# The Lies and Arrogance of Evolutionists



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 4, 2011)

This article is a bit dated, but it illustrates precisely why the fight for educational freedom/choice must be won against these fascists. . . . 

*The Creationist Buffoonery and Its Dangerous Implications
by Lee Salisbury / January 29th, 2008
Dissident Voice*

Excerpt:

In spite of the pro-evolution 2006 verdict in Dover, PA, creationists persist seeking to influence and intimidate uninformed school boards in Ohio, Florida, and Texas. This is clearly a culture war with creationist/biblical literalists leading the anti-science, pro-creationist charge.

. . . Creation &#8220;science&#8221; rejects every fundamental precept upon which actual science functions, from empiricism to falsification. Creationists reject empiricism, the very heart of science, and instead embrace fanciful biblical legends of a &#8216;talking snake&#8217; and a 6,000-year-old solar system all in a vain attempt to justify their immutable doctrinal beliefs. They are no different than the Roman Catholic clergy of 500 years ago persecuting Galileo because he declared the sun did not revolve around the earth.

. . . It is bad enough that creationist churches are freeloaders, taking advantage of the public&#8217;s good will by skirting their fair share of real estate taxes. But, worse yet, they use creationism as a rhetorical facade, as a lever through which to influence public policy. Creationists exploit the faith of well-meaning Christians (and those of other religions) to further their own purely self-serving goals at the expense of reality. Creationism is nothing more than an ancient regurgitated ideology bereft of merit, and loathsome in its intentions.​
LINK


----------



## Mad Scientist (Jun 4, 2011)

Evolutionist/Religiphobes *can't prove* how the Earth was created either.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jun 4, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> these fascists. . . .



Seriously?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 4, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > these fascists. . . .
> ...



Oh, yes indeed.  Everything in the above is a lie, a distortion or constitutes a flat-out denial of the fundamentals of human liberty.  As far as the public education system goes, the only ones doing any real imposing are leftists in general and evolutionists in particular.  They are fascists.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 4, 2011)

> This article is a bit dated



The article isnt alone.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 4, 2011)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > This article is a bit dated&#8230;
> 
> 
> 
> The article isn&#8217;t alone.





Uh-huh.  Cute.  But of course everything in it remains pertinent.  Lefty's still spouting the same nonsense today as if he owned the schools and had the right to impose his religion and morality therein by way of "politics by scientist" against the constraints of inherent rights and certain constitutional imperatives.  Even if I weren't a creationist, I'd still oppose him.  That's the difference between me and the pretenders of modernity.


----------



## rdean (Jun 5, 2011)

*"Delusion" is an American "Right".  Don't let "scientists" take that "right" away!*


----------



## code1211 (Jun 5, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> This article is a bit dated, but it illustrates precisely why the fight for educational freedom/choice must be won against these fascists. . . .
> 
> *The Creationist Buffoonery and Its Dangerous Implications
> by Lee Salisbury / January 29th, 2008
> ...




I've said this before on this board.  Creationism is a subject that should be offered at the College level.  It would be the favorite of the football varsity player as every answer, every single one, on every test, every single one, would be the same:  "God did it."

What possible place could this ridiculous course have in any science ciriculum?


----------



## bodecea (Jun 5, 2011)

I would like to ask the OP how old he thinks the Earth is?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 5, 2011)

bodecea said:


> I would like to ask the OP how old he thinks the Earth is?



4.5 to 4.6 billion years.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 5, 2011)

rdean said:


> *"Delusion" is an American "Right".  Don't let "scientists" take that "right" away!*



The delusion of the fascist left:  the fundamentals of ideological liberty should be subject to the ever-changing pronouncements of the regnant scientific community.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jun 5, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...



Then you can take the Pepsi Challenge.  Maybe you can succeed where the Intelligent Design proponents lost during the Dover Trial:

Show how creationism can fall into the scientific method.  If you can adequately do that, I'll agree it should be taught in science class.  If you can't do that, then it is not science and has no business in science class.

You can start with the rather simple task of proving God doesn't exist.  If you don't have a null hypothesis, you can't have a valid hypothesis.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 5, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Then you can take the Pepsi Challenge.  Maybe you can succeed where the Intelligent Design proponents lost during the Dover Trial:
> 
> Show how creationism can fall into the scientific method.  If you can adequately do that, I'll agree it should be taught in science class.  If you can't do that, then it is not science and has no business in science class.
> 
> You can start with the rather simple task of proving God doesn't exist.  If you don't have a null hypothesis, you can't have a valid hypothesis.



The proponents of Intelligent Design did not fail.  The court in the Dover Trail merely declared, in effect, that a certain metaphysical consensus was the only legitimate ground for scientific inquiry in the public schools of its jurisdiction.  The finding was arbitrary and tyrannical, just like the findings of the Warren Court's "state-church" decisions of the '60s. 

No institution, particularly one of education, exists in an ideological vacuum; either the education system in and of itself is unconstitutional or the manner in which it is administered&#8212;i.e., in the absence of universal school choice&#8212;is unconstitutional.  A closed, collectivist education system is tyranny.  

The wool has been pulled over your eyes. 

How about this?  You prove to me that a metaphysical or a Darwinian naturalism, which begs the question, is an unimpeachable ground for scientific inquiry.  In the meantime, traditional methodological or mechanistic naturalism is a perfectly legitimate approach to science.  Moreover, intelligent design theory is legitimately derived from the scientific method and is subject to falsification. 

*See link*.

In other words, you don't grasp the actual nature of the dispute at all.  You think it's evolutionary theory versus intelligent design within the parameters of your metaphysical presupposition for science.  No.  I'm not beholden to your metaphysics.  The dispute is materialism/Darwinian naturalism versus traditional methodological naturalism . . . the fascistic imposition of the former on millions who are fed up with the tyrannical disregard for their ideological/religious rights.

You don't own the classroom.  You don't own science.  You don't own the metaphysics of science.  If your metaphysics are wrong, so is your theory.  Who the hell do you think you are?  

God, apparently.  

You've aligned yourself with a regime of jurisprudence that has placed itself in a state of war against the natural rights of man.

(By the way, intelligent design theory proper does not address the existence or non-existence of God, and creationism is a theological construct.)


----------



## geauxtohell (Jun 5, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > *"Delusion" is an American "Right".  Don't let "scientists" take that "right" away!*
> ...



The fundamentals of science curriculum should be left to the scientific community.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 5, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> You don't own* the metaphysics of science. * If your metaphysics are wrong, so is your theory.


Science is not metaphysical, it is empirical. It it religion that is metaphysical.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 5, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> (By the way, intelligent design theory proper does not address the existence or non-existence of God, and creationism is a theological construct.)


So you are saying that Nature is the Intelligent Designer!

I believe in God, only I spell it Nature.
- Frank Lloyd Wright


----------



## geauxtohell (Jun 5, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> The proponents of Intelligent Design did not fail.  The court in the Dover Trail merely declared, in effect, that a certain metaphysical consensus was the only legitimate ground for scientific inquiry in the public schools of jurisdiction.  The finding was arbitrary and tyrannical, just like the findings of the Warren Court's "state-church" decisions of the '60s.



You are delusional if you think that Intelligent Design didn't fail at Dover.  Not only did they lose the case, their star witnesses like Behe were shredded on the stand.  It was so bad that the Judge's decision was a complete smack down.  

Funny that you simply dismiss jurisprudence as "arbitrary and tyrannical" when you disagree with it.  Though, I suppose if you can create your own reality where Intelligent Design didn't lose badly at Dover, you can do most anything.  



> No institution, particularly one of education, exists in an ideological vacuum; either the education system in and of itself is unconstitutional or the manner in which it is administeredi.e., in the absence of universal school choiceis unconstitutional.  A closed, collectivist education system is tyranny.



That's a separate issue.  The system isn't closed.  People are free to home school or send their children to private or parochial school if they want.   



> The wool has been pulled over your eyes.
> 
> How about this?  You prove to me that a metaphysical or a Darwinian naturalism, which beg the question, is an unimpeachable ground for scientific inquiry.



We are talking about the natural sciences, not the metaphysical.  Darwin's theory of evolution does not fall into the realm of the "metaphysical" as much as you would like to claim otherwise.  

Metaphysics is philosophy.  Science is rooted in observation and a strict methodology.  



> In the meantime, traditional methodological or mechanistic naturalism is a perfectly legitimate approach to science.



I agree.  Too bad I.D. doesn't fall into the "methodological or mechanistic naturalism" of the natural sciences.  Science is rooted in scientific methodology.  The spirit of inquiry exists in science, but any theory has to adhere to the rules.  There might be room for Intelligent Design (which is not creationism, BTW) in theology of philosophy.  There is no room for it in the scientific classroom.  



> Moreover, intelligent design theory is legitimately derived from the scientific method and is subject to falsification.



You have yet to prove that.  You don't get the power of fiat on this matter.   



> In other words, you don't grasp the actual nature of the dispute at all.  You think it's evolutionary theory versus intelligent design within the parameters of your metaphysical presupposition for science.  No.  I'm not beholden to your metaphysics.  The dispute is materialism/Darwinian naturalism versus traditional methodological naturalism . . . the fascistic imposition of the former on millions who are fed up with the tyrannical disregard for their ideological/religious rights.



No, I think it's "science" vs. philosophy.  I.D. uses the mechanisms of evolution to explain speciation.  It's just a "God in the gaps" mentality.  People can believe that if they want, but it's not a legitimate scientific theory.  

It's irrelevant what you feel about the matter.  This issue will be settled by the profession.  That is scientists.  Even if I.D. proponents manage to pollute the public school's curriculum, at the university level I.D. will be considered laughable. 

Underlying I.D. scientific lameness is the inability to adhere to the scientific method and therefore meet the rigors of peer review and research.  



> You don't own the classroom.  You don't own science.  You don't own the metaphysics of science.  If your metaphysics are wrong, so is your theory.  Who the hell do you think you are?



Someone who understands what science is and is not.  I never claimed to own the classroom.  Nor do you.  What I claim is that there are rules that govern what is science and what is not.  If a theory can't meet the standards, it's not science.  

Pretty simple, really.   

The only people who can't grasp it are the people who are blinded by their own bias and agenda.  



> God, apparently.



Your hyperbole is absurd.   



> You've aligned yourself with a regime of jurisprudence that has placed itself in a state of war against the natural rights of man.



Oh, please.  No one's "natural rights" have been infringed upon.  Secondly, jurisprudence came after the scientific community rightfully pointed out that I.D. was hogwash.  



> (By the way, intelligent design theory proper does not address the existence or non-existence of God, and creationism is a theological construct.)



Are you talking about I.D. or creationism?  Perhaps you should get your talking point's straight.  Your OP references creationism, which has even less role in the classroom than I.D.  In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled this way.  

As for I.D. "not addressing the existence of God"; that is simply not true.  As the judge found in Dover (via the wedge document).


----------



## geauxtohell (Jun 5, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > You don't own* the metaphysics of science. * If your metaphysics are wrong, so is your theory.
> ...



Speaking of arrogance.  Ironic how the creationists like to act like they can create the rules.

As if scientific theory isn't governed by it's own set of rules and laws.  They seem to claim that all of this is just made up as we go along.  

More power to them, but they are just wrong.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 5, 2011)

> The finding was arbitrary and tyrannical, just like the findings of the Warren Court's "state-church" decisions of the '60s.


How exactly were the Warren Courts rulings arbitrary and tyrannical?


----------



## geauxtohell (Jun 5, 2011)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > The finding was arbitrary and tyrannical, just like the findings of the Warren Court's "state-church" decisions of the '60s.
> 
> 
> How exactly were the Warren Courts rulings arbitrary and tyrannical?



Because he/she didn't agree with them.

Obvious judicial activism!


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 5, 2011)

> Because he/she didn't agree with them.
> 
> Obvious judicial activism!


No doubt. 

Im just curious because the first of those Establishment Clause cases were heard by the Vinson Court.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 5, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > You don't own* the metaphysics of science. * If your metaphysics are wrong, so is your theory.
> ...



Yes.  Science deals with the empirical.  I never said it didn't.  But what you apparently don't grasp is that science necessarily rests on one metaphysical presupposition or another. 

Are you denying that?  LOL!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 5, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> The fundamentals of science curriculum should be left to the scientific community.



A meaningless statement, really.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 5, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...



uh huh...  evidence sure is metaphysical like that.


I'm sure we'll hear about denying gravity next.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 5, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> So you are saying that Nature is the Intelligent Designer!



No.  Where did you get that from?  I said that (1) metaphysical naturalism/Darwinian naturalism and (2) traditional methodological/mechanistic naturalism are not the same thing.  The latter doesn't assert anything about reality beyond the empirical realm.  It's the evolutionist who presupposes to know something about that which lies beyond the boundaries of scientific inquiry.

He just pretends otherwise . . . or, in the case of most laymen like you, he simply doesn't grasp the nature of scientific inquiry, the philosophy of science.  The latter thinks that science, its parameters and methodology are suspended in midair, as it were, without any underlying or metaphysical foundation and structure.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 6, 2011)

Shogun said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Dude!    You're making baby talk.  You still don't understand what I'm talking about at all!  The substance of scientific inquiry and the philosophical foundation and structure of science are not the same thing.  I understand the pertinent realities and the distinction between the two.  You don't.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 6, 2011)

As I posted in the other active evolution thread, I have no quarrel with Creationism and Intelligent Design, which I do not necessrily see as the same thing, being omitted from the Science curriculum.  I don't see them as science, at least yet, but I think any science teacher who is actually an educator rather than an indocrinator will acknowledge that both Creationism and Intelligent Design can answer questions that theories of origins of the universe and Evolution cannot.  And he will be honest that Evolution cannot, at least yet, answer all the questions about the origins and evolvement of all living organisms on Earth.

Even Einstein, who did not subscribe to a personal God, rejected the label of "Atheist".  He saw an order in the universe and the living things on Earth that he easily recognized as having the potential of some kind of cosmic intelligence behind it all.  Even his brilliant mind could not accept that it all results from some random cosmic accident.

We don't have to incorporate them all into science class, but there is plenty of room to allow Creationism/Intelligent Design and Science to coexist peacefully side by side.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 6, 2011)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > The finding was arbitrary and tyrannical, just like the findings of the Warren Court's "state-church" decisions of the '60s.
> 
> 
> How exactly were the Warren Courts rulings arbitrary and tyrannical?



I already touched on that. . . .

No institution, particularly one of education, exists in an ideological vacuum; either the education system in and of itself is unconstitutional or the manner in which it is administeredi.e., in the absence of universal school choiceis unconstitutional. A closed, collectivist public education system is tyranny.

The Court failed to resolve the matter accordingly.  That is to say, the leftist Warren Court failed, quite intentionally by the way, to order that the public education system provide universal school choice, the only solution that would satisfy the First-Amendment requirements of ideological/religious liberty for all.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 6, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > *(By the way, intelligent design theory proper does not address the existence or non-existence of God, and creationism is a theological construct.)*
> ...





M.D. Rawlings said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > So you are saying that Nature is the Intelligent Designer!
> ...


I got that from the part of your post I cited. How could you have possibly missed it. If ID does not presuppose God is the Intelligent Designer then who or what other than Nature could possibly be the Intelligent Designer?

It was quite dishonest of you to claim that ID does not address the existence of God. In ID God and only God can be the Intelligent Designer. ID has never and will never accept even the possibility that Nature is the Intelligent Designer.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 6, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...


I understand your desire to turn science into a religion, but would you please list these "metaphysical" presuppositions. Hint, a scientific theory is NOT a "metaphysical presupposition."


----------



## Sallow (Jun 6, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > > The finding was arbitrary and tyrannical, just like the findings of the Warren Court's "state-church" decisions of the '60s.
> ...



Bullshit.

The Constitution provides that the Government neither advocate or suppress religious freedom.

Which our government takes great pains to do.

Which means that their are plenty of religious places to worship as one pleases.

But that should not be taken to mean that the government should allow that gibberish to be taught as science. It ain't.


----------



## konradv (Jun 6, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > > This article is a bit dated
> ...



Went through most of the posts and still don't see what "lies and arrogance" you're talking about.  Care to explain?  All I've see is someone trying to impose their religious beliefs on others and that would be YOU!!!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 6, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > > The finding was arbitrary and tyrannical, just like the findings of the Warren Court's "state-church" decisions of the '60s.
> ...



Spoken like a true statist, well-groomed and -conditioned by years of mindless assimilation.  I'm talking about universal school choice, educational freedom, ideological liberty.  

If it's unconstitutional for the state to impose my worldview on you, why is it not unconstitutional for the state to impose your worldview on me?  

*Crickets chirping*

All the Court did was declare, in effect, that anything traditionally thought of as being religious in nature could not be imposed by the State in the public schools.  

So I disagree with the Court, eh?  I do not disagree with that aspect of the Court's decision.  Not at all.  Oops.  Wrong.   

The real-world result in the absence of universal school choice, however:  the secularist's/the materialist's worldview has free reign.  So the First amendment means that the state can impose what millions regard to be vile and false on their children?  Bull!  It means no such thing.  How could it?

