Reduce Spending and Raise Taxes?

[PearlWatson]

I'm saying we weren't placed here fully formed 6,000 years ago by an invisible higher power who faked tremendous amounts of physical evidence to the contrary.

This post shows your ignorance on what Intelligent Design theory really is, and it is obvious you do believe in the "ape-like ancestor" theory despite the lack of evidence to support that conclusion.

 

[sirkickyass]

Honest question to test your knowledge in this period of US economic history vs. just parroting what someone told you. Without looking it up, do you know a) who Paul Volcker is, b) what he did during early 1980s, c) who appointed him, and d) who fired him?

Extra credit if you can figure out how Paul Volcker relates to revenue levels.

So I'm guessing the answer to this question was generally "no" given your total non-response. I continue to give your thoughts on economic policy the weight they deserve.

This post shows your ignorance on what Intelligent Design theory really is, and it is obvious you do believe in the "ape-like ancestor" theory despite the lack of evidence to support that conclusion.

Intelligent Design is religion dressed up in drag. In terms of the "lack of evidence" supporting evolutionary theories, I'm guessing you're not speaking with any reference to anything remotely resembling scientific thought or consensus.

Ben Stein's documentary is infamously dishonest and misleading.

 

[PearlWatson]

Intelligent Design is religion dressed up in drag. In terms of the "lack of evidence" supporting evolutionary theories, I'm guessing you're not speaking with any reference to anything remotely resembling scientific thought or consensus.

You still refuse to either learn what ID is or honestly represent it. ID is no more religious than Darwinism.

Consensus isn't science. The consensus in America is that there is a God. The consensus among Darwiniacs is that there isn't a God so we must have come from ape-like ancestor despite lack of proof.

ID could just as easily be the "origin of all life on earth" consensus among scientists that it used to be without Darwiniacs infesting the public school systems and insisting on their religious dogma be promoted at the exclusion of all others.

Nothing prevents a [scientist] from being a first-class nutjob advocating for some cause they are emotionally invested in.

 

[Agoxlea]

You still refuse to either learn what ID is or honestly represent it. ID is no more religious than Darwinism.

Consensus isn't science. The consensus in America is that there is a God. The consensus among Darwiniacs is that there isn't a God so we must have come from ape-like ancestor despite lack of proof.

ID could just as easily be the "origin of all life on earth" consensus among scientists that it used to be without Darwiniacs infesting the public school systems and insisting on their religious dogma be promoted at the exclusion of all others.

This argument of consensus being bad again? Really? You have to realize there is a huge difference between scientific consensus and popular opinion (unfortunately) in that scientific consensus requires evidence and such whereas popular opinion can just be just about anything. For example the huge chunk of people, you included, questioning the POTUS' birthplace.

 

[sirkickyass]

You still refuse to either learn what ID is or honestly represent it. ID is no more religious than Darwinism.

Are you familiar with the "Wedge Document" from the Discory Institute, i.e. the main proponent of ID?

The very first sentence of that document, designed to be a strategy for pushing ID as an alternative to established scientific principle, explicitly equates ID with neo-creationism.

The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.

The topline premise of ID posits a designer. That designer is obviously a euphamism for God. By definition it is more religious than any evolutionary theory of biology.

Consensus isn't science. The consensus in America is that there is a God. The consensus among Darwiniacs is that there isn't a God so we must have come from ape-like ancestor despite lack of proof.

ID could just as easily be the "origin of all life on earth" consensus among scientists that it used to be without Darwiniacs infesting the public school systems and insisting on their religious dogma be promoted at the exclusion of all others.

False equivalence.

 

[PearlWatson]

This argument of consensus being bad again? Really? You have to realize there is a huge difference between scientific consensus and popular opinion (unfortunately) in that scientific consensus requires evidence and such whereas popular opinion can just be just about anything. For example the huge chunk of people, you included, questioning the POTUS' birthplace.

I'm saying a majority of scientists accepting Darwiniac dogma doesn't make it science.
Evidence? Are you hiding the missing link in your closet?
There are too many hoaxes perpetrated in the name of Darwinism to take their "evidence" seriously.

 

[PearlWatson]

The very first sentence of that document, designed to be a strategy for pushing ID as an alternative to established scientific principle, explicitly equates ID with neo-creationism.
The topline premise of ID posits a designer. That designer is obviously a euphamism for God. By definition it is more religious than any evolutionary theory of biology.

So there is no mention of 6,000 years or "fully formed" humans? That is where your intellectual (assuming you believe in intelligence) dishonesty stems from.

What ID scientists say is that Intelligence is a force in the universe (an anti-entropic force)...much like gravity is a force. Both forces are invisible.

