Ping for a great column about the Dover Panda trial.
Actually, most life forms are breathtakingly simple:
mix 2 parts booze, one part of hot air, one part of old money, one cup of ambition, a cup of connections, and a cup of leftism - and you get a kennedy. You do not even need to shake and bake. And the design of this recipe is surely not particularly intelligent, either.
yeah it was pretty funny, but being from a C-USA school.... F*** him!!
Whoa.
Dude.
And thus did intelligent design somehow join the wow-have-you-ever-looked-at-your-hand-I-mean-really-looked school of stoner intellectual epistemology.
I remember some nights like this...in particular the utter profundity of the TV jingle "Sometimes you feel like a nut - sometimes you don't" for Almond Joy vs. what-was-the-other-one, Dude? Whoa! I was too stoned to catch the name, Bro.
BTW, have you ever really looked at your hand, man? While your at it, check out this ID stuff too. Knarly! We could have been just created only nanoseconds ago, with memories and everything.
< /humor> Better take my meds. :)
Seriously....it sounds like the school board has some knuckle-draggers as attorneys in this case. More proof of evolution, I suppose.
I've heard this theory before. Very compelling under the right circumstances.
And the computer the program is found in must have evolved also!
A program that evolves
LOL!
Do you really mean to give him so much props?
check out his columns...he's a left wing loser. Anti-war, anti-Bush...not exactly to fine qualities on a conservative forum.
Nice design, there is a free lunch after all.
Of course since the Dover School Board has no ID requirement in it's curriculum the article is rather off point but it was amuzing.
As a Univ Cincy alum, I take exception....last year we were Conference USA.
And CUSA basketball could play with anyone. And did....Louisville make the Final Four.
And CUSA football last year would have taken Michigan State.
So...let's be careful with our sports comparisons.
hah!
Many creationists don't seem to grasp that as much as they fervently believe in The Creation, it cannot be called scientific. I think what Jesus said about rendering to Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's should apply here.
For the same reason, they're shooting themselves in the foot with the Intelligent Design theory by insisting that the Designer was God. This is what people in, for example, the Church of Christ profess when they say they don't even accept "Theistic Evolution."
As I understand it, and I'm sure I'll be vehemently corrected here if I'm mistaken, this hypothetical intelligent designer is an unknown entity. Thus the designer(s) could've been from any extraterrestrial civilization extant at the time.
February 2005, "Testing Darwin", by Carl Zimmer.
The whole article is here:
Great paragraph: "The Avida team makes their software freely available on the Internet, and creationists have downloaded it over and over again in hopes of finding a fatal flaw. While they've uncovered a few minor glitches, Ofria says they have yet to find anything serious. “We literally have an army of thousands of unpaid bug testers,” he says. “What more could you want?”
A couple of supporting Web sites:
Yes, and I have found it wanting not only in accepted Scientific rigor but also in Truthfulness.
There is a category of Science termed 'Junk Science' that includes such false 'Causes' as Global Warming, DDT, Silicone Breast Implants, etc.
Creationism/ID'ism definitely falls into this category.
Unfortunately, Creationism/ID'ism falls NOT ONLY into the category (garbage can) of Junk Science but also into the much more dangerous category of 'Junk Religion'. This category is typified by such Totalitarians as Jim Jones and his Kool-aid drinkers. More importantly for the Free Republic Website, many ignornant ignoramuses here insist on pushing this crap here at Free Republic and thereby marginalizing the reputation of this site and the Conservative Movement.
I will not allow this to happen.
There's an easy way to test this statement.
Suppose you have a biological specimen where you already know that the answer to "how did it get that way" is "intelligent design." Is science able to correctly determine the origin of that specimen?
Let's start out with something easy: bacteria and yeast that have been genetically engineered to produce human insulin. The correct answer to "how did it get that way" is clearly "intelligent design."
Now, if application of scientific rules can get the correct answer ("somebody did it"), then the premise of this article (and indeed the whole case against ID) is false.
And if the application of scientific rules cannot get the correct answer, then science needs to be adjusted to reality.
The whole thing boils down to one thing: is "somebody did it" an acceptable scientific hypothesis? The answer in this case is obviously yes. (And standards of proof will still apply, and one can even define the relevant tests.)