But then leftists arbitrarily stand on the establishment clause and disregard the imperatives of the free exercise clause altogether.  (frauds, hypocrites, liars, thugs, thieves, fascists)

Rather than resolve the problem constitutionally, the Court merely traded one tyranny for another and unnecessarily instigated a cultural civil war . . . and the education system has declined ever since.  Today it is a cesspool of mediocrity and incessant infighting.

I told you before, that's the difference between you and me:  I would oppose what the Court did even if I were an agnostic, an atheist or a non-Christian.  I have always opposed the educratic tyranny of secular humanism, fully understanding the metaphysical and theological implications thereof.

Make no mistake about, the leftist members of the Warren Court understood that institutions of education, especially, do not exist in ideological vacuums.  They were fully conscious of what they were doing.  It was their intent to impose their worldview, to engage in a little social engineering.  Judicial activism?  Pfft.  An afterthought. 

(Lefty is such a silly ass.  He lives in a world of black-and-white sloganeeringthe complexities, the nuances, the imperatives of reality flying right over his pointed head.)


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 6, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> If it's unconstitutional for the state to impose my worldview on you, why is it not unconstitutional for the state to impose your worldview on me?



MDR has capsulized the absolute core of the thesis of this thread in the above sentence.  (Noting that it was excerpted from a much longer post a few minutes earlier.)

Who is to say what any school board in any community MUST teach school children or what they MUST NOT teach school children?   A good school board will of course teach all the theories of climate change AND evolution AND various others concepts that are part of the national and world debate.   But a good school board will also insist that curriculum will also encourage critical thought and not close any concepts from consideration including acknowledgment that Creationism and Intelligent Design are part of that national and world debate.

It is not for the Federal government to dictate what can or cannot be included in any local school curriculum.  In fact it is very dangerous to give the Federal government such power.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 6, 2011)

Sallow said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Brahahahahahahahaha!  Naïve twit.

_Freddie has Two Daddies_, _Amy has Two Mommies_, Mother Earth (leftist, wacko environmentalism), political correctness, multiculturalism, materialism, secular humanism, paganism, Darwinism, collectivist historical revisionism, Ebonics, new math. . . .



> Which means that their are plenty of religious places to worship as one pleases.



Is that before or after lefty imposes is swill on me in the schools, on my time and on my dime, you fascist thug?  



> But that should not be taken to mean that the government should allow that gibberish to be taught as science. It ain't.



There are two issues here:  (1) the imperatives of religious/ideological liberty and (2) the merits of evolutionary theory, intelligent design theory and creationism respectively.

"But that should not be taken to mean", eh? you self-centered, self-serving little prick.

The free exercise clause of the First Amendment was intended to prohibit the government from interfering with the free exercise of religious/ideological expression.  Period.  There is no friggin' caveat regarding the classroom, you thick-headed, obtuse as a two-by-four lemming.  There is no friggin' caveat providing for any friggin' exception to the rule whatsoever, e.g., should a consensus of scientific materialists or Sallow hold that something or another is gibberish.  You idiot, you liar, you hypocrite, you thug, you punk, you dipstick!  

The First Amendment is supposed to prevent the government from allowing any given faction to impose its worldview on another.  Period!  Like I said before, Lefty is such a silly ass. He lives in a world of black-and-white sloganeering&#8212;the complexities, the nuances, the imperatives of reality flying right over his pointed head.  But of course, in truth, lefty gets it alright; he just pretends not to understand it when it comes to the public educaiton system . . . unless it is he that is being imposed upon therein.  Then he cries like a stuck pig.

I'M TALKING ABOUT UNIVERSAL SCHOOL CHOICE, THE ONLY SOLUTION THAT SATISFIES THE COMMANDMENTS OF NATURAL LAW AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS!  I'M NOT INTERESTED IN IMPOSING MY "GIBBERISH" ON YOU; YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE DOING ANY IMPOSING, YOU BRAINWASHED, STATIST THUG.

But maybe I've got you all wrong, just as you misunderstood me.  Are you saying that you too support universal school choice, after all, understanding the only satisfactory solution and the nature of the tyranny that the Court foisted on the people?  

Nah.  Of course not.  You're still living in that land of fantasy where institutions of education exist in ideological vacuums.  LOL!


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 6, 2011)

And the government does not suppress religious freedom?

When a school holiday scheduled around Christmas can't be called Christmas break any more?

When students can no longer be exposed to the wonderful music of the great masters than contain any religious concept or include more than token traditional Christmas carols in the winter concert?

When students cannot read a passage from the Bible at show and tell?

When the traditional generic prayers at football games and school assemblies that many of us grew up with are no longer allowed?

When the ACLU is allowed to sue to remove a piece of art with religious symbolism from a courtroom or remove a tiny cross depicting religious heritage from a village seal or take down a historic old creche from a courthouse lawn that it has graced every Christmas for more than a half century?

Tell me again how the government is not suppressing the free exercise of religion?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 6, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> I got that from the part of your post I cited. How could you have possibly missed it. If ID does not presuppose God is the Intelligent Designer then who or what other than Nature could possibly be the Intelligent Designer?



No.  You didn't get that from me.  I wrote:  ''. . . intelligent design theory proper does not address the existence or non-existence of God. . . .''  Fact.  

You just fished that out of your mind; you got that from evolutionist propagandists.  Perhaps you got that from Wikipedia's summation of ID, a stream of ignorance and stupidity.  Your mind just can't wrap itself around the proscriptions of traditional methodological naturalism, the underlying apriority of science prior to Darwin.  



> It was quite dishonest of you to claim that ID does not address the existence of God. In ID God and only God can be the Intelligent Designer.



YOU BRAINWASHED TOOL.  Scientific intelligent design theory DOES NOT address the existence or non-existence of God.  BONG.  ERROR.  WRONG.  FALSE.  INCORRECT.  

Intelligent design theory is not creationism.  MANY OF ITS PROFESSIONAL PROPONENTS ARE AGNOSTIC, NON-RELIGIOUS.  

Are the lights on yet?  Did you find the switch?



> ID has never and will never accept even the possibility that Nature is the Intelligent Designer.



Well, by definition, nature would not be an intelligent designer, now would it?

Nevertheless, intelligent design theory does not necessarily preclude the possibility of evolutionary processes.

And by the way, given that you're so painstakingly trying to disguise the ultimate nature of your worldview, the metaphysics underlying your science, such as it is, that which causes you to interpret the empirical evidence in the manner in which you do, is showing.  You might want to zip that up.  LOL!


----------



## Toro (Jun 6, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...



So you'd support publicly funded religious schools then?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 6, 2011)

konradv said:


> Went through most of the posts and still don't see what "lies and arrogance" you're talking about.  Care to explain?  All I've see is someone trying to impose their religious beliefs on others and that would be YOU!!!



Oh?  So universal school choice, the imperatives of the free exercise clause constitute an imposition of my worldview on you?

You're out of your friggin' mind.  

Simultaneously, you pretend not to understand that imposing the gibberish of Darwinism, political correctness, multiculturalism and so on, for example, on me in the schools is not unconstitutional?

We're not the ones incessantly obstructing school choice, insisting on a collectivist, one-size-fits-all paradigm that advances a constitutional doctrine that conveniently and arbitrarily gives the government free reign to officially impose your worldview in the schools, that which is hostile to me, and blocks the free expression of mine.  That's lefty all day long, not us.

Well, here's the thing, since thugs like you will not concede the reality of what you're doing in the schools, will not allow for educational freedom, for school choice, for ideological liberty, in the meantime, should we shove our worldview down your throat when and where we can as a matter of self-defense, so be it.  Hypocrite, punk, liar, fascist thug.

Indeed, we are coming to a time, the schools getting worse and worse because of the constant watering down of curriculum, generally, so as not to offend in the straight-jacketed, collectivist system you idiots foisted on us, when millions of fed up parents might just have to show you thugs the business end of loaded guns to back you off their fundament rights of ideological liberty and free-association.  But that's just me getting' all Jeffersonian and such in the face of "a long train of abuses and usurpations".


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 6, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> I understand your desire to turn science into a religion. . . .



No.  You don't understand anything. You don't grasp the distinction between the ultimate substance of scientific inquiry (empirical) and the philosophy of science (metaphysical), and your understanding of intelligent design theory is confused and erroneous.



> But would you please list these "metaphysical" presuppositions.



You still don't know?  I've already told you what the Darwinist's metaphysical presupposition for science is.  Aren't you an evolutionist?  Don't you know what you're metaphysical presupposition is?  LOL! 



> Hint, a scientific theory is NOT a "metaphysical presupposition.



Are you stupid or something?  (A little Forest Gump lingo.)  Hint:  there is nothing profound about the observation that  scientific theories are applied to empirical phenomena.  There is nothing profound about the observation that the ultimate substance of science is empirical.  And in anticipation of any more idiocy along this line, there is nothing profound about the observation that the scientific method is an empirically objective process governed by specific rules.  Notwithstanding, scientific theories DO NOT necessarily escape metaphysics.  But more to the point, the philosophy of science is purely metaphysical; ergo, scientific inquiry is based on one metaphysical apriority or another.  Hint:  these observations are not mutually exclusive, and every one of them is self-evident.  Hint:  only know-nothing amateurs or fools don't understand that.  

ARE YOU STILL DENYING THIS? 

AND IF AND WHEN YOU'RE DONE DENYING THIS, TELL US WHAT YOUR METAPHYSICAL PRESSUPOSITION IS.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 6, 2011)

I saved you for last. . . .



geauxtohell said:


> You are delusional if you think that Intelligent Design didn't fail at Dover.  Not only did they lose the case, their star witnesses like Behe were shredded on the stand.  It was so bad that the Judge's decision was a complete smack down.



I'll allow that you simply didn't get the drift and are not intentionally misrepresenting me here.

First of all, Behe doesn't speak for me scientifically, and his reckless, ill-considered rendition of the classical construct of irreducible complexity is of no consequence with regard to the constitutional issue.  Indeed, the fact that evolutionists themselves must necessarily and, therefore, cynically invoke the logic of the classical construct (LOL!) in order to refute the flaw in Behe's rendition is of no consequence with regard to the constitutional issue either.   

Regardless of what Behe said or didn't say, regardless of what he believes or doesn't believe about intelligent design theory, the court failed to uphold the free exercise clause of the Constitution.  The court was supposed to speak for me with regard to the protection of my fundamental rights.  The judge is just another leftist, two-bit punk political hack.

What the proponents of ID in the Dover Trail did successfully establish was that (1) ID theory is not subject to the metaphysical/ontological naturalism that underlies the theory of evolution or the various hypotheses of abiogenesis, and (2) the free exercise clause is supposed to prohibit the government from allowing one faction to impose its worldview on any other in the public schools.

So what happened to that order wherein the court directed the public schools within its jurisdiction to provide for universal school choice in order to satisfy the requirements of the free exercise clause for all?  I can't find it.  

Is it under your bed?  Did the court slip it into your back pocket?  Don't tell me the court pinned it to your ass and you ran off with it.  Say it isn't so, Dorothy!   

*Crickets Chirping*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 6, 2011)

Toro said:


> So you'd support publicly funded religious schools then?



I support universal school choice.  You?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 6, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Funny that you simply dismiss jurisprudence as "arbitrary and tyrannical" when you disagree with it.  Though, I suppose if you can create your own reality where Intelligent Design didn't lose badly at Dover, you can do most anything.



Funny how you go all blind and stupid and obtuse when it comes to the government imposing your worldview on me.  Guys like you understand the matter when the shoe's on the other foot though, don't ya?  Yeah.  Sure.  You get all lucid and wax poetic about the limitations of democratic rule in the face of unbridgeable rights when it's you being imposed upon by the mob or another faction in the public square.  LOL!  

The constitutional issue has nothing to with what you think about my worldview or what I think about your's.  The right to hold and express our respective opinions ENDS where parental consent and authority, where the fundamental rights of individual free-association and ideological liberty begin.

That's what matters here.  What is this prattle about alternate realities?  We all lost in the Dover Trial.  The flim-flam of imposing the establishment clause of the collective, the perspective of the state, while ignoring the free exercise clause, at the expense of the individual's fundamental rights and perspective continues. . . .


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 6, 2011)

> *MDR*:  No institution, particularly one of education, exists in an ideological vacuum; either the education system in and of itself is unconstitutional or the manner in which it is administered&#8212;i.e., in the absence of universal school choice&#8212;is unconstitutional.  A closed, collectivist education system is tyranny.





> *geauxtohell*:  That's a separate issue.  The system isn't closed.  People are free to home school or send their children to private or parochial school if they want.




Yeah.  Right. *The First Amendment means that religionists must pay twice for education in order to realize their fundamental rights.* Stow it.  You know damn well I'm talking about a publicly funded system of universal school choice or perhaps a universal system of vouchers and tax credits therein.  You're pretending not to understand me.  You're brighter than the rest of the rabble I've been stomping on, the ninnies who do not grasp the essence of scientific methodology and philosophy.  The fact that you comprehend the nature of educational institutions and the dynamics of ideology therein demonstrates that.  We understand each other perfectly, so spare me the nonsense you're putting out for the lemmings around us regarding governmental institutions of education in the face of the free exercise clause.

Instead, how about this?  You take your disingenuous, Darwinian ass and get the hell out.  Yeah.  That's the ticket.  You take your sideshow and scram.  You pay twice for education.  

The exposition of your hypocrisy and idiotic constitutional theory renders the rest of your  drivel moot. 

How ya like me now?

Now as for the scientific aspects of your drivel. . . .


----------



## geauxtohell (Jun 6, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



I'll tell you what; first you respond to my challenge to you:  "show how ID can fit into the scientific method" and then I'll pick up some of yours.

I saw your linked in post.  It didn't even address that issue.  I don't know who you think you are fooling.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jun 6, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > If it's unconstitutional for the state to impose my worldview on you, why is it not unconstitutional for the state to impose your worldview on me?
> ...



It's up to the constitution when we are talking about public schools.  If you want your kids to get religion in the regular curriculum, send them to parochial school.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jun 6, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> YOU BRAINWASHED TOOL.  Scientific intelligent design theory DOES NOT address the existence or non-existence of God.  BONG.  ERROR.  WRONG.  FALSE.  INCORRECT.



Sure it doesn't.

Wedge strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You aren't fooling anyone.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jun 6, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> I saved you for last. . . .
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes.  Just another leftest, two-bit punk political hack W. Bush appointee.  

Are you the comic relief or something?



> What the proponents of ID in the Dover Trail did successfully establish was that (1) ID theory is not subject to the metaphysical/ontological naturalism that underlies the theory of evolution or the various hypotheses of abiogenesis, and (2) the free exercise clause is supposed to prohibit the government from allowing one faction to impose its worldview on any other in the public schools.



They lost.  They didn't establish anything.  They failed to establish their claims.



> So what happened to that order wherein the court directed the public schools within its jurisdiction to provide for universal school choice in order to satisfy the requirements of the free exercise clause for all?  I can't find it.



The court didn't establish that, nor was it the court's prerogative to do so.  



> Is it under your bed?  Did the court slip it into your back pocket?  Don't tell me the court pinned it to your ass and you ran off with it.  Say it isn't so, Dorothy!
> 
> *Crickets Chirping*



Still waiting for you to show how I.D. meet's the scientific rigor of the scientific method.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 6, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> We are talking about the natural sciences, not the metaphysical.  Darwin's theory of evolution does not fall into the realm of the "metaphysical" as much as you would like to claim otherwise.



I didn't claim it did.  I said it rests upon a metaphysical apriority.  All scientific theory does, you idiot.  Science itself necessarily rests on one metaphysical apriority or another.  You're despicable misrepresentation of my observation--assuming its intentional and not merely the stuff of ignorance and stupidity--is moot.  



> Metaphysics is philosophy.  Science is rooted in observation and a strict methodology.



Well looky here, it must be ignorance and stupidity, after all.

Let me help you out as one who is an accomplished philosopher of science and a reformed materialist, evolutionist and atheist . . . though never quite as stupid and ignorant as you.

"Science is *[not]* rooted in observation and a strict methodology."  Your statement is misleading and reveals an appalling lack of sophistication.

Instead. . . .

(1) *The objective* of the natural sciences is the explication of the empirical world.

(2) *The methodology* of science entails observation in accordance with a certain set of systematic rules, beginning with the formulation of a testable or falsifiable hypothesis about something.

(3)  *The discipline* of science necessarily rests or presupposes one kind of philosophical construct of  naturalism or another, and the construct is necessarily metaphysical in nature.

Fact.


