The Intelligent Design Revolution

Good New Magazine ^ | Feb 2006 | Mario Seigle

[editor-surveyor]

If so, then why is diabetes taking more lives, and causing more blindness, and amputations than ever before?

Because "red-state" Americans like you are too lazy to get any exercise and spent too much time stuffing themselves full of Big Macs, Whoppers, and other junk food.

Looks like you let your pants down, huh? 'Red State Americans?'

Just to fill your empty head with some facts, It's not Whoppers that cause diabetes, it's the carbohydrates; pasta, potatoes, bread, and alcohol. The only part of a burger that is unhealthy is the bun.

As for exercise, I'd welcome any attempt on your part to keep up with me, but don't hold out much hope.

Finally, academicians are not scientists; the real scientists work for private concerns and produce results, not grant applications.

" Those who can do...
Those who can't, teach."

[Fester Chugabrew]

If ID is supposed to be a religious doctrine, which religion does it support or is it associated with?

Don't you know? It's the Christian Church of Organized Matter and Intelligent Design.

Kansas State immunologist Scott Todd adds, "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic" (Nature, Sept. 30, 1999, p. 423). Yet true science is the pursuit of truth, not merely the pursuit of a materialistic explanation despite evidence to the contrary.

BUMP

[editor-surveyor]

"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic"

Don'tcha just love it? It ain't science if it doesn't agree with my opinion. That man is a real scientist.

It tears me up when all the 'professors' and such here appoint themselves as "scientists." How can an academician be a scientist? Their very lives are tied up in misrepresenting the truth to get a grant.

[manwiththehands]

"The recent intelligent design revolution also started because of practical observations rather than abstract musings. In certain biology labs, scientists couldn't explain by evolutionary theory what they were seeing inside the cell."

I was always led to believe that certain observations that have been made in cellular biology have supposedly led to some of evolution's strongest arguments.

[andyk]

The little exercise wasn't proposed to satisfy *my* needs, but yours. I suggested it as an easy way for folks here to find out, with a minimum of effort, what is going on in the scientific community with respect to evolution.

Next time you're trying to help out "folks", I suggest directing your post to "All". Aside from any assumption you may have made, you don't have a single clue of what I think in the evolution debate, but I appreciate you thinking of my needs.

[brainstem223]

well stated and very true tooo...

[darkocean]

Kansas State immunologist Scott Todd adds, "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic" (Nature, Sept. 30, 1999, p. 423).

That tells me somebody's definition of "naturalistic" needs work.

[Elsie]

The phrase, 'gains ground' doesn't address the truth or untruth of the subject.

[Elsie]

ID is an exciting new scientific theory.

(You just wanna see 'em foam at the mouth; doncha! ;^)

[Elsie]

This will give people a pretty good idea how well "intelligent design" stacks up against "evolution" as valid science. in only TWO locations!

[Elsie]

The other thing I don't see addressed is the issue of death.

SHhhsh!!

(You are supposed to IGNORE the Man behind the Curtain.)

[Elsie]

One of those things is that they can't explain how life arose from non-living matter.I>

Or how DEATH arose from LIVING matter!

[Elsie]

But wouldn't a search of those sites be merely an 'appeal to authority' that so many Evo's distain so much?

[Elsie]

(And don't forget that the founder of the Salk Insitute won the Nobel prize for developing the polio vaccine).

I guess the answer to my previous question is yes!

[Elsie]

Now look!

You've caused him to get REAL upset!!

[editor-surveyor]

Good! Liars need to be at least upset.

[ThinkDifferent]

That's pretty much the only reason evolution has any support.

Yes, the mountains of evidence have nothing to do with it.

[editor-surveyor]

That's pretty much the only reason evolution has any support.

Yes, the mountains of evidence have nothing to do with it.

Obviously true. If any of them paid any attention to the evidence, there would be no one foolish enough to believe evolution.

[caffe]

Perhaps we should consult the NY or LA Times and do a search on Bush and Kerry..I believe we will see how great Kerry is as compared to Bush.

Are you really that stupid?