternative"? After all DI's arm-waving about its "alternative scientific theory" and its "positive scientific theory that does not depend solely on negative arguments against evolution", are you NOW telling me that DI is just BSing us when they say that, and they really DON'T have any "alternative scientific theory" after all?
27. Hey Sal (or whoever you are), if there is no such alternative as "intelligent design theory", then, uh, why does the Intelligent Design movement call itself the, uh, "Intelligent Design movement? Why name yourselves after something that doesn't exist? Why not call yourselves a more accurate name? I, personally, like the one offered by your pal Paul Nelson --- The Fundamentally Religious and Scientifically Misbegotten Objections to Evolution Movement" (FRASMOTEM for short). It's lots more accurate than "intelligent design", particularly since, as you NOW seem to be saying, there simply IS NO scientific theory of design. . . .
28. >We do not see the Designer of life in opreation today as far as I know
Why not? Did it climb back aboard its flying saucer and go home?
Are you seriously suggesting that God doesn't intervene in the modern world? Do your fellow fundies know that you are telling everyone that God no longer does anything?
29. > we postulate a Designer operated in the past.
Convenient for you, isn't it.
So tell me, when did it stop operating.
And how can you tell.
30. >Perhaps it doesn't fit your definition of a theory.
Perhaps you prefer Behe's definition of "scientific theory", which places astrology alongside ID?
But now you've raised another interesting point --- if ID really is "science", then why exactly do IDers find it necessary to change, through legislative fiat, the definition of "science" to make ID fit?
31. >Hey Flanky boy, the above equation from physics is the basis for ID theory.
Reeeaaallllyyyyyyy.
Would you mind underlining the term in this equation that represents the Intelligent Designer?
Thanks.
32. BTW, what observer do you think collapses the Designer's wavefunction and, uh, brings it into existence?
Wigner's Superfriend?
Any time you're ready, Sal, you just let me know, OK?
Coward.
|