----------



## rdean (Jun 6, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > We are talking about the natural sciences, not the metaphysical.  Darwin's theory of evolution does not fall into the realm of the "metaphysical" as much as you would like to claim otherwise.
> ...



metaphysical [&#716;m&#603;t&#601;&#712;f&#618;z&#618;k&#601;l]
adj
1. (Philosophy) relating to or concerned with metaphysics
2. (Philosophy) (of a statement or theory) having the form of an empirical hypothesis, but in fact immune from empirical testing and therefore (in the view of the logical positivists) *literally meaningless*
3. (popularly) abstract, abstruse, or unduly theoretical
4. incorporeal;* supernatural*

metaphysical - definition of metaphysical by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Scientists, college professors and doctors all recognize "evolution" as the foundation science for biology, botany and physiology.  You can hardly find an "evolution" course in college anymore.  Instead, there's the "evolution of the eye, evolution of the lymphatic nervous system, of the skin, liver, kidneys, of the immune system and on and on.

If you've been vaccinated or go to the doctor, then you have benefited from the fruits of the knowledge gained by the study of "evolution".

So what have we "gained" from "magical creation" or "occult beliefs"?  How has that "science" helped us?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 6, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> I agree.  Too bad I.D. doesn't fall into the "methodological or mechanistic naturalism" of the natural sciences.  *Science is rooted in scientific methodology.*  The spirit of inquiry exists in science, but any theory has to adhere to the rules.  There might be room for Intelligent Design (which is not creationism, BTW) in theology of philosophy.  There is no room for it in the scientific classroom.



Well, we've already dispensed with the idiotic notion that the discipline of science is *rooted* in the mere nuts and bolts of methodology, as if its foundation and structure were suspended in midair without the benefit of a guiding principle.  Idiot. 

It is rooted in one metaphysical apriority or another.  Fact.

Your metaphysical apriority is either that of the materialistan ontological/philosophical naturalism, the presupposition that nothing exists beyond nature, beyond matter and energyor that of a post-modern naturalist, perhaps even a theist.  Either way, both hold to a form of naturalism which presupposes that all of natural history within the space-time continuum is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect.  

But what if this apriority is not true, Dorothy?  Oops.  There goes your theory.  

My metaphysical apriority is the methodological/mechanistic naturalism of classical empiricism, not to be confused with the post-Darwinian formulation of the construct, you know, like the bull you tried to pull in the above, pretending not to understand the distinction between your apriority and one which reasonably presupposes that the temporal plain is ordinarily bound to the processes of natural causality, but does not necessarily assume that applies for all time or to events that are not subject to immediate observation, or assume the non-existence of certain potentialities of human consciousness that would necessarily reside beyond the substance and methodology of scientific inquiry.  Naturally, ID theory holds that while such potentialities in and of themselves are beyond the scope of science, the empirical evidence for such is not necessarily beyond the scope of science.

But of course your sneaking nonsense was that of one trying lie about the fact of the relationship between science and metaphysics, or that of one trying to avoid the acknowledgement of the nature of one's own metaphysical apriority.  

Now you just look like a damn fool.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 6, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > I got that from the part of your post I cited. How could you have possibly missed it. If ID does not presuppose God is the Intelligent Designer then who or what other than Nature could possibly be the Intelligent Designer?
> ...


You can deny that ID avoids God all you want, but that will never make it true. The Intelligent Designer by definition is God. Period. You reveal that by your claim that "by definition" Nature cannot be the Intelligent Designer, therefore the Intelligent Designer can only be "Supernatural."

If ID truly does not absolutely REQUIRE the Intelligent Designer to be God, then Nature could surely be the Intelligent Designer


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 6, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > I understand your desire to turn science into a religion. . . .
> ...


First of all, all you did is PONTIFICATE that science is metaphysical, which is completely worthless psychobabble.

And I'm an EXISTENTIALIST, I don't have a metaphysical presupposition other than that the metaphysical is meaningless bullshit.
They are exact opposites. Metaphysics says Essence begets Existence, and Existentialism says Existence begets Essence.


----------



## rdean (Jun 6, 2011)

rdean said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



Ask that one simple question and the "magical creationists" run screaming with their hands flapping as if broken at the wrist.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 6, 2011)

ID is a myth....purpetuated by religous zealots..

...nuff said...


----------



## jillian (Jun 6, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> ID is a myth....purpetuated by religous zealots..
> 
> ...nuff said...



M.D. is kind of wacked.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 6, 2011)

rdean said:


> metaphysical [&#716;m&#603;t&#601;&#712;f&#618;z&#618;k&#601;l]
> adj
> 1. (Philosophy) relating to or concerned with metaphysics
> 2. (Philosophy) (of a statement or theory) having the form of an empirical hypothesis, but in fact immune from empirical testing and therefore (in the view of the logical positivists) *literally meaningless*
> ...



Bluster.  

Still want to be treated like a damn fool, eh?

I'm going to keep shoving the obviously undeniable relationship between metaphysics and science down your throat until you fess up.

There's no point in discussing the merits of evolutionary theory versus those of ID theory until this obvious fact is mutually acknowledged.

You're merely trying to cover your glaringly stupid error.

Metaphysical, philosophical or ontological naturalism, which is your bag apparently, are interchangeable terms, all referring to the metaphysical presupposition of the materialist, i.e., that nothing exists but nature, nothing but mass and energy (or more accurately, in the light of quantum mechanics or chaos theory, the derivatives or the processes of mass and energy). 

You're embarrassing yourself, halfwit . . . you nose-picking hayseed.  

You're arguing with me about a factual relationship, one that is self-evident, objectively and universally understood by all scientists and professional philosophers of science as if I were relating some mysterious, subjective or debatable idea.  

YOU DUMBASS!

It's a simple matter of necessity, pragmatism, that scientists must presuppose that one metaphysical reality or another obtains beyond the kin of scientific methodology in and of itself in order to proceed.

YOU IGNORAMUS!

Now fess up or shut up, as I'm certainly not going to waste my time discussing the specifics of scientific theory with a dipstick like you who apparently does not even grasp the very first, elementary principle of science.

Instead, I will just keep copying and pasting these expositions of your ignorance and stupidity over and over again.

(Besides, you still don't grasp the caliber of the intellect you're dealing with. 

"By the way, creationism and ID are not the same thing", you tell me.

You think that's profound?  Thanks for the tip, Bozo, I'll keep that mind.  ROTFLMAO!)


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 6, 2011)

> I already touched on that. . . .
> 
> No institution, particularly one of education, exists in an ideological vacuum; either the education system in and of itself is unconstitutional or the manner in which it is administeredi.e., in the absence of universal school choiceis unconstitutional. A closed, collectivist public education system is tyranny.
> 
> The Court failed to resolve the matter accordingly. That is to say, the leftist Warren Court failed, quite intentionally by the way, to order that the public education system provide universal school choice, the only solution that would satisfy the First-Amendment requirements of ideological/religious liberty for all.


That makes no sense whatsoever and is complete gibberish. 

Lets try this: in _McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71 _(1948), The Court held that the use of tax-supported property for religious instruction and the close cooperation between the school authorities and the religious council violated the Establishment clause. McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71 | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

Explain how in _McCollum_ the Court erred.


----------



## eots (Jun 6, 2011)

code1211 said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > This article is a bit dated, but it illustrates precisely why the fight for educational freedom/choice must be won against these fascists. . . .
> ...



*This is science*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-azcMJ5JS4]YouTube - &#x202a;what the bleep do we know (part 1)&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 6, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > metaphysical [&#716;m&#603;t&#601;&#712;f&#618;z&#618;k&#601;l]
> ...


The fact that everything that exists in the universe is energy in some form is not in any way metaphysical. It is an empirical fact.

Science is not metaphysical. If you had to equate science to a philosophy it would be existentialism. If you had to equate science to a religion it would be Zen.


----------



## eots (Jun 6, 2011)




----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 6, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> You can deny that ID avoids God all you want, but that will never make it true. The Intelligent Designer by definition is God. Period. You reveal that by your claim that "by definition" Nature cannot be the Intelligent Designer, therefore the Intelligent Designer can only be "Supernatural."
> 
> If ID truly does not absolutely REQUIRE the Intelligent Designer to be God, then Nature could surely be the Intelligent Designer



You're taking something very simple and making it hard.  

ID theory proper does not attempt to define or identify the nature of the designer beyond the fact that it is intelligent, at least insofar as what can be advanced in purely scientific terms at this point in time and with the current understanding of the Cosmos.  Many ID theorists are agnostics.  Moreover, ID theory does not necessarily preclude evolutionary processes.  

"[T]herefore, the Intelligent Designer can only be 'Superntural' "?

*edthecynic*, even if that were necessarily true according to ID theory proper, so what?  ID theory limits itself to the examination of empirical evidence that potentially evinces design.  That is all.  It doesn't presuppose the nature of the designer.  In other words, in biology, for example, ID theory only deals with known or discoverable life forms. . . .

But I don't care what you think about ID theory.  I don't accept your metaphysical presupposition that nature is the only thing that exists or that all of natural history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect.

As far as science goes, I'm only interested in the empirical data, which does not interpret itself.  In other words, I believe the guiding principle that underlies your theory and drives your interpretation of the data to be utter bullshit, the bullshit of the galactically stupid.  Where you apparently see the chaos of chance variation or mindless matter imbued with the properties to achieve the staggeringly complex feat of self-awareness, I see design, purpose and the direct hand of God. 

You take your worldview and your self-serving presupposition for science and shove 'em.  I know better.  Wisdom knows better.  I'm not going through my life like you zombies of materialism or fundamentalist naturalism pretending that the commonsensical recommendations (the imperatives!) of the logical forms and rational categories of the human mind, that certain potentialities of human consciousness do not exist.

And I sure as hell have nothing but contempt for punks who either cannot grasp or pretend not to grasp the fact that they do not have the right to impose their worldview on me and my children in the public education system in the name of science or in the name of any other phony ass tripe they might dream up as a justification for their obviously depraved--DEPRAVED!--indifference to the fundamental rights of others.

I say we just cut to the chase, dispense with the cultural war and break out the arms, you know, call a spade a spade and have us a little Jeffersonian throw down.  Clearly, the left is intent on pushing things toward that.  

Fascist thugs.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 6, 2011)

eots said:


> YouTube - &#x202a;Einstein on God&#x202c;&rlm;



An interesting discussion.

It all boils down to this though:



> Einstein, however, did not accept the label of "atheist" since it seemed a term of opprobrium and one that during his lifetime often implied moral relativism, which he vehemently opposed. Moreover, as a disciple of the famous Dutch pantheist Baruch Spinoza (16321677), he was not opposed to using the term God to refer to the mystery of "intelligence" that pervades the universe and makes possible the whole enterprise of scientific exploration. Einstein considered himself a deeply religious man, provided that "religion" is taken to mean a firm commitment to universal values (goodness, beauty, truth) and a cultivation of the insurmountable "mystery" encompassing the universe. But he considered the idea of a personal God dispensable to living religion.
> Atheism: Encyclopedia of Science and Religion



And this:


> In a 1930 essay entitled "What I Believe," Einstein wrote:
> To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man (ibid. 47).
> He also made the following statement in an essay entitled "The Religiousness of Science," which appeared in a collection of his essays published in English under the title "The World As I See It":
> 
> ...


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 7, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > You can deny that ID avoids God all you want, but that will never make it true. The Intelligent Designer by definition is God. Period. You reveal that by your claim that "by definition" Nature cannot be the Intelligent Designer, therefore the Intelligent Designer can only be "Supernatural."
> ...


Again you are being dishonest. ID defines the nature of the designer as SUPERNATURAL. There is no "empirical" evidence of supernatural design. There is no empirical evidence of anything supernatural. You imagine designe where it does not exist and call it the hand of God, the intelligent designer.

ID is nothing but a feeble attempt by Creationists to impose their God on "the public education system in the name of science or in the name of  any other phony ass tripe they might dream up as a justification for  their obviously depraved--DEPRAVED!--indifference to the fundamental  rights of others.

Fascist thugs."


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 8, 2011)

> There is no "empirical" evidence of supernatural design.  There is no empirical evidence of anything supernatural.



That's debatable, but you stated it as an absolute, meaning that your materialist, metaphysical apriority is showing again.  You've been trying to deny the existence of your metaphysics.  You might want to zip that up.   

Let me help you:  a better way to express the idea you're after and still conceal the metaphysics underlying your scientific theory, as is your wont, would have been to say that science can only address empirical data.  See.  That way your statement is not an absolute, more accurate and avoids the revelation of your unstated subjective belief system.  

See what happens when you lie?    

So.  Are you ready to fess up about your metaphysical presupposition, i.e., the metaphysics underlying your scientific theory?  

ID scientists are only looking at empirical evidence that might evince design.  That's it.  Science cannot and does address the supernatural, and ID theory proper does not address the nature of the potential designer.  From a strictly scientific perspective, until such time that the potential designer empirically reveals itself or is empirically uncovered, the ID theorist says:  "_je ne sais quoi_"; i.e., "I do not know."


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 8, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Again you are being dishonest.  ID defines the nature of the designer as SUPERNATURAL.



For.  The.  Last.  Time.  No.  It.  Doesn't.  (A little slow talk for the comprehension impaired.) 

Creationism (a theological construct) and ID theory are not the same thing.

The only one being dishonest here is you.  Either that or you are just too stupid to grasp the distinction.  Which is it?

The distinction goes to the potentiality of a non-supernatural intelligent designeri.e., extraterrestrial lifeor the possibility that there is no intelligent designer at all.  

Hence, the fact that for most ID theorists the intelligent designer is supernatural is irrelevant to the science, just as the evolutionary theist's belief that God initiated the processes of evolution is irrelevant to the science.  

The science of ID theory is concerned with one thing and one thing only:  empirical evidence that evinces design.  That's it.  Science cannot address the supernatural, and your insinuation that the professional scientists of ID theory don't understand that is absurd, silly, stupid.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 8, 2011)

> ID is nothing but a feeble attempt by Creationists to impose their God on "the public education system in the name of science or in the name of  any other phony ass tripe they might dream up as a justification for  their obviously depraved--DEPRAVED!--indifference to the fundamental  rights of others.
> 
> Fascist thugs."



Again, ID theory and creationism are not the same thing.  Aside from that, you're unwittingly making my point, ya dummy.  

So.  It would be wrong or unconstitutional for the government to impose my worldview on you in the public education system, right?  

I agree.  

So your insinuation is moot and merely highlights, once again, what a fascist thug you:  WHY IS IT NOT WRONG OR UNCONSITUTIONAL FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO IMPOSE YOUR WORLDVIEW ON ME IN THE PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM?

*Crickets Chirping*

See what happens when you lie?


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 8, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> > There is no "empirical" evidence of supernatural design.  There is no empirical evidence of anything supernatural.
> 
> 
> *That's debatable*, ...


No it's not. All life is made up from naturally formed components. You Creationists have never been able to show even one  molecule necessary for life made from "designer" components. Until you Creationists can show a molecule that is made up of designer components you have no empirical evidence for your metaphysics.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 8, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Again you are being dishonest.  ID defines the nature of the designer as SUPERNATURAL.
> ...


You've already admitted that by definition the intelligent designer cannot be Nature, so no amount of your pompous arrogant condescension will changed your confession. 

And there is no "science" of ID.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 8, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Einstein and Intelligent Design



Good find, Foxfyre!

Einstein's belief in an intelligent designer thus derived not from a pre-conceived religious bias, but from the phenomenal insights into the Universe that he possessed as the most brilliant scientist who ever lived. His recognition of a creator refutes the recent claims by atheists that belief in any sort of god is unscientific.​

Also:

It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity. Sir Francis Bacon, _Of Atheism_​
The problem is that when you're talking to the post-Darwinian atheist, with his post-modern epistemology (his version of methodological naturalism as opposed to that of classical empiricism), you rarely get beyond his "little philosophy".  His thought processes,  his ideas are little more than a collection of slogans.  This is not merely true of the laymen among them; it's true of many scientists.  There are some brilliant mathematicians and theorists out there today who, nonetheless, spout some of the stupidest things about the fundamentals of reality beyond the scope of their field.  Atheists are notoriously bad logicians and philosophers.

Illustration:  *Another Atheist's Unexamined Thought Processes: A Close Encounter of the Raw Kind* 

*Is Atheist-Think "Hardwired" for Irrationality and Statism?*


----------



## konradv (Jun 8, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> > ID is nothing but a feeble attempt by Creationists to impose their God on "the public education system in the name of science or in the name of  any other phony ass tripe they might dream up as a justification for  their obviously depraved--DEPRAVED!--indifference to the fundamental  rights of others.
> >
> > Fascist thugs."
> 
> ...



There's no worldview imposition involved.  They're merely teaching science and trying to keep out things that aren't science.  To teach ID, you'd first have to prove there's a D!!!  Since that is essentially unprovable by scientific methods, it doesn't belong in a science class.  Like my high school biology teacher said about evolution to those who balked, "You don't have to believe it, but you do have to understand it, if you intend to pass."  That'd really help present day creationists and ID proponents, because their arguments often show an appalling lack of understanding of the theory in general.  Atheists often know their Bible very well, when arguing with theists.  It would serve creationists well for them to do the same regarding evolutionary theory.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 8, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> It is not for the Federal government to dictate what can or cannot be included in any local school curriculum.  In fact it is very dangerous to give the Federal government such power.



