I did not realize that the book's authors were central to the promotion of the term "intelligent design" and that therefore it was a legitimate target.
Ok, I've re-read my post, and I see that I left it as an exercise to the reader to look up that fact, I'll grant you that I could have made that clearer, but I was in a hurry to get places. We don't always have the luxury of time to write a post as detailed as we'd wish.
You already had every resource available to you to educate yourself, yet you chose to affirm a position of ignorance. You had a direct link to the wikipedia article which you clearly did not read. You're staying ignorant willfully, not through circumstances outside of your control.
I heard their parliament is so afraid of ninjas they banned samurai swords
Ninja used different weapons than samurais... shorter sword for indoor fighting, everyday objects convertible into weapons or concealable weapons that could pass for everyday objects... just sayin':)
No, it's OK for the West to interfere in any country they please, because the West is the sole righteous Holder of The Absolute Truth (TM) and if you don't agree, you must be a Freedom Hating Commie Terrorist (TM)
The term "creationists" was changed to "design proponents", but in one case the beginning and end of the original word "creationists" were accidentally retained, so that "creationists" became "cdesign proponentsists".
You've only proved that some hack job managed to take a failed book, conduct a sloppy cut-and-paste job to make it "acceptable", and passed it off as ID. hat doesn't really prove anything about the ID movement itself; it just means that someone took advantage of it to gain acceptance. What else is new? In fact, you just gave me a grand idea. Maybe someone should produce a version of "Of Pandas and People" and replace "creationists" with "cevolutionists". Would that prove anything? No.
After "creation-science" was thoroughly discredited by scientists and was barred from public schools by federal judges, the creationists modified it, disguised it by wrapping it in some new pseudoscientific double-talk, and presented it under the name "intelligent design." Since then, "intelligent design" has figured prominently in many of the creationists' campaigns to undermine science education
You are confusing what a small minority (Creationists) did to exploit ID to justify their means, not necessarily what all IDers believe.
You are BEING FOOLED BY A HOAX. The people who made up the euphemism "intelligent design" are the very same creationists who were told that they couldn't push their "creation science" bullshit as real science, so they just rebrandedÂtheir tripe.
Intelligent design === creationism. It's just a mask. A disguise to get the ignorant and the foolish to believe it's not religious fundamentalism.
Can someone explain what is dogmatic about hypothesizing & testing theories, that there was an intelligent force that initiated the universe, rather than a set of random events?
Sure: Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion. If you take your religious conviction and try to make it fit into science, you're being dogmatic.
Renaming your dogmatic religious belief as a "hypothesis" or "theory" is only a cosmetic change.
I believe the students' primary intent is either to get a satisfactory grade in the class or to learn. I believe the teacher's primary intent is to teach his students. Now, obviously, the result of the posts MAY be the provocation of emotional or disciplinary responses or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. However, Wikipedia's definition didn't state that such was the result. It stated only that such must be the troll's primary intent.
You have to nitpick pretty far at one arbitrary definition of "troll" to come to the conclusion that they aren't trolling.
If the intent to teach was pure, there would be no need to post in "hostile" forums. The intent is clearly to disrupt these "hostile" forums.
Back in the day, you could get a knighthood for attempting to sack Jerusalem in the name of Christianity -- presumably including killing people. If we're down to online trolling, that's a good thing.
Over the image was printed a verse from Ephesians: "Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand."
No amputees are recorded as having been healed in the New Testament (i.e., no one with a missing limb is said to have grown back the limb in response to a prayer by Jesus or one of the Apostles). Indeed, throughout Church history it appears that no such miracle has occurred (if you know of a wellconfirmed case, please cite it). Atheists therefore argue that if miracles really happened and gave evidence of God, God would have performed a healing like growing back the limb of an amputee. Do atheists have a point here? How do you maintain that miracles are real in the face of such criticism?
Shorter: "Please pander to me by knocking down the straw man I've just set up."
Saint Dominic chopped off his hand and the virgin Mary made it grow back... according to Saint Dominic.
Unfortunately a lot of science is dogmatic as well. If I were to claim that I invented a machine that produced more energy than I put in, would I get a fair hearing?
The term "dogmatic" is often used disparagingly to refer to any belief that is held stubbornly and without evidence.
Look, ID isn't scientific but that doesn't mean that anyone who speaks in support of it is a troll. Taking ideas you've learned in class and defending them in a public forum is a good thing. A troll (IMHO) is someone who's in a discussion primarily for the conflict. These students obviously aren't
10 posts defending ID that you've made on "hostile" websites
Someone posting on "hostile" website is OBVIOUSLY doing it for the conflict.