Where did the first single-celled organism come from? The belief that it randomly popped into existence is no less religious (or more scientific) than the belief in an intelligent force.

 

[TheItinerantSon]

I'm saying a majority of scientists accepting Darwiniac dogma doesn't make it science.
Evidence? Are you hiding the missing link in your closet?
There are too many hoaxes perpetrated in the name of Darwinism to take their "evidence" seriously.

See this is why i don't like for scientists to get involved in this thing. Let them teach intelligent design in schools if they want, as long as they also teach that the majority of scientists believe in evolution.

But if scientists get caught up in, and take sides in this ridiculous culture war, the result is going to be that scientists get attacked by the other side.

And thats how you get NIH funding on a GOP hit list.

 

[One Brow]

You still refuse to either learn what ID is or honestly represent it. ID is no more religious than Darwinism.

ID is a metaphysical position on the existence of an overall designer; designed as a "big-tent" strategy to appeal to young-earth creationists, theistic evolutionists, and anything inbetween; justified by some of the traditional anti-evolution arguments gussied up in new language; politicized in order to bypass the scientific community and go directly to legilators and school boards, so far with disastrous results where sucessful; and characterized by a fundamental disconnect between its goals and its methodology. That is, if you are looking for an honest appraisal.

Consensus isn't science.

Lot's of things aren't science. "Designer did it" is not science. Getting a legislature to pass laws, or a school board to adopt a text, because you can't convince experts you have a valid position isn't science. Inventing new scientific laws from thin air (like the Law of Conservation of Information) is not science.

On the other hand, you build a consensus among scientists by doing science and bring them around. Lynn Margulis was laughed at 30(?) years ago for her notion that mitochondria were originally separate organisms (endosymbiosis), it's now in textbooks. It didn't get there because she went ot legislators or school boards, she conceived interesting, replicable experiements, got funding, and published (you know, science). By contrast, there is no pro-ID research, only a smatering of research to show evolution did not happen in a specific fashion.

The consensus among Darwiniacs is that there isn't a God

I don't know what a "Darwiniac" is supposed to be, but the vast majority of people who accept evolution also believe in God.

so we must have come from ape-like ancestor despite lack of proof.

What level of proof do you think we should have?

... Darwiniacs infesting the public school systems and insisting on their religious dogma be promoted at the exclusion of all others.

The ones who don't believe in God? I should be so lucky that atheists were powerful enough to even be able to influence a school board, much less be able to infest one and insist on their dogma.

 

[One Brow]

I'm saying a majority of scientists accepting Darwiniac dogma doesn't make it science.

You are absolutely correct, and every scientist I've read on the subject would agree. The cause-and-effect is reversed. Being accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists doesn't make it science. That is is science is the basis for being accepted by an overwhelming majority of scientists.

Evidence? Are you hiding the missing link in your closet?

Define what a "missing link" is. After all, maybe it's not missing anymore.

There are too many hoaxes perpetrated in the name of Darwinism to take their "evidence" seriously.

In the past 150 years, there have been a handful. None of them were accepted as mainstream science. All of them were exposed by other scientists. Because in science, they don't tend to trust each other, they prefer to verify. The overwhelming majority of the fossil discoveries have survived this vetting process while the hoaxes were thrown out.

 

[One Brow]

What ID scientists say is that Intelligence is a force in the universe (an anti-entropic force)

No, they don't. They don't claim there is any sort of force at all associated with intelligence, much less something anti-entropic (which would violate the Laws of Thermodynamics). Rather, they claim that certain structures are too complex and too specified (and/or irreducible) to have arisen without intelligence.

Where did the first single-celled organism come from?

Kansas. that's why when we say there's no place like home, we mean Kansas.

The belief that it randomly popped into existence is no less religious (or more scientific) than the belief in an intelligent force.

A single-cell organism randomly popping into existence would be a miracle, and is actually very compatible with ID (the randomenss could be factored into the intial set-up of the universe). it's certainly not the positon of the people who oppose ID.

 

[PearlWatson]

See this is why i don't like for scientists to get involved in this thing. Let them teach intelligent design in schools if they want, as long as they also teach that the majority of scientists believe in evolution.

But if scientists get caught up in, and take sides in this ridiculous culture war, the result is going to be that scientists get attacked by the other side.

And thats how you get NIH funding on a GOP hit list.

Darwiniacs can't give up on influencing impressionable young minds who are unable or unwilling to question their dogma.

I don't care whether schools teach ID; my main complaint is that they continue to publish Darwiniac hoaxes in biology text books and disallow scientific criticism/evidence against the theory. They treat the ridiculous stories like bears falling in the ocean and becoming whales as if they are scientific fact. They are corrupting science in order to push their cult dogma.