Precisely!  As for the political aspect of the debate, you nail it.  Ultimately, regardless of what any of us believe, that's my concern.  We all lose when the federal courts disregard the imperatives of the free exercise clause.


----------



## konradv (Jun 8, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > It is not for the Federal government to dictate what can or cannot be included in any local school curriculum.  In fact it is very dangerous to give the Federal government such power.
> ...



The "free exercise" clause is irrelevant.  We're not talking about religion, we're talking science.  There's no imperative that every segment of the religious spectrum has to be catered to.  What's next, sharia?!?!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 8, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> I'll tell you what; first you respond to my challenge to you:  "show how ID can fit into the scientific method" and then I'll pick up some of yours.
> 
> I saw your linked in post.  It didn't even address that issue.  I don't know who you think you are fooling.



Who do I think I'm fooling?!  OBTUSE AS A TWO-BY-FOUR ARE YOU.

I don't owe you an explanation with regard to my worldview as far as the political aspect of this debate is concerned.  I am a free human being.  Who the hell do you think you are?  You do not have the right to impose your worldview on me in the name of science or in the name of anything else, ya fascist freak.  That is a matter of every-day-walk-in-the-park common sense and decency.

If tomorrow the regnant scientific community pronounces something else to be sacrosanct, no matter how stupid, we're all supposed to just bow down to that too in the public schools?

As for the scientific aspect of the debate.  Up yours!  You idiots refuse to acknowledge the pertinent distinctions between Creationism and ID theory, the actual nature of ID theory's empirical concerns and the universal nature of science's first principle.


----------



## Douger (Jun 8, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...


And you are uh murkin.

"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism  ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.	....or oil company, Monsanto, Dupont, Carslyle, Bechtel, KBR,Halliburton......................

 Franklin D. Roosevelt, "Message from the President of the United States Transmitting Recommendations Relative to the Strengthening and Enforcement of Anti-trust Laws"


----------



## konradv (Jun 8, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > I'll tell you what; first you respond to my challenge to you:  "show how ID can fit into the scientific method" and then I'll pick up some of yours.
> ...



There you have it!!!  This isn't about science at all, but about protecting one's worldview.  The only thing that appears to be "sacrosanct" is your perceived "right" to not be told anything that opposes that worldview.  Evolutionary theory on the other hand has gone through a number of changes over the years as new evidence forces tweaking of the original theory.  NOTHING sacrosanct about that.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 8, 2011)

konradv said:


> The "free exercise" clause is irrelevant.  We're not talking about religion, we're talking science.  There's no imperative that every segment of the religious spectrum has to be catered to.  What's next, sharia?!?!



Yeah.  Sure.  Throw out the free exercise clause and the only perspective that matters is that of the State, in practical terms, that of the elite or the collective, that of the few or the mob.  

Only a balanced application of the First Amendment's establishment and free exercise clauses provides for universal individual liberty and free-association.  

The government imposing Sharia Law?!  Ya nitwit.  The only dynamic in which such a thing would be possible would be within your half-baked stupidity.  

The First Amendment means that no one's worldview can be trampled on by the government, and the government cannot impose anyone&#8217;s' worldview on another.  Period.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 8, 2011)

konradv said:


> There you have it!!!  This isn't about science at all, but about protecting one's worldview.  The only thing that appears to be "sacrosanct" is your perceived "right" to not be told anything that opposes that worldview.  Evolutionary theory on the other hand has gone through a number of changes over the years as new evidence forces tweaking of the original theory.  NOTHING sacrosanct about that.



And there you have it!  A non sequitur, a litany of baby talk.

You don't have the first clue as to what I'm talking about here.

Also, I know all about evolutionary theory.  I don't need your instruction.  I've written dozens of papers on the topic, both pro and con.  I've even drawn the pro card a few times in debate.  In those instances, unless you knew me personally you would never know that I was actually an ID theorist scientifically and a creationist theologically.  

No.  The problem here is that I'm surrounded by persons who do not properly understand what _they're_ arguing against.  ID theory's methodology is unorthodox, but not in the way that any of you are going on about.  If you still wish to hold that it's unscientific, fine.  I don't care.  LOL!  But do so for the right reasons, acknowledge the nature of your apriority and fess up to science's first principle . . . so we can move on, for crying out loud!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 8, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> No it's not. All life is made up from naturally formed components. You Creationists have never been able to show even one  molecule necessary for life made from "designer" components. Until you Creationists can show a molecule that is made up of designer components you have no empirical evidence for your metaphysics.



What!  So abiogenesis is an established theory now?  That's what you're unwittingly implying.  When did that happen?  ROTFLMAO!  Please provide the link showing that the Pasteurian law of biogenesis has been overthrown . . . and good luck with that.

*Crickets Chirping*

And aside from blind faith, the substance of your metaphysics, the substance of the claim that nothing exists beyond nature, is?

*Crickets Chirping*

And there is plenty of empirical evidence evincing design.  

But you're welcome to your atheistic superstitions, just don't be surprised should your collectivist, one-size-fits-all mediocrity come apart at the seams.  You're artificial constitutional theory is giving way to more and more charter schools and vouchers and tax credits all the time.


----------



## Dante (Jun 8, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> This article is a bit dated, but it illustrates precisely why the fight for educational freedom/choice must be won against these fascists. . . .
> 
> *The Creationist Buffoonery and Its Dangerous Implications
> by Lee Salisbury / January 29th, 2008
> ...



What is untruthful about any of the above?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 8, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> First of all, all you did is PONTIFICATE that science is metaphysical, which is completely worthless psychobabble.
> 
> And I'm an EXISTENTIALIST, I don't have a metaphysical presupposition other than that the metaphysical is meaningless bullshit.
> 
> They are exact opposites. Metaphysics says Essence begets Existence, and Existentialism says Existence begets Essence.



Existentialist?

Perhaps.  But firstly, above all else, you're a liar and an imbecile.

(1)  I never said that science is metaphysical.  I have emphatically and repeatedly stated that science deals with the empirical only.  It's underlying presupposition is metaphysical.  Those are not the same idea! 

(2)  Metaphysics does not say essence begets existence.  SHUT UP!  That is a tautological statement, essentially meaningless, unless you're alluding to Platonic Idealism, and if that's the case, and who's knows (LOL!), your rendition of it is illiterate gibberish.  

*Metaphysics is the field of study that attempts to established or define essence*, *it's not a metaphysical theory of essence*.  You're describing something that would fall within the field of metaphysics, not metaphysics itself.

And science must necessarily assume one metaphysical apriority or another in order to proceed, your existentialism notwithstanding!  Fact.

Are the lights on yet?  Did you find the switch?

I&#8217;m surrounded by a sea of idiots.

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world. . . .  &#8212;Wikipedia​


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 8, 2011)

But the lights did finally come on for someone.  Don't recall who.  I was just about to expose his staggering stupidity when the lights went out yesterday for site maintenance.

The poster wrote that "I wasn't convincing anyone", apparently, about the relationship between metaphysics and science because "they knew better."  Then he went on to rhetorically and snidely ask what the hell a philosopher of science was anyway?

LOL!

That post is gone, no doubt, deleted by the damn fool who put it up after it occured him to do a google.  Gee.  How embarssing.


_philosophy of science_, Branch of philosophy that attempts to elucidate the nature of scientific inquiry&#8212;observational procedures, patterns of argument, methods of representation and calculation, *metaphysical presuppositions*&#8212;and evaluate the grounds of their validity from the points of view of epistemology, formal logic, scientific method and *metaphysics*.

Historically, it has had two main preoccupations, ontological and epistemological. The ontological preoccupations (which frequently overlap with the sciences themselves) ask what kinds of entities can properly figure in scientific theories and what sort of existence such entities possess. Epistemologically, philosophers of science have analyzed and evaluated the concepts and methods employed in studying natural. . . .  &#8212;Encyclopedia Britannica​


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 8, 2011)

*Crickets Chirping*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 8, 2011)

The _philosophy of science_, a sub-branch of epistemology, is *the branch of philosophy * that studies *the philosophical assumptions, foundations, and implications of science, including the natural sciences such as physics, chemistry and biology*, the social sciences such as psychology, history, and sociology, and sometimes&#8212;especially beginning about the second decade of the twentieth century&#8212;the formal sciences, such as logic, mathematics, set theory, and proof theory. In this last respect, the philosophy of science is often closely related to philosophy of language, philosophy of mathematics, and to formal systems of logic and formal languages. The twentieth century witnessed a proliferation of research and literature on the philosophy of science. Debate is robust amongst philosophers of science and within the discipline much remains inconclusive. . . .  &#8212;
New World Encyclopedia


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 8, 2011)

Now, what is the metaphysical apriority of our atheist friends and evolutionists.  They don't seem to know what their own presupposition is.  LOL!

Here, let me help them. . .


_Metaphysical naturalism_, or *ontological naturalism*, is *a philosophical worldview and belief system that holds that there is nothing but natural things, forces, and causes of the kind studied by the natural sciences*, i.e., those required to understand our physical environment and having mechanical properties amenable to mathematical modeling.

*Metaphysical naturalism* holds that all concepts related to consciousness or to the mind refer to entities which are reducible to or supervene on natural things, forces and causes. More specifically, it rejects the objective existence of any supernatural thing, force or cause, such as occur in humanity&#8217;s various religions, as well as any form of teleology. It sees all "supernatural" things as explainable in purely natural terms. 

It is not merely a view about what science currently studies, but also about what science might discover in the future. Metaphysical naturalism is a monistic and not a dualistic view of reality.

In practice, metaphysical naturalism reduces to the more specific ontological view of "scientific" naturalism, according to which reality consists only of what the concepts of the natural sciences (and especially physics) investigate. "Scientific" naturalism is closely related to physicalism.  It is often simply referred to as naturalism, religious naturalism or spiritual naturalism, and occasionally as *philosophical naturalism* or *ontological naturalism*, though all those terms also have other meanings, in which naturalism often refers to methodological naturalism.

*Metaphysical naturalism* is an ontology providing one possible *philosophical foundation for methodological naturalism*, which is a related but distinct system of thought concerned with our cognitive approach to reality and hence is a philosophy of knowledge or epistemology.  &#8212;Wikipedia​


----------



## geauxtohell (Jun 8, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > I'll tell you what; first you respond to my challenge to you:  "show how ID can fit into the scientific method" and then I'll pick up some of yours.
> ...



You don't have to justify your personal beliefs to me, nor have I asked you too.

However, if you want to change policy, that would affect us all, you'd better be prepared to defend your position.  Don't even think that you are going to hide behind the "who are you to question my personal beliefs!" canard.  No one has done that here.  

Again, you are entitled to believe whatever you want.  You are not entitled to call that science and force others to learn it.  

Again, this is very simple.  There is a standard that scientific theories have to meet.  I.D. fails to do that.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 8, 2011)

*Crickets Chirping*


----------



## geauxtohell (Jun 8, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> But the lights did finally come on for someone.  Don't recall who.  I was just about to expose his staggering stupidity when the lights went out yesterday for site maintenance.
> 
> The poster wrote that "I wasn't convincing anyone", apparently, about the relationship between metaphysics and science because "they knew better."  Then he went on to rhetorically and snidely ask what the hell a philosopher of science was anyway?
> 
> ...



The post is gone in the board upgrade.  I made several posts to you yesterday that got wiped out.  

Oh well.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jun 8, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> The _philosophy of science_, a sub-branch of epistemology, is *the branch of philosophy * that studies *the philosophical assumptions, foundations, and implications of science, including the natural sciences such as physics, chemistry and biology*, the social sciences such as psychology, history, and sociology, and sometimesespecially beginning about the second decade of the twentieth centurythe formal sciences, such as logic, mathematics, set theory, and proof theory. In this last respect, the philosophy of science is often closely related to philosophy of language, philosophy of mathematics, and to formal systems of logic and formal languages. The twentieth century witnessed a proliferation of research and literature on the philosophy of science. Debate is robust amongst philosophers of science and within the discipline much remains inconclusive. . . .  
> New World Encyclopedia



Right.  You are a philosopher.  Not a scientist.  

No wonder you are confused.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 8, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > No it's not. All life is made up from naturally formed components. You Creationists have never been able to show even one  molecule necessary for life made from "designer" components. Until you Creationists can show a molecule that is made up of designer components you have no empirical evidence for your metaphysics.
> ...


I'm not "implying." 
YOU are diverting!!!

You can't deny that there are no designer building blocks in life, only natural building blocks, IMPLYING that the "designer" is NATURE, so you desperately try to change the subject.

"Crickets Chirping*


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 8, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > First of all, all you did is PONTIFICATE that science is metaphysical, which is completely worthless psychobabble.
> ...


(1) If as you say, the underlying presupposition of science is metaphysical, then you are saying science is metaphysical. To deny that is just as dishonest as claiming that in the religion of ID, the Intelligent Designer can be something other than God.

(2) Metaphysics is not "attempting" to define essence, it defines essence as "SOUL."


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 8, 2011)

Dante said:


> What is untruthful about any of the above?



Everything.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 9, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> The post is gone in the board upgrade.  I made several posts to you yesterday that got wiped out.
> 
> Oh well.



Okay.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 9, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Right.  You are a philosopher.  Not a scientist.



And you're neither. 



> No wonder you are confused.




Oh?  

You know, I keep wondering if you're ever going to stop with the "argument by sophistry" and discuss the matter in good faith.  

But no.  You want go on with the trivial, the boring . . . the longest yawn.

You quibble with me over the metaphysics of science.  You won't frankly state what the metaphysical bias underlying your scientific theory is.  Instead, it has to be dragged out of you.  

You put up a link about the Discovery Institute's political agenda, implying that scientific ID theory proper directly deals with the nature of the designer when it doesn't and can't after conceding that ID theory and Creationism are not the same thing.  

Do you understand the distinction between Creationism and ID theory or not?  You're not making any sense at all, are you?

The Discovery Institute does not own ID theory, and it's politics are not relevant to the science of ID theory.

If you want to argue with stawmen then e-mail your concerns to the Institute.  In the meantime, the professional scientists of ID theory, an international community comprised of both theists and agnostics, do not practice theology in their research, as the theory does not and cannot directly address the existence or non-existence of God, let alone the nature of the potential designer.  For regardless of the personal belief of this or that ID theorist, ID theory, like any other scientific theory, can only deal with empirical data.

Beyond my concern for righting the Court's depraved indifference to the imperatives of the free exercise clause and to the fundamental rights of religionists, I dont care about the political rhetoric on either side.  I'm not advocating that the State impose my worldview on you.  You're the only one between us arguing that the Constitution permits such a thing, albeit, as long as the worldview being imposed is yours, ya fascist freak.  

I'm the one advocating universal school choice, educational freedom, ideological liberty for allthe theist, the atheist, the agnostic, the creationist, the ID theorist, the evolutionist . . . whatever.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 9, 2011)

Establishing the fundamentals of scientific inquiry, the relationship between metaphysics and science, and the distinction between your scientific apriority and mine are pertinent.

It's pointless to go on to the science unless we accurately understand each other's perspective and  approach to the evidence. 

Is science and, subsequently, all scientific theory necessarily predicated on one metaphysical apriority or another regarding the nature of reality?  

YES!  INCONTRAVERTIBLY SO.

Me - 1; the sea of pathological liars - 0.


Is evolutionary theory predicated on a post-modern (or post-Darwinian) _methodological naturalism_ (either a Deistic-like naturalism in the case of the theist, or a _metaphysical naturalism_ (also, _philosophical naturalism_ or _ontological naturalism_) in the case of the materialist?  

YES!  INCONTRAVERTIBLY SO!

Me - 2; the sea of pathological liars - 0.


Is ID theory predicated on the methodological naturalism of classical empiricism, that of Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle and others?

YES! INCONTROVERTIBLY SO! 

Me - 3; the sea of pathological liars - 0


Does ID theory proper deal with the empirical evidence potentially evincing design only?

YES! INCONTORVERTIBLY SO!

Me - 4; the sea of pathological liars - 0.


Does the ID theorist hold that the temporal plain is ordinarily bound to natural causality?  Yes.  Of course he does.  Does he assume that this necessarily holds true for all time and space beyond that which can be scientifically verified?  No.  Does he assume that the temporal plain is all that exits?  No.  Does he care that the majority of today&#8217;s professional scientists embrace a Deistic naturalism or a metaphysical naturalism?  No.  He holds that their premise is presumptuously and dogmatically unscientific.


----------



## konradv (Jun 9, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > The "free exercise" clause is irrelevant.  We're not talking about religion, we're talking science.  There's no imperative that every segment of the religious spectrum has to be catered to.  What's next, sharia?!?!
> ...



Funny, but I can't find "worldview" in the Constitution.  You been adding extra sections?!?!


----------



## konradv (Jun 9, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > There you have it!!!  This isn't about science at all, but about protecting one's worldview.  The only thing that appears to be "sacrosanct" is your perceived "right" to not be told anything that opposes that worldview.  Evolutionary theory on the other hand has gone through a number of changes over the years as new evidence forces tweaking of the original theory.  NOTHING sacrosanct about that.
> ...



So tell us, if we were "intelligently designed", of 64 possible mRNA codons for 20 amino acids, why do some AAs have one codon and some as many as 6?  It seems to me that that shows *randomness*, NOT design.  Design could be implied, if each AA had three codons with two each reserved for stop and start, but that's not what we see.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jun 9, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> And you're neither.



As a Medical Student, I certainly consider myself a scientist.  At the very least, I'd be happy to stack my post-graduate hours spent study sciences against yours.  Or are you sporting a big goose egg?

Have you ever done an actual research project and that was intended to be published in a scientific journal?  



> Oh?
> 
> You know, I keep wondering if you're ever going to stop with the "argument by sophistry" and discuss the matter in good faith.
> 
> ...



No.  You continue to misrepresent this.  I don't give a damn about the "metaphysical".  You are the only person interested in that.  Perhaps your mistake is in trying to discuss philosophy with people who are interested in discussing actual science.   



> You put up a link about the Discovery Institute's political agenda, implying that scientific ID theory proper directly deals with the nature of the designer when it doesn't and can't after conceding that ID theory and Creationism are not the same thing.



I never claimed ID and Creationism are the same thing.  The D.I. link is certainly relevant as they are the major proponent of I.D. in this country.  It demonstrates that (aside from their dishonest claims to the contrary) the real mission of the D.I. is theological and not scientific.  

Even if the supernatural is not the God of Abraham, it's still a supernatural force.  Therefore, it is automatically excluded as a scientific theory.   



> Do you understand the distinction between Creationism and ID theory or not?  You're not making any sense at all, are you?



Yes.  



> The Discovery Institute does not own ID theory, and it's politics are not relevant to the science of ID theory.



It certainly is.  The D.I. is the face of the modern ID movement in this country. 



> If you want to argue with stawmen then e-mail your concerns to the Institute.  In the meantime, the professional scientists of ID theory, an international community comprised of both theists and agnostics, do not practice theology in their research, as the theory does not and cannot directly address the existence or non-existence of God, let alone the nature of the potential designer.  For regardless of the personal belief of this or that ID theorist, ID theory, like any other scientific theory, can only deal with empirical data.



Feel free to demonstrate some empirical data that supports the notion of a supernatural force guiding evolution.  

I keep asking you for nuts and bolts, you keep giving me fluff and going into rages of indignation that we would ask you to use science to support a theory you claim is scientific.  



> Beyond my concern for righting the Court's depraved indifference to the imperatives of the free exercise clause and to the fundamental rights of religionists, I dont care about the political rhetoric on either side.  I'm not advocating that the State impose my worldview on you.  You're the only one between us arguing that the Constitution permits such a thing, albeit, as long as the worldview being imposed is yours, ya fascist freak.



Yeah, whatever.  Again, I don't care what people choose to believe or how they choose to worship in their own homes.  My only interest is in preventing the science curriculum from being perverted.    



> I'm the one advocating universal school choice, educational freedom, ideological liberty for allthe theist, the atheist, the agnostic, the creationist, the ID theorist, the evolutionist . . . whatever.



You are also advocating for junk science.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 9, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> No it's not. All life is made up from naturally formed components. You Creationists have never been able to show even one  molecule necessary for life made from "designer" components. Until you Creationists can show a molecule that is made up of designer components you have no empirical evidence for your metaphysics.
> 
> . . . I'm not "implying."
> 
> ...



Great!  Wonderful!  Perfect!

And for a moment there I thought we were finally moving on to the science, beginning with abiogenesis, given that you're all atheists apparently. . . .

I'm diverting?  Well perhaps I misunderstood you, but one can hardly claim that it was unreasonable of me to think you were talking about abiogenesis when you wrote:  "All life is made up from naturally formed components."

So we're not moving on to the science?

Great!

Okay, that's it.  Are there any honest evolutionists on this board who care to discuss the actual science from first principles in good faith?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 9, 2011)

konradv said:


> Funny, but I can't find "worldview" in the Constitution.  You been adding extra sections?!?!



Funny, the Founders and the Framers, being Lockean political theorists, would obviously not recognize the collectivist, Twentieth-Century doctrine of the leftist Warren Court that the State can create a public education system and then declare it to be a social-contract/constitutional free zone.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 9, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > No it's not. All life is made up from naturally formed components. You Creationists have never been able to show even one  molecule necessary for life made from "designer" components. Until you Creationists can show a molecule that is made up of designer components you have no empirical evidence for your metaphysics.
> ...



As a non-scientist that uses mostly non-scientific language to communicate, I nevertheless have quite a bit of formal science education and have enjoyed a lifelong interest in why things are the way they are and how they came to be that way.  And in that process, it quite early became apparent that though Einstein came close, there is no scientific theory that can adequately explain time and space and variables that likely occur in both.

There is no scientific theory that explains how the stuff of the universe came into being or when the first elements of it came into being.  There is no science technology that can more than speculate, often on faith alone, that certain things exist or behave in a certain way outside of our own limited knowledge and experience.

And there is no scientific theory that in any way refutes say an Einstein's instincts through observation that, in his mind, ruled out everything happening purely by chance or happenstance and accepted a concept of some sort of cosmic intelligence guiding the overall process.   He might or might not have labeled that intelligence 'intelligent design'.

And, if....and that is a big IF......the intelligent design is via an intelligent designer, it is unlikely that we being a tiny percentage of all that exists would have the ability or capacity to fully comprehend that designer, much less all of the design.

I maintain we have a tiny fraction of all the science that there is to have.  And for me, that is a wonderful thing.


----------



## konradv (Jun 9, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Funny, but I can't find "worldview" in the Constitution.  You been adding extra sections?!?!
> ...



What does it matter what the Founders thought?  For one thing, they were not all of the same mind, so assigning some sort of "original intent", is a fool's errand.  Secondly, they made it a short document, open to interpretation because, they, unlike you, recognized that their ideas about how the country should be run wouldn't nessarily hold up over the years.  They recognized that it was the people that lived in a time that should decide what the Constitution meant based on their current situation.

_Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors. _

Thomas Jefferson (on reform of the Virginia Constitution)


----------



## geauxtohell (Jun 9, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



It's beyond the scope of science to disprove God or Intelligent Design.  That has never been the issue.  The issue has also never been that "Science has all the answers".  We certainly know that is not true.

The issue is:  What can reasonably be called a scientific thoery and adequately approached and studied in a scientific manner?  On that regard, Intelligent Design is sorely lacking.  So sayath not just the overwhelming majority of scientists, but now the federal courts.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jun 9, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Funny, but I can't find "worldview" in the Constitution.  You been adding extra sections?!?!
> ...



They weren't true Lockeans.  "Life, liberty, and property" were converted to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".  

Couldn't put language in our founding documents that would suggest that women, slaves, and the common man should be able to own property now could we?


----------



## geauxtohell (Jun 9, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Great!  Wonderful!  Perfect!
> 
> And for a moment there I thought we were finally moving on to the science, beginning with abiogenesis, given that you're all atheists apparently. . . .



We've been trying to get you to discuss the science of the matter since the onset.  You are the one that keeps wanting to digress into philosophical discussions over the metaphysical.  No one here is interested in discussing that (as silly as we think your assertions are).  

Furthermore:  abiogenesis =/= evolution.  It's a completely separate and certainly more controversial field.  

Just in case you were confused.  



> Okay, that's it.  Are there any honest evolutionists on this board who care to discuss the actual science from first principles in good faith?



Again, you'd do better to show how I.D. meets the standards of the scientific method.  

In case you need a refresher:  

Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I found this (from the link) refreshing:



> Certainty and myth
> 
> A scientific theory hinges on empirical findings, and remains subject to falsification if new evidence is presented. That is, no theory is ever considered certain. Theories very rarely result in vast changes in human understanding. Knowledge in science is gained by a gradual synthesis of information from different experiments, by various researchers, across different domains of science.[29] Theories vary in the extent to which they have been tested and retained, as well as their acceptance in the scientific community.
> 
> In contrast to the always-provisional status of scientific theory, a myth can be enjoyed irrespective of its truth.[30] Imre Lakatos has noted that once a narrative is constructed its elements become easier to believe (this is called the narrative fallacy).[31][32] That is, theories become accepted by a scientific community as evidence for the theory is presented, and as presumptions that are inconsistent with the evidence are falsified. -- The difference between a theory and a myth reflects a preference for a posteriori versus a priori knowledge. --[citation needed]



For I.D. to be valid, you would first have to be able to show that the existence of your supernatural force du joir can be nullified.  As a supernatural force is beyond the natural realms and explanations, that is impossible.  Therefore, you are screwed. 

But have fun trying to convince us otherwise.  Can you do it without evoking the phrase "metaphysical"?  I am beginning to wonder if you get royalties every time that term is used.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 9, 2011)

konradv said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



There are first principles (or universal imperatives) to which they almost unanimously held.  And these first principles, including inalienable rights, do not stand in the way of progress; rather, they are the very essence of its perpetuity.

Jefferson is talking about contingencies; he is not talking about first principles.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 9, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> As a non-scientist that uses mostly non-scientific language to communicate, I nevertheless have quite a bit of formal science education and have enjoyed a lifelong interest in why things are the way they are and how they came to be that way.  And in that process, it quite early became apparent that though Einstein came close, there is no scientific theory that can adequately explain time and space and variables that likely occur in both.
> 
> There is no scientific theory that explains how the stuff of the universe came into being or when the first elements of it came into being.  There is no science technology that can more than speculate, often on faith alone, that certain things exist or behave in a certain way outside of our own limited knowledge and experience.
> 
> ...



Yes.  It's a matter of keeping the mind open to a myriad of possibilities. 

On the flip side, stepping outside of science for a moment, some fundamentalist have suggested that I'm a bit of a heretic because I do not hold to the notion that Genesis is a scientific treatise, which is what their complaint amounts to, really, bless their hearts.  I tell them it's a theological treatise no less inspired and that God revealed Himself to the ancients in terms that they could understand.  In other words, He wasn't giving them a science lesson; He left them to their own devices on that score.  That is, God leaves scientific discovery to us.

Besides, I tell them Genesis chronicles an order of speciation generally consistent with what we see and we know for a fact today that the Bible never did hold to a six- to ten-thousand-year-old Earth coupled with persons who lived anywhere from a couple hundred to several hundred years, something biblical scholars have suspected for nearly two centuries, believing that the ancients of biblical tradition actually recorded their genealogies in terms of lineages.  In other words, the ancients weren't talking about one person, but many in the name of the patriarch out of whose loins the respective lineage came.  Also, there are huge gaps in the genealogy.  We know these things for sure today from archeological discoveries.  On top of that, there's no way to know what six days of creation means in terms of actual time.  The Bible simply doesn't tell us or attempt to tell us how old the universe or the world are.

But tell that to some fundamentalists and they just shake their heads.  

Oh, well.    LOL!


----------



## geauxtohell (Jun 9, 2011)

So..................

Are we going to discuss the science behind this thing or not?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 10, 2011)

konradv said:


> So tell us, if we were "intelligently designed", of 64 possible mRNA codons for 20 amino acids, why do some AAs have one codon and some as many as 6?  It seems to me that that shows *randomness*, NOT design.  Design could be implied, if each AA had three codons with two each reserved for stop and start, but that's not what we see.



You've mostly got this all wrong, konradv.

There are 64 different messenger RNA (mRNA) codons *coding for* 20 amino acids, actually, 61 coding for amino acids and three stops.  That merely means that the 20 amino acids are variously *coded for* by an overlapping system of "synonyms", i.e., 1 to 6 variously "spelled" codons (or "words") that *code for* the same amino acid(s).  This is not the stuff of randomness; it's the stuff of efficiency and versatility.  This dynamic allows a small handful of "letters" to be combined into a relatively small number of the same "words" that can be variously combined to code for the production (or translation) of  thousands of different proteins of varying mass and complexity . . . out of just 20 amino acids.

The blueprints for the many different proteins are encoded in DNA.  mRNA strands are copies of these coded blueprints, which are read by ribosomes.  Ribosomes translate the coded blueprints, word-by-word, into the corresponding amino acids and link them into peptide chains with the assistance of transfer RNA (tRNA).

*Amino acids don't have codons of any kind.* *Strands of mRNA do.*  Amino acids are the substance of the information contained in codons.  Codons are comprised of nucleic material.  Each codon (or "word")  consists of *three* nucleotides (or "letters") coding for *one* amino acid.  There are two known universal start codons (or alternatives) and three known universal stop codons that tell the ribosome how to begin the respective peptide chain and where to cut it loose.  Ribosomes don't start and stop with single amino acids; they're the monomers of the polymers.  

What you appear to be saying here is that there should only be one mRNA codon for each of the 20 amino acids, with an additional 20 starts and 20 stops if the designer were intelligent.  So 60 mRNA codons in all for each of the 20 amino acids, even though RNA is comprised of 4 different types of nucleotides yielding 64 different combinations?  That would evince a designer?

I submit to you that the designer of such a clunky and vastly less dynamic system, indeed, a system that wouldn&#8217;t produce proteins at all, would have to be retarded.

Whatever you're saying here doesn't make any sense however it's rendered.  You don't really understand the nature of the system that is, and you don't understand the utter uselessness of the system you would attribute to an intelligent designer.


This might help you understand things better:

Roughly, proteins are infrastructural, catalytic, metabolic and storage mechanisms. Nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) store, transmit and decode genetic information; they also perform structural, regulatory, cellular signaling, metabolic and co-catalytic tasks.

Amino acids are composed of an amine group (a nitrogen atom with a lone pair, i.e., a pair of valence electrons), a carboxylic acid group (a carbonyl and a hydroxyl), and a side chain. Their elemental constituents are carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen and sometimes sulfur.

A nucleic acid forms when two or more nucleotides combine by way of the covalent bond between the sugar of one nucleotide and the phosphate group of the next; hence, nucleic acids are simply macromolecules (polymers) composed of at least two or more nucleotides (monomers).

A nucleotide is composed of a nucleoside, a five-carbon molecule of a ribose sugar and at least one of three phosphate groups. A nucleoside is composed of a nucleobase bound to a five-carbon molecule of ribose sugar. The five nucleosides of living organisms are adenosine, guanosine, uridine, cytidine and thymidine. The five corresponding nucleobases are adenine, guanine, uracil, cytosine and thymine. Hence, nucleotides form when a nucleobase is combined with a ribose sugar and a phosphate group. The sugar of ribonucleotides is ribose; the sugar of deoxyribonucleotides is deoxyribose.

The "skeletal" structure of adenine and guanine is purine (a pyrimidine ring fused to an imidazole ring), thus, the purine bases. The "skeletal" structure of cytosine, thymine and uracil is pyrimidine (a heterocyclic ring with two nitrogen atoms at positions 1 and 3), thus, the pyrimidine bases. Nucleotides can contain either a purine or a pyrimidine base. In both DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) and RNA (ribonucleic acid) the purine bases, of course, are adenine and guanine; however, the pyrimidine bases in DNA are cytosine and thymine, while the pyrimidines in RNA are cytosine and uracil. Hence, RNA uses uracil in place of thymine.

Adenine always pairs with thymine (or uracil in RNA) by way of two hydrogen bonds, and guanine always pairs with cytosine by way of three hydrogen bonds.   

. . . There are a total of 22 standard, proteinogenic amino acids. Twenty of them constitute the fundamental building blocks of life, and these are fed into specialized cellular machines (ribosomes) that read (or decipher) encoded bites of information divulged by messenger RNA (mRNA) and then "translate" that information into proteins. The encodements are derived from an organism's genes, which are composed of variously numbered and arranged codons, with each codon consisting of three adjacent nucleotides. In other words, an mRNA molecule is a copy of a gene's sequentially arranged codons and is used by a ribosome as a template for the correct sequence of amino acids in a particular protein. Hence, ribosomes translate codons, one after the other, and, with the assistance of transfer RNA (tRNA), appropriate the corresponding amino acids, bind them together in the specified order and produce peptide chains (proteins).

An organism's genes are contained in its DNA (or in its RNA for many types of viruses, which, technically, are not organisms, at least not in any sense with respect to their dormant state). An organism's genome is the entirety of its hereditary information, consisting of both the genetic and the structural sequences of its combined DNA. The genome is the master blueprint of an organism's essential design and dynamics.

The assembly of 20 of the 22 standard amino acids are encoded for by the universal genetic code, i.e., the code that is found in all living organisms. Hence, these 20 are used by all living organisms for the creation and maintenance of their essential design and dynamics. The other two standard amino acids&#8212;selenocysteine and pyrrolysine&#8212;are also assembled proteinogenically, i.e., inside ribosomes via alterations of certain canonical amino acids during the initial stage of protein synthesis. These alterations, encoded by UGA and UAG codons, are incorporated (or inserted) by dissimilar mechanisms involving discrete or highly specialized mRNA and tRNA molecules. In other words, these co-transitional mechanisms and, therefore, these amino acids are not found in all living organisms. Selenocysteine is found in all eukaryotic organisms and in some prokaryotic organisms. Pyrrolysine is found in prokaryotic organisms only (i.e., in the enzymes of some methanogenic archaea and bacteria). Only one organism&#8212;an archaea species&#8212;is known to have both.

