Funniest ID'er statement:

"Things are just too complicated"

Now that's funny!
As if we are just suppose to give up scientific investigation because some Jesus Freaks are having a tough time, with the biological complexity of life.
HAHAHA!!!!
These dumb asses conveniently forget that tribal man ascribed all kinds of, what are now very explainable events, to "Gods".
Thank goodness we didn't stop scientific thought, back then, in favor of superstition, like these idiots want us too now.

because it was too complicated. That's what i hate most about ID, it gives up on trying to figure out the most complicated questions.

What an idiot.
If you want your kid to learn about creationism, take them to church.
Let them learn about Science in school, so that one day we may find a cure for cancer.

Those bug collections were just too hard I explained to the teacher. She kicked my ass, gave me some school house "religion" and I ended up staying in school for one hour a day for a month; now that was hard.

What if Edison said fuck this when he tried to get that light bulb to work. Damn good thing all the great minds and inventors weren't bible thumpers or we sure as hell wouldn't be using a computer today.

And I love how they try to claim ID is a scientific theory....bunch of morons. Now, I'd like to make a very important point here. I believe in a higher being; those who are proponents of ID say those of us who are against teaching it in science class don't believe in "God". That's just not true.

It's about keeping the separation, keeping science where it belongs and keeping spiritual beliefs where they belong.

"How could we POSSIBLY know how old rocks and dinosaur bones are?...it's just a guess"

I usually answer: "Well..if you hadn't slept through high school, maybe you'd know"

What's even more eye-opening is a report issued the other day that 52 percent of Americans don't know
that the earth revolves around the sun and that it equals one year..Geez!!

When they should have been reading and learning, they went and got their TV "fix" instead.

teaching our children to kill with ever increasing quickness
The perfect killing machines, fast, ruthless, and prepared to fight with their fingers on the trigger.

sounds of electronic shooting in background

...and Dungeons and Dragons!

Children aren't easily programmed, stupid people are. The seeming explosion of stupid people has more to do with the general growth of the population and the perpetual cuts to funding and de-emphasis of education moreso than any video game, song, or any other external excuse for personal responsibility and failed parenting.

...the radio and the TV so I can write this on my computer.... But my 3 iPods are in the way and I think my 6 year old is fireing up his PlayStation2.

HAAAAA!

And I laughed at the Natural Science CLEP test which asked at what temp did water boil. Now I understand. I just simply cannot believe that many people are that ignorant!

You know the type: straight A's, but no common sense.

We were making "Holiday" ornaments in German class... the folded paper stars, etc.

Several kids finished theirs, but this one kid stood up and shouted: "This can not be done!
No one can possibly follow these instructions (which were in English... with illustrations for each step).
It's just too hard!"

belief in a Higher Being through their work in science. They usually cited the complexity and beauty of design of whatever science they were studying.

I wish I'd kept all those quotes handy. But who knew these idiots' ideas would ever actually gain traction.

edit: punctuation

I haven't followed the precise arguments made by the IDers, but I have no problem with making a mental bifurcation. On the one hand, I think that scientific investigation shows evolution to be a valid theory. On the other hand, I can easily leave room in my thinking for the idea that there is something more encompassing as an explanation that the rational mind just doesn't get. (Kind of like the old explanation of 2D world can't perceive 3D world or the explanation of infinity.) I am personally comfortable with holding both rationales to explain this world.

So where does science end and the "designer" take over then?
Hummm?
Where is that line?

In order to have a "designer" there has to be a line where the continuum of scientific-investigatory thought must stop and then hand off to "faith" in a "designer".
I, for one, am not a fan of superstition.

The Designer cannot have just "always existed." If, as IDers claims, there is an Intelligent Designer, which can be explained scientifically (OK, they CLAIM can be explained scientifically), then it stands to reason that there was an Intelligent Designer-Designer. And, of course, an Intelligent Designer-Designer-Designer, which leads to an infinite regression.

Funny, I've just never accepted "Poof. Something magical happens." as valid scientific theory.

mikey_the_rat

PS
As an aside, the term Intelligent Design pisses me off, as I hate redundancies, and Design implies Intelligence. Not competence, just intelligence. I mean, my cats can't design a bicycle, they're not intelligent enough. Even if they designed a really crappy bicycle, they would still be showing signs of intelligence, just not competence (though I suspect if any of them could, my grey tabby would be the one to design a decent bike; he's a pretty sharp cat).

These kind of philosophical musings remind me of the kind of intellectually immature debates some of my friends and I would have back in the early 70's sitting around after hitting on a bong as teenagers. Even then we realized how ridiculous our thoughts were. Then we all went off to college and became a bit more educated and mature in our thinking, and learned something about the relationship between cultural mythology and cosmological thinking that inevitably arises in different cultures based on their world view and challenges of existence and cultural evolution in a harsh world.

The universe is too complicated to have just happened, there has to have been an intelligent designer.

Ok, then who designed the designer?
Huh, what do you mean?
Well to design the universe, the designer must be a complicated entity, right?
Yes.
Then who designed the designer?
No one, he just is! (This is probably the point at which they say God instead of designer.)

And they just don't see the flaw in their logic. The universe is too complicated to not be designed, but the designer isn't.

Very, very, very simple explanation of the universe below.
Given time: things will balance, everything seeks it's own level, that which doesn't work will cease to exist.

That's why they believe that light in the refrigerator turns itself off when the door closes by a "miracle."

:rofl: :spray:

Luddite at best: "We are merely human, and the world is so complicated, we cannot explain this so therefore it must be a supreme power waving a magic wand." Look, I don't know how an automatic transmission works, it is beyond my comprehension, so I suppose the best answer is gods magic shifts those gears for me.

I guess as an agnostic I do not acknowledge infinite intelligence to any "being".

I can and have made recombinant viruses from existing genetic material, but it's recombination and selection ("microevolution") that allowed me to pick out the virus we wanted for experimentation. We injected these viruses into animals to effect changes in their physiology and/or behavior (correct an experimentally made lesion or inbred genetic defect). But it's simply fantasy (AKA "faith") to imagine the enterprise that would be required to just go out and design the diversity of life. Time and change is the only way I can see the diversity evolving, based on the rules and forces we fleetingly understand about chemical and physical properties of matter and how systems begin to interact and behave in isolation and en masse.

I watched some Gifted HS students I worked with last summer play around with a program called "the game of Life". A few simple rules set on iterations of "cell-cell" interactions over time and one could see the development of semi-stable and stable fractal patterns develop that to me resembled the kinds of organogenesis one sees in time lapse studies in real developing organisms (apparently zebrafish are the recent hot organisms because you can literally watch vertebrate development in a reasonably short time (hours-days-weeks).

Behe's book is the only ID stuff I've read. His arguments resemble those that would have earned at best a C in an upper division biology class even in the 70s. His misunderstanding and ignorance of modern molecular/cell biology and genetics is stunning for someone with a University Faculty position. But then again, I'm not surprised that LeHigh University has dead wood. Most Universities, even first and second tier ones have them.

Sid

If they come to power, we'll just enter a new Dark Age.

Yes, science can be fraught with complexities... It ain't NASCAR. (Which is about as deep as most of the religious right, neocons can dig into their collective tiny-brains.) I find the idea that some big blue guy in the sky pasted us all together with mud and a rib to be pretty damned unbelievable. But there I go... trying to understand human physiology by challenging my brain with scientific evidence.

Duh.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :spray: :spray: :spray: