Posted on 11/05/2007 5:21:40 PM PST by Former Military Chick
Intelligent Design does not posit that the Dodo bird was intelligently designed. Read something by an ID scientist before you make uninformed comments...start with Behe's The Edge of Evolution.
I'm still wondering why the mosquito was created...perhaps I'll find out someday.
Between actively funding (not just endorsing, mind you) Al Franken, and Ben Stein's new documentary promoting not-so-intelligent design, he seems to have really jumped the shark lately.
I miss the old reliable Ben Stein when he exposed Arnold as the RINO he was and promoted Tom McClintock for Governor.
So some creatures were intelligently designed and some were not?
This sounds interesting. Could you provide me with a list of which were and which were not intelligently designed?
I have a copy of "The Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin, one of several volumes of works by various writers, included in a very old set of "The Harvard Classics".
The Darwin work is labeled as such: First Edition, November 24th, 1859; Sixth Edition, January, 1872; Copyright, 1909 By P. F. Collier & Son.
The Introduction is written by Darwin and here is a sentence from that introduction, "In the last chapter I shall give a brief recapitulation of the whole work, and a few concluding remarks." The last chapter is Chapter XV.
Here is the last sentence written by Darwin, from the final chapter (Chapter XV) of the "The Origin of Species"............
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
ANSWER: If Poupard's definition of Intelligent Design is correct, ('"Intelligent design," takes both creationism and evolution into consideration and blends them into a congruent theory. "Intelligent design," teaches that evolution did happen, but it was guided by a higher source then just happenstance. It explains that God must have guided evolution to eventually lead to where we are now, or where we will be eventually in the future.') then I say yes, Charles Darwin was a proponent of Intelligent Design, using Darwin's own words as proof.............this should drive the leftists up......the......wall, heh, heh, heh.
:}
There is no such thing.
Stein is a neat guy, but financial genius he is not, though he discusses finance a whole bunch. Recently he stated that value is better than growth, because it performs better over time. Duh, what a contra signal...
Ok Ben, go back to 2/00 and tell me how many growth funds you can find that have 1,3,5,10,20 yr track records greater than 20%? ALL OF THEM.... Growth died, value took off, and now the disparity is the other way.
Oh geez, just forget it...
I have the same Harvard Classics volume. Read the two preceding paragraphs, beginning at the bottom of page 527.
Two sample sentences:
When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Cambrian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled. Judging from the past, we may safely infer that not one living species will transmit its unaltered likeness to a distant futurity.And I disagree with Poupard's definition of Intelligent Design. ID is religion pretending to be science in an attemp to fool the unwary.
then I say yes, Charles Darwin was a proponent of Intelligent Design, using Darwin's own words as proof.............this should drive the leftists up......the......wall, heh, heh, heh."
Nah . . . they will just claim that you are taking Darwin out of context
Did you quit respecting Reagan after his first budget deficit? Or when he failed to eliminate the Dept. of Education?
Did you quit respecting Bush when he put the 'No Bureaucrat ... er Child Left Behind' act?
Sorry people with real jobs in real life don't always meet up to your exacting standards and always agree with you.
The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a sham and the Pastafarians who attend it are flirting with the devil. If you want true enlightenment, I suggest you look into the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Like the FSM, she has her own website. Now there’s a supernatural deity you can believe in. She has all the attributes of a good creator —AND she’s invisible, and she has all the other requisite properties of a deity whose existence can never be proven.
From the quote above, Darwin is simply stating that each generation will not be an exact photocopy of the previous one.......
You can cite a thousand sentences, or, two thousand, or three.......... the bottom line is that Darwin acknowledged that the Creator started it all.............
:}
You seem to think that if something can't be proven, it doesn't exist. There were many things science couldn't prove just a century ago. Did that mean those things didn't exist then, but they exist now?
Does it look like debris from an explosion to you?
“Ben Stein lied in order to secure interviews for his new movie.”
You know perfectly well that’s not true.
“Intelligent design has been determined to be religion in disguise by a U.S. Federal District Court”
There’s no disguise. Of course it’s a religious position. How could saying “God did it” not be a matter of religion?
“and has been determined not to be science by the overwhelming majority (probably 99.5%+) of the relevant scientific community.”
Of course it’s not science. How could “God did it” be science? Science is inadequate to explore the metaphysical.
That said, the dogma, “Evolution proves there is no God” shares both those traits. It is religion, and it is not science.
So long as we are not burning educators at the stake for teaching, conveying, implying, or in any way communicating that notion, ID belongs in any classroom where first causes are discussed.
It’s not necessary to spend a lot of time on it; one need only communicate that there is an alternative to the orthodoxy of the God-haters, in which Academia is steeped.
You wrote: “You seem to think that if something can’t be proven, it doesn’t exist. There were many things science couldn’t prove just a century ago. Did that mean those things didn’t exist then, but they exist now?”
_____________________________________
My response: Don’t be silly. Of course not. There are plenty of things that exist that cannot be proven. I know, for example, that the IPU (Invisible Pink Unicorn) exists because (a) I can feel it in my heart, and (b) how else can you explain the universe? I suppose you think it just came out of nothing on its own. Everything has a cause, and therefore the universe had its cause, and therefore the cause was the Invisible Pink Unicorn. If you can’t see that, I have to assume its because that false deity, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, is sprinkling its dust of lies in your eyes, and stealing your soul. Don’t be a fool — choose the IPU before you turn to stone.
“design is a postulate or hypothesis at best, and its main claim was only advanced recently”
It is what my mother was taught by the nuns in Catholic schools from 1917 through 1931. The term ID was not used, but the substance is the same.
bump
Nothing in Catholic doctrine is incompatible with modern Biology. Design as a concept and ‘intelligent design’ as a postulate are not even similar. Design as a concept means that one thinks that the universe was set along ordered lines by an intelligent agent. ‘Intelligent Design’ is the postulate put forward that the biological innovation necessary for common descent requires the intervention of the designer at various points in history.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.