Some routinely confound the distinction between standard and nonstandard amino acids. The distinction between them is based on the phases of protein synthesis, not on the processes/mechanisms associated with the synthesis of amino acids. Accordingly, the standard amino acids are the initial components of the translational phase of protein development, and the transitional phase occurs inside an organism's ribosomes. The nonstandard amino acids are the specialized components of the modification phase of protein development, and the post-transitional, modification phase involves certain metabolic processes that occur outside the organism's ribosomes. Hence, nonstandard amino acids are those that have been chemically modified after they have been incorporated into proteins, as well as those that are found in organisms, but not found in proteins.  In addition to these, there exist an unknown number of abiotic amino acids.

The twenty canonical amino acids are alanine, arginine, asparagine, aspartic acid, cysteine, glutamic acid, glutamine, glycine, histidine, isoleucine, leucine, lysine, methionine, phenylalanine, proline, serine, threonine, tryptophan, tyrosine and valine. These are divided into the essentials and nonessentials: (1) the essentials are those that an organism cannot synthesize inside its own body for itself, so they must be ingested, acquired from an organism's diet; (2) the rest are said to be nonessential because they are already produced by the organism's body. For humans, the essentials are those contained in the proteins that build muscle and organs. Human adults can synthesis 10 of the 20 canonicals via replication or intermediate metabolic processes. The rest are readily acquired from animal flesh.  &#8212;Michael David Rawlings, *Abiogenesis:  The Holy Grail of Atheism*​


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 10, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > As a non-scientist that uses mostly non-scientific language to communicate, I nevertheless have quite a bit of formal science education and have enjoyed a lifelong interest in why things are the way they are and how they came to be that way.  And in that process, it quite early became apparent that though Einstein came close, there is no scientific theory that can adequately explain time and space and variables that likely occur in both.
> ...



Not just religious fundamentalists though, but also the science religionists who are just as fanatical as the religious fundamentalists that the fundamental interpretation of the Bible is the only interpretation allowed.  

Your expertise is in the details/technical aspects of the science where my science knowledge is of a far more general nature.  I do have some expertise in Biblical origins, history, and interpretation.

And like you, I come under criticism and sometimes attack from the fundamentalists who don't accept what I consider to be much more educated concepts of Bible content.  But even those aren't as irrational and sometimes viscious as the science religionists who hate the Bible.  

I can easily find no quarrel between most of the Bible and modern science.  And I can also consider an intelligent design outside of Bible content.

Some of our friends here will have none of that though.  If I argue any kind of case for I.D., then I'm a religious nut that believes all sorts of things I never knew I believed.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 10, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Not just religious fundamentalists though, but also the science religionists who are just as fanatical as the religious fundamentalists that the fundamental interpretation of the Bible is the only interpretation allowed.
> 
> Your expertise is in the details/technical aspects of the science where my science knowledge is of a far more general nature.  I do have some expertise in Biblical origins, history, and interpretation.
> 
> ...



Your mind is very sharp and open.  You know plenty about the science, all you need to know to follow the more complex material.  That&#8217;s been abundantly clear to me.  I don't measure people by their store of knowledge.   I'd be condemning myself.  Ultimately, what do any of us know about reality.  What I know is a fart in the wind.  

I love my fundamentalist brothers and sisters with every last drop of my blood.  I don't speak of them derisively.  I don't take it personally, and I don't argue with them, beyond stating my position and the whys of it.  I understand the nature of their ultimate devotion, whether their understanding of the science be sound or not.  

There is no one more viciously derisive than the atheist.  

*Some of our friends here will have none of that though.  If I argue any kind of case for I.D., then I'm a religious nut that believes all sorts of things I never knew I believed.  --Foxfyre​*Exactly!  So much time is wasted on that.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 10, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Not just religious fundamentalists though, but also the science religionists who are just as fanatical as the religious fundamentalists that the fundamental interpretation of the Bible is the only interpretation allowed.
> ...



I am with you on loving my fundamentalist brothers and sisters.  I can't see how it harms me in the least for them to believe differently than I do.

And when I teach a class with newbies who have never attended one of my classes, I give them fair warning.  Some will be hearing concepts, theories, opinions, and philosophy that will bother them and they won't want to hear.  I do not require that anybody accept or embrace anything.   (Which also isn't a bad thing for a science teacher to tell kids he knows to be from fundamentalist congregations or communities.)  You need to learn the material.  You'll have to know the answers that will be scored correct on the test.  You don't have to agree with them.

I do think a skilled teacher will at least plant seeds of possibility in the minds of those willing to learn, but the skilled teacher will always teach concepts and possibilities and rarely in absolutes.  A closed mind whether closed re concepts of science or religion will almost always have it wrong with little opportunity to get it right I think.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jun 10, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> You've mostly got this all wrong, konradv.
> 
> There are 64 different messenger RNA (mRNA) codons *coding for* 20 amino acids, actually, 61 coding for amino acids and three stops.  That merely means that the 20 amino acids are variously *coded for* by an overlapping system of "synonyms", i.e., 1 to 6 variously "spelled" codons (or "words") that *code for* the same amino acid(s).  This is not the stuff of randomness; it's the stuff of efficiency and versatility.  This dynamic allows a small handful of "letters" to be combined into a relatively small number of the same "words" that can be variously combined to code for the production (or translation) of  thousands of different proteins of varying mass and complexity . . . out of just 20 amino acids.



Efficiency would be a single triplet per amino acid.  That is 20 codons with 20 acids.  Efficiency and design would further imply that there would be no coding or reading errors either in the translation of mRNA or in the process of splicing mRNA.  Therefore, there would be no need for degeneracy in the codon system and pathologies like Sickle Cell Anemia and Thalessemia would not exist.

What makes sense is that there are errors.  Lots of them.  And the redundancy virtually always is in the wobble position which is more error prone.  So the degeneracy of the DNA code allows for a little bit of fudge factor so that a single wrong amino acid (which can cause SCA (valine for glutamic acid)) isn't inserted into a protein.  



> *Amino acids don't have codons of any kind.* *Strands of mRNA do.*  Amino acids are the substance of the information contained in codons.



That's not quite right.  mRNAs have codons and tRNA have the complimentary anti-codons that match up with those, to include the start codons, and each tRNA has a single specific anti-codon to match up to the mRNA.  Attached to that tRNA is the protein that corresponds to the codon, to include start codons which always carry methionine.  When the mRNA binds to the small ribosome, the large ribosomal sub-unit binds on top of that complex, and transcription begins, one amino acid/codon at a time.  



> Whatever you're saying here doesn't make any sense however it's rendered.  You don't really understand the nature of the system that is, and you don't understand the utter uselessness of the system you would attribute to an intelligent designer.



Your attempts at lecturing us on Cell Biology aside, you haven't put anything into your thread that any undergrad taking a Cell Biology course doesn't know already.  Nor did you really point out any error Konrad had made, you just attempted to sharp shoot him by writing a more complicated explanation.  I would submit that your explanation is relatively simple as well.  This topic can get infinitely more complicated and we still don't know all the answers.  

In that light, you are certainly no expert on this matter.  That is, unless you are well researched and published on the matter, in which case I will defer to your expertise.

It still says nothing about the validity of intelligent design.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 11, 2011)

*First*



geauxtohell said:


> Efficiency would be a single triplet per amino acid.  That is 20 codons with 20 acids.



Though a bit clunky with all those unnecessary starts and stops.  The universals would do just fine in either scenario.  After reading your post, I'll allow that konrad understands the difference between peptide chains and their monomers after all and did not mean that the starts and stops be incessantly inserted between the latter, a fast track to nowhere.  Apparently, this is a common teleological  argument among evolutionists, just poorly expressed in this instance by konradv.  Your expression of it is legible.   

Also, I agree.  _Efficiency_ in this instance was a poor choice of words, when all I was really asserting is that the extant system with its overlapping redundancy is more dynamic . . . which brings us to the downside.  Errors.  I know.  So? 



> Efficiency and design would further imply that there would be no coding or reading errors either in the translation of mRNA or in the process of splicing mRNA.  Therefore, there would be no need for degeneracy in the codon system and pathologies like Sickle Cell Anemia and Thalessemia would not exist.



Teleological quandary?  I see a more dynamically complex system whereby nothing lives forever.  That's arguably a good thing. 



> What makes sense is that there are errors.  Lots of them.  And the redundancy virtually always is in the wobble position which is more error prone.  So the degeneracy of the DNA code allows for a little bit of fudge factor so that a single wrong amino acid (which can cause SCA (valine for glutamic acid)) isn't inserted into a protein.



Indeed.  The upside of the same dynamic.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 11, 2011)

*Second*


*I wrote:  *



> *Amino acids don't have codons of any kind.* *Strands of mRNA do.*  Amino acids are the substance of the information contained in codons.




*You wrote:* 



> That's not quite right.  mRNAs have codons and tRNA have the complimentary anti-codons that match up with those, to include the start codons, and each tRNA has a single specific anti-codon to match up to the mRNA.  Attached to that tRNA is the protein that corresponds to the codon, to include start codons which always carry methionine.  When the mRNA binds to the small ribosome, the large ribosomal sub-unit binds on top of that complex, and transcription begins, one amino acid/codon at a time.



But I don't have problem with this.  I agree . . .  *except with the phrase "not quite right" and calling amino acids codons*.  Once again, the latter is nonstandard and confusing.  *What I said was quite right, and what you said is merely another layer of complexity on top of it.*  I barely touched on tRNA because konradv&#8217;s statement focused on mRNA and amino acids.  Saying that amino acids do not have codons is not the same thing as saying that they do not correspond to them or are not an aspect of their composition.  For this very reason, I repeatedly emphasized the phrase *coded for/coding for*, a more scientifically accurate expression than that used by konradv.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 11, 2011)

*Third*




> Your attempts at lecturing us on Cell Biology aside, you haven't put anything into your thread that any undergrad taking a Cell Biology course doesn't know already.



Huh?

I'm not trying to "lecture" anyone.  konradv clouded the issue with nonstandard language and a poorly written challenge.  It's indicative of a half-ass understanding.  

If you knew me better, you would not have thought that.  I merely copied and pasted a portion of the footnotes from an article I wrote . . . for purposes of clarity and to save time, ultimately, for the sake of all of those who are not versed in the basics.  We're not the only ones reading this thread, you know.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 11, 2011)

*Fourth*




> Nor did you really point out any error Konrad had made, you just attempted to sharp shoot him by writing a more complicated explanation.



Nonsense.  I did not merely add a layer of complexity on top of a discernibly compatible statement.  With regard to its scientific aspect, his challenge is poorly expressed and confusing.  With respect to its philosophical aspect, it is unimaginative, that is to say, dogmatic and presumptuous.   

My criticism goes to the very core of his statement, not merely to its incompleteness.  It criticizes language that is technically incorrect, albeit, not in an insignificant way, for it confuses the distinction between the components of organic information and the components of organic infrastructure, and the nature of the relationship between them.  Further, one-to-one correspondence in this case is not an absolute prerequisite of design, and the sort of randomness that does obtain within the actual system does not suggest the absence of a designer at all.  It's not even close in the sense that he means.  A certain degree of randomness and overlapping complexity can be a very effective means of producing versatility within the parameters of a designed system.

konradv has been putting this challenge up all over the board, expecting people to decipher it and then declaring victory.  Talk about sharp shooting. . . .


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 11, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > > This article is a bit dated&#8230;
> ...



Your Avatar tag line says you're a 'Classical Liberal' and your post/thread says you're a creationist who wants his religious view force-fed to the rest of us by government...

  Does your left hand have a clue as to what your right hand is playing with?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 11, 2011)

*Fifth*




> I would submit that your explanation is relatively simple as well.



Sure.  My explanation is simple, entailing the fundamentals.  You're the only one imputing a pretense of profundity allegedly due to a less than reputable motive.  I'm not responsible for what you choose to think about me.  I can only be me and tell you what I&#8217;m actually thinking.  The rest is up to you.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 11, 2011)

AVG-JOE said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Go away troll.  You don't know what you're talking about.  Come back after you've read the thread, if and when.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 11, 2011)

*Sixth*




> It still says nothing about the validity of intelligent design.



I think it does as its various features, including its foibles, are profoundly indicative of a certain canon of  teleology, but I don&#8217;t see how this can be asserted in any objectively conclusive way.  

Stalemate.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 11, 2011)

*Finally*




> In that light, you are certainly no expert on this matter.  That is, unless you are well researched and published on the matter, in which case I will defer to your expertise.



Oh?  In what light?  I'm not an expert in the sense that you mean, but I'm not a novice either.  There's nothing terribly wrong with what I wrote.  

(1) Your not-quite-right phrase was not quite right.  (2) I was not sharp shooting konradv; there are some serious problems with his expression.  (3) I copied and pasted the basics from an article that I authored as a matter of clarification&#8212;an article that was vetted by experts.  (4) The rest of your criticisms are teleological in nature, which go to the difference between our respective worldviews.  (5) And, finally, like a professional, I readily conceded that _efficiency_ was a poor choice of words for what I was after.  The latter is hardly an uncommonly serious error that any professional scientist might make but for his editor.  Thanks for the edit.  I am improved.

Now if only you guys would get real about the metaphysics of science and the nature of your shared bias.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 11, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...



The problem is that in the 10,000 years of human thinking we actually know something about, there has evolved so MANY gods to choose from.  Which one is The One True God?  He certainly hasn't made it clear by either miracle or war whose god is God.

Do we pick Jesus because he's relatively new but based on a much older set of stories?  Do we pick Christianity because everyone around us picked that one?  If that's the criteria, Islam should rule, because it's 600 years newer than Christianity, based on the same old stories that Christianity is and oh, so much more popular in terms of raw numbers of believers.

Face it kids - there's really no basis for choosing one God over another other than personal preference and the choices available and/or allowed where & when one lives. 

What do your eyes tell you?  If Mommas* Little Bastards actually HAD a Father,** ass-u-me-ing He wasn't uncaring or impotent, don't you think His house would see a bit less sibling rivalry and a bit more cooperation and peace than our checkered history PROVES reality to be?

The first step to realizing a bastards inheritance is to realize that you're a bastard.  There's freedom there... really there is.





* Mother Earth

** God the Father


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 11, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Yeah, I have a problem with The Bible.  I also have problems with The Torah, and The Koran, and the problems I have are political.  No god worth worshiping would have allowed His Name to be used the way the names of God, Jesus and Allah have been used for greed and politics in our history.

It just doesn't make logical sense to me.  You want to worship a God?  Fine - just don't let your worship interfere with my freedom to live and learn how *I* see fit.  That's where I draw a line in the political sand.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 11, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...



  Hmmmm... More government restrictions on my freedom of expression?

Perhaps you should shelve The Bible for a day or two and pick up a history text that actually describes 'Classical Liberalism'.  I can recommend a few, if you need.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 11, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> There is no one more viciously derisive than the atheist.


You're just jealous!

Not one man in a thousand has either strength of mind or goodness of heart to be an Atheist.
-- Samuel Taylor Coleridge


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 11, 2011)

More harm and hate is generated in the name of God than in any other human endeavor.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 11, 2011)

Intelligent design, Creationism, whatever label one wishes to affix, it is still religion, as noted by the Supreme Court in _Edwards v. Aguillard _(1987): 



> Louisiana had a "Creationism Act" that prevented the teaching of evolution unless it was accompanied by the teaching of biblical creationism. Neither was required to be taught, but the former could not be taught without being grouped with the latter. This was challenged by a group of parents for violating the Establishment Clause.
> 
> In a 7-2 decision, the Court invalidated Louisiana's "Creationism Act" because it violated the Establishment Clause.
> 
> ...


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 11, 2011)

AVG-JOE said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



The problem with your perception here is that it doesn't matter 'which god' or how we humans choose to perceive a god or describe a god.  If there IS a Creator God he is the real deal whether we understand or perceive him accurately or not and in spite of whatever we choose to label or call him.  If there IS a Creator God he will not be defined nor dismissed by that which he created no matter how arrogant we might be in attempting to do so.

The argument made in the thesis of this thread, however, includes the bare truth that we mortals cannot prove that a Creator God exists even if we experience that Creator God up close and personal.

And the other side of that same argument is that science cannot use science to explain away, falsify, or even cast credible skepticism re the existence or non existence of a Creator God.

And finally, despite the determination of religious fundamentalists and science religionists to reject the concept, there needs be no Creator God in order for intelligent design to exist, and if intelligent design should include a Creator God, that god will not necessarily conform to the description of it as we find in the Bible or Qu'ran or other religious texts.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 11, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



I will totally give you that, Foxfyre.  I agree 100%.

I'll simply add that if God IS, I'll  bet anyone a dollar that He/She is as disappointed in the "Holy Books" of humanity and how they have been used during the last 10,000 years as I am.