And you're obviously oblivious to how obsequious you are to these trolls.
The term "Intelligent Design Creationism" seems to me a little unhelpful.
Intelligent design and (young earth) creationism are in general rather distinct, although the rather large differences are sometimes blurred both by proponents trying to gather support and by opponents who want to simply ridicule both groups instead of trying to reason with them.
No. Creationists who disguise themselves as scientists call themselves "intelligent design proponents", IDers are just dishonest creationists.
The term "creationists" was changed to "design proponents", but in one case the beginning and end of the original word "creationists" were accidentally retained, so that "creationists" became "cdesign proponentsists".
The basic metabolic pathways (reaction chains) of nearly all organisms are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.
If somebody burst into your home at night claiming to be police, would you be a "dumb dimwit" and believe them, or maintain your cocksure skepticism and wind up like this woman?
This woman was in a no-knock warrant fiasco, they did not claim to be the police, they just attacked her house, killed her and planted drugs on her to get away with her murder. Her problem was bad aim, not lack of trust.
Slashdot Mirror
I did not realize that the book's authors were central to the promotion of the term "intelligent design" and that therefore it was a legitimate target.
Ok, I've re-read my post, and I see that I left it as an exercise to the reader to look up that fact, I'll grant you that I could have made that clearer, but I was in a hurry to get places. We don't always have the luxury of time to write a post as detailed as we'd wish.
Wow, what an incredibly clever hoax!
Starting as early as the Greek philosopher Marcus Cicero, circa 60BC, who some claim made the first recorded references to the concept.
[citation needed]
And I want the words "Intelligent Design" together, not some vague references.
ID is a hoax to disguise creationism as science, you should know that.
"willful ignorance"
What brought that on? Care to explain?
You already had every resource available to you to educate yourself, yet you chose to affirm a position of ignorance. You had a direct link to the wikipedia article which you clearly did not read. You're staying ignorant willfully, not through circumstances outside of your control.
I heard their parliament is so afraid of ninjas they banned samurai swords
Ninja used different weapons than samurais... shorter sword for indoor fighting, everyday objects convertible into weapons or concealable weapons that could pass for everyday objects... just sayin' :)
No, it's OK for the West to interfere in any country they please, because the West is the sole righteous Holder of The Absolute Truth (TM) and if you don't agree, you must be a Freedom Hating Commie Terrorist (TM)
Freedom Antagonizing Terrorist Traitor Yahoo
No. Creationists who disguise themselves as scientists call themselves "intelligent design proponents", IDers are just dishonest creationists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People#Pandas_and_.22cdesign_proponentsists.22
The term "creationists" was changed to "design proponents", but in one case the beginning and end of the original word "creationists" were accidentally retained, so that "creationists" became "cdesign proponentsists".
You've only proved that some hack job managed to take a failed book, conduct a sloppy cut-and-paste job to make it "acceptable", and passed it off as ID. hat doesn't really prove anything about the ID movement itself; it just means that someone took advantage of it to gain acceptance. What else is new? In fact, you just gave me a grand idea. Maybe someone should produce a version of "Of Pandas and People" and replace "creationists" with "cevolutionists". Would that prove anything? No.
It is a pretty hilarious example though. And sad.
I'll just give you a chance to educate yourself, rather than let you wallow in your own willful ignorance: http://www.textbookleague.org/id-hx-1.htm
After "creation-science" was thoroughly discredited by scientists and was barred from public schools by federal judges, the creationists modified it, disguised it by wrapping it in some new pseudoscientific double-talk, and presented it under the name "intelligent design." Since then, "intelligent design" has figured prominently in many of the creationists' campaigns to undermine science education
You are confusing what a small minority (Creationists) did to exploit ID to justify their means, not necessarily what all IDers believe.
You are BEING FOOLED BY A HOAX. The people who made up the euphemism "intelligent design" are the very same creationists who were told that they couldn't push their "creation science" bullshit as real science, so they just rebrandedÂtheir tripe.
Intelligent design === creationism. It's just a mask. A disguise to get the ignorant and the foolish to believe it's not religious fundamentalism.
read this http://www.textbookleague.org/id-hx-1.htm
Opinion != argument. The bar is set a little higher on the latter.
I call it valid because, as I see it, an opinion is valid if and only if it hasn't been disproved by a valid argument.
So their opinions, which have been disproved, are invalid. Glad we got that cleared up.
Can someone explain what is dogmatic about hypothesizing & testing theories, that there was an intelligent force that initiated the universe, rather than a set of random events?
Sure: Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion. If you take your religious conviction and try to make it fit into science, you're being dogmatic.
Renaming your dogmatic religious belief as a "hypothesis" or "theory" is only a cosmetic change.
I believe the students' primary intent is either to get a satisfactory grade in the class or to learn. I believe the teacher's primary intent is to teach his students. Now, obviously, the result of the posts MAY be the provocation of emotional or disciplinary responses or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. However, Wikipedia's definition didn't state that such was the result. It stated only that such must be the troll's primary intent.
You have to nitpick pretty far at one arbitrary definition of "troll" to come to the conclusion that they aren't trolling.
If the intent to teach was pure, there would be no need to post in "hostile" forums. The intent is clearly to disrupt these "hostile" forums.
So there isn't any shred of evidence for a universe that was created by an intelligent being? None?
Can you show me any?
Back in the day, you could get a knighthood for attempting to sack Jerusalem in the name of Christianity -- presumably including killing people. If we're down to online trolling, that's a good thing.
One does not exclude the other.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iqfzLs_DhaAHTn1JdfYYlNEFpGTQ
showing a US tank roaring through the desert about 10 days after the United States invaded Iraq to topple the regime of Saddam Hussein.
Over the image was printed a verse from Ephesians: "Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand."
Shorter: "Please pander to me by knocking down the straw man I've just set up."
Saint Dominic chopped off his hand and the virgin Mary made it grow back... according to Saint Dominic.
Is there any difference between the blind dogmatic stupidity of ID, and the blind dogmatic intelligence of darwinism?
Yes, one is blind and dogmatic, the other is supported by evidence.
Unfortunately a lot of science is dogmatic as well. If I were to claim that I invented a machine that produced more energy than I put in, would I get a fair hearing?
The term "dogmatic" is often used disparagingly to refer to any belief that is held stubbornly and without evidence.
Key word: "evidence".
Neither creationism or ID have anything to do with young earthers
Creationists divide in Young Earth and Old Earth camps, depending on how literal they are about genesis.
Their opinions are valid (even if their evidence is... er... patchy)
An argument is valid if and only if the truth of its premises entails the truth of its conclusion.
They may have a right to their opinion, as idiotic as those may be, but that doesn't make them valid.
What ID brings to the table is a new reexamination of facts.
What ID brings is a rebranding of creationism to make it APPEAR similar to science. It's creationism, with less honesty.
Look, ID isn't scientific but that doesn't mean that anyone who speaks in support of it is a troll. Taking ideas you've learned in class and defending them in a public forum is a good thing. A troll (IMHO) is someone who's in a discussion primarily for the conflict. These students obviously aren't
10 posts defending ID that you've made on "hostile" websites
Someone posting on "hostile" website is OBVIOUSLY doing it for the conflict.
And you're obviously oblivious to how obsequious you are to these trolls.
The term "Intelligent Design Creationism" seems to me a little unhelpful.
Intelligent design and (young earth) creationism are in general rather distinct, although the rather large differences are sometimes blurred both by proponents trying to gather support and by opponents who want to simply ridicule both groups instead of trying to reason with them.
No. Creationists who disguise themselves as scientists call themselves "intelligent design proponents", IDers are just dishonest creationists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People#Pandas_and_.22cdesign_proponentsists.22
The term "creationists" was changed to "design proponents", but in one case the beginning and end of the original word "creationists" were accidentally retained, so that "creationists" became "cdesign proponentsists".
The basic metabolic pathways (reaction chains) of nearly all organisms are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.
As long as the students fully disclose that they are doing this for a class requirement, this could be a good thing
As long as creationist trolls are honest? Man, that's a looooooooong "as long"!
If somebody burst into your home at night claiming to be police, would you be a "dumb dimwit" and believe them, or maintain your cocksure skepticism and wind up like this woman?
This woman was in a no-knock warrant fiasco, they did not claim to be the police, they just attacked her house, killed her and planted drugs on her to get away with her murder. Her problem was bad aim, not lack of trust.
Troll? Seriously? Any reason for modding me troll or just feel like being a dick?
I think there's a self-appointed naughty words brigade loose on slashdot. They mod down words that they don't like.
You hold the same view on gambling as Descartes
Do you mean Pascal maybe ? Come on, the guy had a programming language named after him and everything.
DOH! Descarte was the guy with the pineal gland problem, not the gambling problem :-|
Better to be paranoid than to be gullible -- better to be afraid of the tiger that isn't there than to be eaten by the tiger who is.
Religion gets the gullible paranoid about an invisible, all seeing judgmental sky tiger.