This is about as accurate as the arguments. One can't argue logic with beliefs. It just doesn't work.
Close Enough?
Good Hunting... from Varmint Al
"The evolutionist stomps his feet screaming that the theory of evolution is as well established as the theory of gravity. But that simply is not true."
What does truth have to do with the theory of evolution?
God created democrats too.....can we really call that intelligent? :)
Darwinism needs to be subject to the same hard scrutiny as any scientific theory....its not the end of the world to state that there are flaws in the theory, but it seems it is the end of the world to say this for many, if not most, Darwinists.
Lighten up evo devos...!
Another author who doesn't know science.
"Evolutionists" are constantly trying to falsify their theories. They do not for a moment think their theories are infallible. That's one of the differences between evolution and CS; the latter do think their beliefs are infallible and are trying to do science without learning how.
When you already know all the answers, scientific method isn't very important then, it it?
No point reading past this. Anybody that thinks that ID is scientifically disciplined is a moron. ID has no science to it at all. It is superstition, not science.
If a student asks, "What's 2 plus 2?" the teacher can give a factual, definitive answer; the answer is known and provable.
If a student asks, "Where did the Universe come from?" the teacher should say, "We don't know. Ask your parents what their beliefs are. My beliefs don't matter to you. The school board's beliefs don't matter to you. The Supreme Court's beliefs don't matter to you. Because nobody can say for sure and all answers are based on faith of one kind or another."
I'd like the "Ask your parents" reply mandated in other matters as well; such as the proper installation of a condom.
As a matter of science, intelligent design theory is much more disciplined and modest in its claims than either the theory of evolution or creationism. Intelligent design theory merely infers, but does not attempt to identify, a designer from evidence that even evolutionists agree has the appearance of being designed.
So disciplined and modest, in fact, that the ID proponent restricts himself entirely to shrugging his shoulders and saying "sure looks like somebody or something may have designed this little thingy." Now there's a scientific undertaking today's teenagers will just love.
And I notice that the author of this article didn't even try to identify any specific evidence of design or any criteria by which the existence of design may be established or ruled out. I wonder why?
Naw, ID isn't religious.
Heard this on Glenn Beck:
"Look through a telescope at Mars.
If you see an office building on it, evolution would say it just happened by chance. Intelligent Design says, no, someone built it."
Evolutionist fear what would happen if their theory is challenged, truly investigated without bias, or questioned IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM. They then attack the scientist who does question it (or the guy who posts something against it), question his credentials, call him pathetic, or try to convince a court or school board that he's insane.
Why is it such a huge threat to say that there are possibly other options than we went from goo, to zoo, to YOU?
Today's evolutionary scientist are willing to question anything EXCEPT evolution. The real question should be WHY?
Good Hunting... from Varmint Al
the wow-have-you-ever-looked-at-your-hand-I-mean-really-looked school of stoner intellectual epistemology. - Mike Argento
Sigh. Why don't people take the time to learn about the theory of evolution before criticising it? The theory has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of the cosmos or life. It's just a theory (well supported by the evidence) about how life diversified after it appeared. That's it. Nothing more nothing less.
Why do opponents of evolution try to make the theory out to be something it isn't?
I don't think either ID or evolution can address the origin of life, just the origin of the diversity of species on our planet. The article seems to get it wrong - as do most in this debate - this is not about the origin of life, but the "origin of species".
*buzzzz* The ToE makes no claims about the origin of life or the cosmos.