Based on that assumption, I can only conclude that:  If God IS, He either does not care, He is impotent, or our history of suffering is EXACTLY what He wanted.  Either way, The "God" of The Bible turns out to be as big a joke as the "God" of The Koran, the "Gods" of the heathens and the original "Gods" of Earth, Wind & Fire.  

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFl71IiZ1sk]YouTube - &#x202a;Earth Wind And Fire - Shining Star(1975)&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]

Simply put, mugs like me can't lose - we can have our carnal cake and eat it too.  

Or, there is NOTHING to look forward to after death and, whether it's a gift from Mom or Dad, a life spent worshiping a book and not lived with gusto and risk represents a waste.


----------



## Yoda (Jun 11, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> This article is a bit dated, but it illustrates precisely why the fight for educational freedom/choice must be won against these fascists. . . .
> 
> *The Creationist Buffoonery and Its Dangerous Implications
> by Lee Salisbury / January 29th, 2008
> ...



This is an easy one. Religion has no place in science classrooms. As Evolution has no place in Sunday Mass. Evolution is a matter of the study of theory of how things in nature change. Creationism is based upon a personal faith and nothing else. Science is universal regardless of faith, religion isn't.


----------



## Montrovant (Jun 11, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > So you'd support publicly funded religious schools then?
> ...



I'd like clarification on this if you don't mind.  In reading your posts, it seems to me that your position would, in effect, make it impossible to teach anything in school until it had been approved by every parent sending a child there.  Or, perhaps, simply the abolition of public schooling.  Rather than assume I am correctly interpreting your remarks I would ask that you explain it in a bit more detail.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 11, 2011)

AVG-JOE said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



Actually, I couldn't improve on Foxfyre's summation.  However, I would encourage you to seek Christ.  He does live and love you.  He's the real deal.  I knocked on that door, and He did answer.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 11, 2011)

Montrovant said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



It's pretty simple, really.  Folks just send their kids to the school of their choice:  public, charter, private (secular or parochial).  In the case of the latter the government simply issues vouchers comparable to the cost of educating the child (children) in the public option.  A lot of districts in various states are already doing just that.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 11, 2011)

AVG-JOE said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...


"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. 
&#8232;Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. &#8232;
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? 
&#8232;Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
- Epicurus (341270 B.C.)


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 11, 2011)

AVG-JOE said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



But mugs like you can learn just like mugs like me learned that the fundamentalist view of the Bible is deeply flawed.   I have concluded that we have none of the original manuscripts because the one I called God knew that those manuscripts would be worshipped like idols.  But in the hands of a dedicated and competent scholar willing to look at the larger picture, the Bible becomes a magnificent collection of literature including law, history, allegory, metaphor, poetry, imagery, wisdom slogans, prophecy, and the deepest and most anguished experiences of people trying to get through life then as we sometimes endure trying to get through life now.

I think a Creator God who created all of this and all of us certainly does care for many reasons but not the least of which is our ability to appreciate the wonder and beauty of the universe and our ability to love and care and appreciate even people, creatures, other forms of life we never will know or that which we will never experience.   Without that I am quite sure that we would have utilized our capacity to destroy everything by now.  And we have messed things up royally quite a bit and I think a Creator God had to allow that in order for us to experience freedom and love which, for most of us, is all that makes life worth living.

But that is if one recognizes and accepts a Creator God.

There is also the school that all that exists is itself a living thing that controls all or part of all that has been, is, or will be.  Or that some undefinable or unexplainable intelligence--an intelligence that is not necessarily a personal God such as the God of the Bible--is guiding the process.

It is that possibility that both the religious fundamentalists and the science religionists so strongly reject because it requires an open mind to conceive of such a possibility.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jun 11, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Second*
> 
> 
> *I wrote:  *
> ...



You were mostly right.  

I just figured if we were going to act like sharpshooting douchebags over a bunch of minutiae or slam posters for not quoting a cell biology text ver batum, you were fair game too.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jun 11, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Fourth*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No.  Your criticism was intended to try and make someone look like they were ignorant on something they are not because they didn't type out a textbook.  

It's silly and asinine.  Perhaps it's amature night at the Apollo. 

It also does nothing to support the real issue at stake, whether I.D. is a valid scientific theory or not.  

No one is arguing the mechanisms of cell biology here.  

Finally, I don't think the textbook facts of the natural sciences argue for or against a designer.  That is too large of a logical leap to make either way.  My only point is that you can't insert the supernatural into the scientific method. 

It's a simple procedural argument that you refuse to acknowledge.  

Regardless, whether you acknowledge it or not, the rest of the world - to include the scientific community and the courts - does.  

Throwing a fit because others simply won't concede your points when you can't support your own arguments is telling of just how intellectually bankrupt your arguments are.

Don't think you are going to throw off people who know better with rhetorical slight of hand.

As I said before; you aren't fooling anyone.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jun 11, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> I think it does as its various features, including its foibles, are profoundly indicative of a certain canon of  teleology, but I dont see how this can be asserted in any objectively conclusive way.



I think IEDs are to blame for the increased incidence of PTSD among returning veterans, as they are an effective psychological weapon.

I can't prove that.  What a person "thinks" when it comes to science means jack and squat other than being a nice place to start originating a theory and experiment to support it.  

What you think about this instance is so large that you couldn't even begin to design a study to support it.  People who have tried (i.e. Behe's "Irreducible Complexity") have been made to look like fools (by lawyers, and not scientists, no less). 



> Stalemate.



You wish.  If this were chess, you would have to make a move before you can call stalemate.  I am still waiting for that to happen in regards to this thread.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 11, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


The problem is you see wonder and beauty in the universe that does not exist. The universe is not some smooth-running well-designed precision clock. It is a hodgepodge of random collisions and explosions. A perpetual commotion machine, if you will. If a designer designed it that way, it surely is a reflection of the insanity or incompetence of the designer.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 11, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



And your trouble seems to be that you are so bogged down in some kind of scientific religious fundamentalist dogma, you are unable to see the wonder and beauty that is in the universe.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 11, 2011)

Montrovant said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



The parents who give a shit do show up at school board meetings.  Federal purse strings hamstring the local school boards a lot, but parents who have the resources to _choose _the school district their kids will go through and the resources to get involved, can create a great learning environment for their kids.    

The best news is that 'enough resources' is a middle class lifestyle.  I've seen involved parents in both my sisters and their kids are public school educated and they're fucking geniuses.  Seriously.  One of my nephews is going to make Huggys idea of electricity from moon helium a reality.

I'll ask if he can name it "Huggy Power" if you want, Bro.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 11, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



While I appreciate your suggestion, and believe me, I do understand your heart when you say that... Been there, done that, moved on.

What ever rocks your World though, Bro'.


----------



## Yoda (Jun 11, 2011)

"scientific religious fundamentalist dogma"

What??? One of these things are not like the others.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 11, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



The competency of the scholar need only be judged by the scholar to find beautiful literature in the collection of books commonly referred to as 'The Bible', but it's no more Divinely inspired than the words you're reading right now.

Trust me when I tell you that I have just as much proof of my words being inspired by God as any writer who contributed to The Bible or The Koran.

A Creator God I can appreciate.  That He told some human involved in the worlds second oldest profession to write shit down on His behalf...  That I don't buy into any more.  10+ years was enough time to waste chasing that ghost.


----------



## BolshevikHunter (Jun 11, 2011)

Yoda said:


> "scientific religious fundamentalist dogma"
> 
> What??? One of these things are not like the others.



Wow! There might be some hope for you after all buddy.  ~BH


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 11, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


Hey, I see the wonder and beauty of random collisions and explosions as much as the next guy, I just don't see them as the product of an Intelligent Designer!


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 12, 2011)

AVG-JOE said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



I chased the 'ghosts' too for more than a decade.  I looked at EVERYTHING among all the world's great religions and more than a few more obscure ones.  I really wanted to find a substitute for Christianity as I perceived it to be hopelessly flawed.  And I found that ALL religions contain truths.  And ALL religions get some of it wrong.   Eventually I arrived at a point of truth I could neither deny nor explain away.  And I remain Christian.

What is required to experience, for want of a better term, a divine intelligence is to allow God to be God.  When we insist on establishing our own parameters for who God is and what he must be, we close ourselves off from the divine intelligence.  And it becomes quite easy to just throw up our hands and deny that it exists.

Once our mind is open and we accept that we know so little compared to all there is to know--that is true of religious faith and it is true of science--a whole new universe of possibilities and realities is opened up to us.

We don't have to believe.  We only have to be willing to let it take over without any conditions of time, place, or process and any preconceived expectations of results.

Once a person does that, he or she will become a firm ID-er.  And it's great.  I thoroughly recommend it.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 12, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



VERY curious:  What truth led you back and solidified your belief in Jesus as The Christ?

For me it was trusting in the 'Divine' inspiration of The Bible - You said yourself that, in spite of ALL religions containing truths, ALL religions get some of it wrong.

For any book to be Divinely inspired, wouldn't a prerequisite be 100% 'not wrong'?

If The Bible isn't Divinely inspired, what's the point of viewing the stories as anything more than a collection of literature that fills the spectrum from boring to fascinating?

Couple that with the understanding that the stories of the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth were first committed to paper no less than 70 years after his death, and the bullshit that history proves people are willing to write down as 'gospel' to make their political point, and I call bullshit on the whole thing.  

Now, that's just the humble opinion of this average American Joe.  I understand your passion and I defend your right to believe whatever it is that you choose to believe in.  I simply am just as passionate about spreading what _*I*_ consider to be the truth about that period in history.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 12, 2011)

AVG-JOE said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



Fair enough.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 12, 2011)

AVG-JOE said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



The pivotal point for me was being willing to let go of ALL preconceived notions about what God is, what God isn't, what the Bible is, what the Bible isn't, what the Christ is, what the Christ isn't etc. and just invite a larger intelligence to make itself known however and whenver it should choose to do that.  There is no way to adequately explain what a personal encounter/experience with the Divine Intelligence is like, but it pretty well solidifies its own reality once experienced.  And once experienced I could no longer explain away that reality or deny what I finally came to know and understand at least on a limited basis.

The whole key to understanding the divine inspiration of the Bible is to do the really difficult and intense study necessary to read the words through the eyes of those who wrote them.   I do believe it was divinely inspired and that is why it remains the No. #1 best selling book of all time since the first manuscripts were produced to the present.  And that's after millenia of effort to distort it, snuff it out, deny it to the people.  But even more than that, it is observance of those who read the words through the eyes of those who wrote it who come to know the Divine Presence in the process.

Trying to read and interpret the Bible with 21st Century perspective and experience alone is a fool's folly.  But competent Bible study does wonders to give us a fresh perspective and understanding and experience of an ancient people and what importance that has for us now.

Again it requires an open mind and a willingness to set aside all our biases and prejudices and any preconceived notions of how it is supposed to be.  And that also opens the mind to many possibilities of Intelligent Design and why that makes as much sense as anything we understand of formal religion or science.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 12, 2011)

AVG-JOE said:


> Which one is The One True God?  He certainly hasn't made it clear by . . . miracle. . . .



Stepping away from science. . . .

Well, I certainly wouldn't agree with that.    I believe that Christ _did_ rise from the dead and that this historical event is well-documented.  

Dozens of persons claimed to have personally witnessed the resurrected Christ, and these persons claim that yet hundreds of others personally witnessed the resurrected Christ and His ascension.  I think the argument that these people suffered from some form of mass hysteria is absurd, especially given the fact that they were mired in fear and despair just a few days before the alleged event.  Yet suddenly, they were prepared to brave certain imprisonment or death as they bolding proclaimed . . . a lie?  

What precisely was the substance of this sudden transformation?  

A sudden death wish over nothing?  A sudden pandemic of madness or sociopathlogy over something they didn't anticipate, never expected, in spite of the fact that scripture, written hundreds of years before, and Christ Himself told them the Messiah would suffer, be slain and rise again?  They thought it was all metaphor!  LOL! 

Occam's razor, the simplest explanation is the best; the alternate explanation is incredible.

But that's just me.  

Further, there are at least 456 prophecies in the Old Testament regarding the person and the life of the Messiah, with more than five dozen of them being quite specific&#8212;variously, regarding the place of birth, the time of birth, the lineage of birth, the circumstances surrounding the birth, specific events in the life of the Messiah, the manner of death and so on.  Christ fulfilled them all.  The mathematical probability of one person fulfilling just eight of these prophecies is one in 10^17.  The probability of fulfilling 48 of them is one in 10^157. . . . 

But, ultimately, each must make up his own mind about these things and many others.

But here's the thing.  I knew nothing about these things before my conversion.  I wasn't thinking about the probabilities of this or that, what made sense and what didn't.  I was simply willing to know the truth.  I read a passage regarding the claims made by Christ Himself . . . and suddenly I could "see" them and knew them to be true.  And I knew that the moment I knocked on that door without any preconceived notions, beyond these fundamental claims, He would open it.  And of course He did!  None of this came to me from within.  It all came to me from without.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jun 12, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Occam's razor, the simplest explanation is the best; the alternate explanation is incredible.
> 
> But that's just me.



Occam's razor would not support the notion that a person was re-animated.  That's the alternate explanation that is incredible.  

It would be more simple to say that there was a vast conspiracy among Christ's followers to hide the body and concoct a conspiracy than to say that a body was dead for three days and suddenly was made to be alive.

Not that I feel the need to argue the gospel, but if you choose to believe the gospel, you do so as an article of faith.  You can't try and enter logic and reason into the matter.  

It's the same with the virgin birth.  In religion, the miraculous occurs as a matter of course.  It defies logic, which is why faith is the central tenant of all religion.


----------



## JScott (Jun 12, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Which one is The One True God?  He certainly hasn't made it clear by . . . miracle. . . .
> ...



And none of these prophesies could have been made up later?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 12, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> You were mostly right.



*I was absolutely right*, and the language that amino acids have codons or constitute condons or even triplets is nonstandard, confusing.  Those terms refer to nucleotides and nucleotides only, which _code for_ one amino acid at a time.  And the idea that any system would require a multitude of starts and stops is nonsensical.  konradv's expression strongly indicates a secondhand, half-assed understanding of the matter.   



> I just figured if we were going to act like sharpshooting douchebags over a bunch of minutiae or slam posters for not quoting a cell biology text ver batum, you were fair game too.



That's merely your version of reality, the belief in something that belies my stated motive and the reasons behind it.  Curiously, you also seem to know something about the inner workings of konradv&#8217;s mind as well.  All we have to go on is his expression.   And the language and the implications of that expression are muddled.  Yet in the above, after reading your rendition of the idea, I stated that I was willing to allow that konradv's understanding of things might actually be better than what his expression suggests.  

Case closed.  Let it go.  Move on.  But, no.  You still want to quibble.  

Great!  So you guys can say just whatever the hell you please, however you please, no matter how ill-considered or poorly expressed in support of your worldview, and the rest us are supposed to just go along with it like sheep.  God forbid someone should demand clarity and accuracy in science.  You take it personally?  And moreover, I do not require that others quote biology text verbatim.  I quoted my own words, my own thoughts, i.e., my expression of the facts, for example, as one who understands them and owns them, so to speak, in his own right.  I require that persons state the science accurately, particularly when they assert a secondhand, half-assed challenge to my worldview as being valid.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 12, 2011)

JScott said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



No.  They couldn't have.  We have manuscripts of the Old Testament, in the Hebrew from the Dead Sea Scrolls and those of the Alexandrian translation that predate the Gospels and the epistles of the New Testament by hundreds of years.  Also, the New Testament writers quote directly from both the Hebrew text and the Septuagint.  But that's just the beginning; there are a myriad of other reasons that make what you're suggesting impossible.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 12, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > Occam's razor, the simplest explanation is the best; the alternate explanation is incredible.
> ...



The problem is that an encounter with God by whatever name is one of those human experiences that cannot be demonstrated to another.  For instance you go outside and see your shadow.  You go inside and announce to others that you saw your shadow outside.  When they go outside it has clouded up and no shadows are visible.  At that point you are operating from the certainty of experience.  You know what you saw.  You know what you experienced.

Everybody else has to take it on faith that you saw what you saw and experienced what you experienced.  As positive and secure and certain as you are, you have absolutely no way to _prove_ it.  If they don't want to believe you, they won't.   But it won't make what you experienced any less true.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 12, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> No.  Your criticism was intended to try and make someone look like they were ignorant on something they are not because they didn't type out a textbook.



Uh-huh.    



> It's silly and asinine.  Perhaps it's amature night at the Apollo.



Yep.  That's what was shown to be true about konradv's prattle.



> No one is arguing the mechanisms of cell biology here.



Uh-huh.  konradv didn't raise the mechanisms of cellular biology; he was talking about the mating habits of the common housefly.  Right.  Sure.  

Treating us like sheep again, eh?    



> Finally, I don't think the textbook facts of the natural sciences argue for or against a designer.  That is too large of a logical leap to make either way.  My only point is that you can't insert the supernatural into the scientific method.



Yeah, well, since the rest of us agree with that and have said so over and over again, your point is pointless. 



> It's a simple procedural argument that you refuse to acknowledge.



Are you mad?  



> Throwing a fit because others simply won't concede your points when you can't support your own arguments is telling of just how intellectually bankrupt your arguments are.



"Throwing a fit"?  

Followed by this. . . .



> Don't think you are going to throw off people who know better with rhetorical slight of hand.



And then this. . . .



> As I said before; you aren't fooling anyone.


----------



## Montrovant (Jun 12, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



I wonder if any of us can truly set aside all our biases.  Just the idea that there is A god, rather than gods, is a bias.  

But you are correct that spiritual belief is a personal thing that cannot be directly shared with or proven to another, at least at this time.  That's why so often religious/spiritual arguments are fun but pointless.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 12, 2011)

Montrovant said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



Pointless perhaps except as an exercise in logic and rational concepts.  It requires every bit as much faith to declare there is no God as it does to choose to believe in a God that you have not (yet) personally experienced.

It takes every bit as much faith to declare that all happened purely by chance or by random selection as it does to declare that the universe is guided by some sort of intelligent design.

And those most logical leave open the door for either or both to be possible and continue to allow searching for clues that will increase the body of knowledge of science, however insignificant that is when compared to all the science there is likely still to learn.


----------



## rdean (Jun 12, 2011)

I wonder where "fossils" come from?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 12, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> > Occam's razor would not support the notion that a person was re-animated.  That's the alternate explanation that is incredible.
> >
> > It would be more simple to say that there was a vast conspiracy among Christ's followers to hide the body and concoct a conspiracy than to say that a body was dead for three days and suddenly was made to be alive.
> 
> ...


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 12, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Which one is The One True God?  He certainly hasn't made it clear by . . . miracle. . . .
> ...



All I can say is this:  Stories passed from friend to acquaintance about a political hero who walked out of his grave... stories finally committed to paper 70+ years after the event to recruit resistance to Roman rule.  Can you say "political spin"?

Considering what it takes to get a guy or girl to blow themselves up for a political cause today, let alone spin a story in a most favorable light, I find it totally plausible for lots of well written bullshit flying off the presses in the first and second centuries.  Even to the point of back-tracking through The Old Testament and painting an AMAZING fulfillment of prophesy.  

I'm not buying it any more than I buy the 'news' from Right Wing News or Democratic Underground

Besides, did you ever wonder that the 3 main religions on this wet rock are the first 3 written stories that survived to modern times?

No kidding, the *Word* was God.  The _*written*_ word to be exact... the written word that told a plausible theory of origins and which just happened to be associated with the winning 'civilization'.

Thanks anyway, but I'll hang my beliefs about origins on things like my own observations, proven history, fossil records and DNA testing.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 12, 2011)

JScott said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



The prophesies are legit... It's the *fulfillment* of those prophesies, in stories not written down until at least 70 years after the events that make me skeptical.

Fool me once...


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 12, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...



So, it's like pornography?  Can't describe it, but when you see it, you know it?


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 12, 2011)

Montrovant said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



The God one chooses is a direct result of the choices available and allowed when and where one lives and the personal preferences of the chooser.  Just like shopping for shoes.

I can say that because there is no other compelling reason to choose one god over another.  No miracles this side of unprovable and no wars that were won by one god over another.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 12, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



How about a mug like me that chooses to walk away, knowing enough about what you perceive as 'God' to have a special place in hell set aside, ass-u-me-ing of course that you're right?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 12, 2011)

In any event

Weve established that scientists studying evolution are not liars or arrogant, that they explore the history of life on Earth in objective good faith. 

Weve also established that creationism/ID is religion per the law and has no place in schools being taught as science. 

Otherwise, carry on.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 12, 2011)

This requires special treatment.



geauxtohell said:


> What you think about this instance is so large that you couldn't even begin to design a study to support it.  People who have tried (i.e. Behe's "Irreducible Complexity") have been made to look like fools (by lawyers, and not scientists, no less).



Nonsense.  ID theorists have established both a premise and a methodology of study.  There's no try about it.  The issue in the Dover case was or should have been over the question of whether or not the Constitution permits the government to exclusively impose your metaphysical apriority on science in the classroom against the fundamental liberties of the people.  

The answer is no, and the fascist freak dance of the legal eagles in that case, including that of the court's political hack of a judge, do not change the fact of their tyranny, their depraved indifference to a higher truth and the higher calling of their profession.

As for Behe's rendition of irreducible complexity:  Straw man.

The following is from a debate I had with an evolutionary scientist, no less . . . who started out talking to me like I was a retard, but soon discovered that the old evolutionist's song-and-dance, the typical slogan speak that stems from the evolutionist's metaphysical presupposition, can be refuted after all.

*Of course there are certainly some proponents who are anti-religious: championed by the likes of Richard Dawkins, but their science is impeccable and elegant. &#8212;Labsci*

There's nothing &#8220;impeccable and elegant&#8221; about the prospects of abiogenesis to which he must necessarily appeal.


*You say that evolutionists play games with words and categories. . . . &#8212;Labsci*

They do, at least with respect to the fossil record and the politics of education. As for the latter, they behave like rabid fundamentalists with little regard for the liberty-sustaining prohibitions of natural law. To my mind, whether they be ultimately right or wrong, that makes them a seriously dangerous threat to civil society, and this is especially true of the atheists among them given their tribal predilection for statism in history.

And evolutionists are playing a game of conceptual hide-and-seek when they claim that the classical construct of irreducible complexity in and of itself has been debunked. Refuting Behe&#8217;s ill-considered application of it to biochemistry&#8212;a half-baked version that fails to anticipate the obvious possibility of degraded systems or their isolated components performing less efficient or alternate functions&#8212;is of no consequence. (Incidentally, I wrote him about that possibility back in &#8217;96 after reading his book. Sure enough, well, you know the rest. . . .) Properly rendered, irreducible complexity does not dispute the plausibility of diminished systems; it illustrates the implausibility of complex systems arising by blind luck. That has not been debunked by anyone. Behe should have paid more attention to the essential quality of Paley&#8217;s formulation and the prerequisites of Kant&#8217;s.

In other words, in the classical tradition, irreducible complexity obtains to the rise of organization from chaos, not to any potential degradation of function. The former entails an uphill battle in the midst of a chaotic collection of precursors vying against conservation. It has to do with the problem of anticipatorily formulating the overarching function of an interdependent system of discretely oriented parts, each contributing to the sum of a whole that could not have orchestrated its own composition from the ground up.

Further, and now comes the slight-of-hand that impresses no one but bleating sheep, evolutionists themselves do not refute Behe&#8217;s straw man with the paper biochemistry of evolutionary theory, they cynically refute it with the logic of the classical rendition of irreducible complexity itself. The theoretical mechanism of natural selection does not compose complex machines by systematically stripping them of their parts, instead it must build them without a blueprint and do so in a sea of competing precursors, once again, vying against conservation. It&#8217;s not the other way around. Miller can illustrate the alternate functions of degraded mousetraps all he wants, that does not demonstrate that the mechanisms of evolutionary theory are the cause of the comprehensive functions of complex integrated systems.

But the sheep go &#8220;bah, bah, bah.&#8221;

Debunked?

What kind of scientific term is that anyway? The matter cannot be resolved syllogistically or analogously. It&#8217;s a matter of experimentation and falsification.

Now you see it. Now you don&#8217;t.

In other words, ultimately, it&#8217;s not even a matter of morphology. It&#8217;s a matter of accumulating information, not only against a tidal wave of difficulties that rebuff conservation, but against the whims of a genetic material whose sequences are not arranged by any chemically preordained bonding affinity, but by extraneous forces. And to mind that means nothing of particular interest could arise in the first place without the intervention of an intelligent being. I trust that we at least agree on that point, given that you are an theistic evolutionist. Why would you recommend the prattle of an atheist savant who must necessarily override the putative distinction between the vagaries of abiogenesis and the calculi of evolutionary theory?​

*EDIT*

I dare say that had Paley or Kant, or even Dembski, Sarfati or Berlinski been sitting in the witness chair, the lawyers would have had their asses hand to _them_.


----------



## jillian (Jun 12, 2011)

so many words to spout such absolute nonsense...


----------



## rdean (Jun 12, 2011)

Where do fossils come from?


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 12, 2011)

rdean said:


> I wonder where "fossils" come from?



Well, a mommy fossil and a daddy fossil - first they get married...


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 12, 2011)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> In any event
> 
> Weve established that scientists studying evolution are not liars or arrogant, that they explore the history of life on Earth in objective good faith.
> 
> ...




On the contrary.  We've established that the theory of evolution is ultimately predicated on a metaphysical or absolute naturalism, and that evolutionists lie about that fact as they lie about the nature of ID theory all the time and do so as casually as a dog licks its genitals.  We've also established that they are political fascists who rely on a perversion of Constitutional law to exclusively impose their metaphysical apriority on science in the schools.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 12, 2011)

AVG-JOE said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder where "fossils" come from?
> ...


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 12, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > In any event&#8230;
> ...



We have?



I guess I missed the point of this thread.... must have been the title.   still, it's been a good discussion for the most part....

 Damn glad I played along!


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 12, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > In any event
> ...


No, we've established that you are completely delusional.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 12, 2011)

AVG-JOE said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Correction:  most evolutionists in my experience.  And yes the original point of the thread went to that.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 12, 2011)

jillian said:


> so many words to spout such absolute nonsense...



So few words and even less sense to go along with them.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 12, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> No, we've established that you are completely delusional.



Now if you could only frame a real argument against my demonstration regarding the self-evident fact of science's metaphysics, which you stupidly deny, my exposition of the absurdity of konradv's scientifically illiterate challenge, geauxtohell's ignorance regarding the nature of Occam's law of parsimony and the utter irrationality of his analogy that logic and natural cause-and-effect are categorically synonymous . . . you might make your lie come true. 


Here's another thread, by the way, where the asinine logic of you materialists was handed its ass:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/170838-challenge-to-creationists-iders.html


----------



## Montrovant (Jun 12, 2011)

I have 2 questions for you M.D.

First, what is the premise and methodology of study established by ID theorists?  If this requires too long an answer, I'd appreciate a link or perhaps the names of some websites I can find the information at.

Second, are you saying that science should concern itself with the supernatural, even if that means the unobservable?


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 13, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > No, we've established that you are completely delusional.
> ...


The delusion continues.

"Even an obvious fabrication is some comfort when you have few others." 
 Margaret Atwood


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 13, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> The delusion continues.



LOL!  The lack of any real argument on your part continues. . . .

Now if you could only frame a real argument against my demonstration regarding the self-evident fact of science's metaphysics, which you stupidly deny, my exposition of the absurdity of konradv's scientifically illiterate challenge, geauxtohell's ignorance regarding the nature of Occam's law of parsimony and the utter irrationality of his analogy that logic and natural cause-and-effect are categorically synonymous . . . you might make your lie come true.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 13, 2011)

Montrovant said:


> I have 2 questions for you M.D.
> 
> First, what is the premise and methodology of study established by ID theorists?  If this requires too long an answer, I'd appreciate a link or perhaps the names of some websites I can find the information at.
> 
> Second, are you saying that science should concern itself with the supernatural, even if that means the unobservable?



As for the first question:  ID theory's metaphysical presupposition is the methodological naturalism of classical empiricism, the very same as that of Newton, Galileo, Boyle, Kepler, Bacon, Copernicus, Pasteur and others.  

As for the second question:  No.  A thousand times no.  I've emphatically stated more than once that science cannot address anything beyond the empirical plain.  How could it?  

You know, if you were to go back and carefully read my posts, you would have the metaphysical premise of ID theory as opposed to that of evolutionary theory, and the essence of its methodology, the same as that of any other scientific theory!  You should also be able to see the staggering stupidity and dishonesty of the evolutionists on this thread.

But it's not just about the premise and methodology of science that matters here.  Listen to the ID theorist for once from his perspective as he refutes the evolutionist.  Start here:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/educa...arrogance-of-evolutionists-5.html#post3730020

I am a former religious agnostic and evolutionist.  I know the scientific research of abiogenesis and the theory of evolution, and I am current on the science.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 13, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > so many words to spout such absolute nonsense...
> ...





Dude...   For the love of (insert your preferred Deity here) - don't fuck with The Princess!


----------



## konradv (Jun 13, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > In any event
> ...




As it should be.  If the IDers had anything to teach, perhaps things would be different.  However, they have nothing to say except that they think there's some sort of direction to evolution.  Beyond that any science done would be the same as that done by standard evolutionists and any testing of the IDers theories would be moot, i.e. untestable.  Then there's the problem of randomness which belies design.  Given those facts, what do they really have to teach and is it worth muddying the scientific water with something that's untestable?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 13, 2011)

AVG-JOE said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Why not?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 13, 2011)

konradv said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



It is demonstrably testable.  Design detection/information theory is a legitimate and well-established branch of science and has been for decades since Carl Sagan and others developed it.  You're simply ignorant of that fact.

Evolutionist biologists, most of whom do not understand it, just arbitrarily eschew its application to origins and block the peer review of its application to microbiology and biochemistry . . . unless the findings of the research are couched in the terms of evolutionary theory:  a little trade secret among a few of the highly respected leading lights in abiogenic research, for example, who just happen to be ID theorists.  

What people like you foolishly do not grasp from abiogenic research is that the findings clearly point away from chemical evolution, putatively the beginning of it all, and that is what ID's theoretical paradigm shows when applied to the research, a whole body of research and testing that you are simply unaware of  and unscientifically ignore . . . as if such an attitude were consistent with the scientific tradition of open inquiry.  

Evolutionary theory testable?  In what sense is metaphysical/absolute naturalism testable? Makes predictions other than that which are historical in nature?  Hogwash.  We don't need a theory to see what forms of life have appeared or gone extinct over time, or to know that what survives, survives.  The so-called predictions of evolutionary theory are in truth merely 20-20 projections based on the accumulated data of observation.  Smoke and mirrors.  ID theory can and accurately does the same thing.  The real dispute between us has never been over the findings of research and predictions at the micro-evolutionary level of speciation, but the interpretation of the evidence beyond such speciation.

Ultimately what evolutionary theory must show in order to be right is not simply the micro-speciation within, but a macro-speciation of transmutation toward a common ancestry.  That it has never done and apparently cannot do beyond the gratuitous insertion of a presumptuous metaphysics which begs the question.

You just think it has.  Many evolutionary biologists and paleontologists know this and will even admit it in private, but publicly they are committed to a metaphysical/absolute naturalism and the research grants that go along with it.  Otherwise, no money, no peer review.

This is why evolutionists, like Dawkins, for example, habitually oppose their opponents in the fields of science and the philosophy of science with "argument by ad hominine or marginalization".  This is why the brainwashed among them, like the well-programmed sheep on this thread, vehemently deny the facts regarding the metaphysics of science and the nature of evolutionary theory's underlying apriority.  This is why, going for the jugular, I always begin by shoving it down their throats.  As a former agnostic and evolutionist I know where the bodies are buried.  But, see, the laymen among the evolutionary guard have been trained to go along with this nonsense.  The denial of the metaphysics of science and evolutionary theory among the professionals is a political calculation.  They know what they're doing and why.

Don't misunderstand.  I'm not describing a conspiracy in the strictest sense.  Professional evolutionists do genuinely believe in their metaphysics; they see it as their task to gloss over the potential Achilles' heel of their theory lest the ignorant rabble question what these self-appointed guardians of education and science "know" to be best for all. 

But here's the thing.  The metaphysics of evolutionary theory are self-evident; it only sounds crazy to the mindless sheep who have never stopped long enough to think for themselves.  They live in a world where the majority of the scientific community must necessarily be right . . . especially when the implications of what is said to be right serves to affirm their materialist or atheistic biases.  Never mind, that in fact, it was ultimately the scientific establishment of the time telling the Church what to believe, for example, that held up the general acceptance of Kepler's revisions of Ptolemic cosmology and Galileo's observational affirmations of it for decades, that which could no longer be denied after Newton provided the mechanical explanation of it, which finally, once and for all, overthrew the previous paradigm.

The nonsense about the Church being the ultimate impediment to cosmological progress is just another page in the mythical history of the post-modern acolytes of scientism.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 13, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...



O.k. then, fuck with her.  Don't say you weren't warned.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 13, 2011)

AVG-JOE said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



Okay.  I get it.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 13, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...



Getting it is 3/4 of the battle on USMB.  Jillian is a warm, intelligent and wonderful woman and I'm a jolly joker whose always looking for the next one liner when I'm not using skilled word-craft to express my opinion in ways that entertain the masses whom we cherish as our dear readers.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 13, 2011)

AVG-JOE said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



I'm very fond of Jillian too.

But I sure wouldn't want her for an enemy.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 14, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...



  To Foxfyre!  Another fine and entertaining word-smith!  

(Please imagine the mugs above being filled to the brim with hot, rich and foamy cappuccino, as there is no emoticon available to properly describe our pending date  ) 

(   Don't tell Echo! )​


----------

