ID is Dead (Again)

Posted on by

Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town, among his relatives and in his own home.”

If that’s not enough to convince the reader that Elizabeth is no prophet, there’s aways other things we can point to.

UD is still chugging along, as is the Discovery Institute. Michael Denton has a new book coming out soon, as does Douglas Axe. BIO-Complexity continues to publish. More of the incredible design of the living world is being revealed daily.

ID Is Dead. But perhaps like the proverbial cat it has more than one life.

451 thoughts on “ID is Dead (Again)”

  1. Frankie:
    Flint,

    Judge Jones was a dunce and fell for a literature bluff.

    LOL!! Sorry you don’t like the guy, Joe, but that doesn’t rebut the finding or the fact that ID is legally considered religion. You lose. Get over it.

  2. Robin: LOL!! Sorry you don’t like the guy, Joe, but that doesn’t rebut the finding or the fact that ID is legally considered religion. You lose. Get over it.

    LoL! The decision only pertains to that small, insignificant school district. And the judge ruled on the religious motivations of the SB

  7. Frankie: You don’t even know what makes a human a human nor a cat a cat. Tat means you have no idea what has to be modified in order to facilitate the changes required

    Well, we know something. What can ID add?

  8. Robin: Sorry Joe, but unless you can show how a non-human designer is anything other than supernatural (a la Behe’s claim), no atheist can accept such a concept.

    LoL! Unless you can show a non-human designer is supernatural- Behe did not say the designer was supernatural- you don’t have anything

  9. Alan Fox: Well, we know something. What can ID add?

    ID adds quite a bit, Alan. For one it adds that there is intent and purpose to our existence. For another it adds that there is more to life than chemistry and physics.

  10. Frankie,

    Frankie doesn’t understand ID. If the universe (nature) has insufficient probabilistic resources to bootstrap an endeavor then it’s cause must be supernatural.

  11. Frankie: Please remind the others. I am RESPONDING to their tripe and misrepresentations

    You still have to do that within the rules. If you have a complaint about a comment, flag it in the moderation issues thread.

  12. Alan Fox: You still have to do that within the rules. If you have a complaint about a comment, flag it in the moderation issues thread.

    THEY HAVE TO COMMENT WITHIN THE RULES. I said I will abide by the same rules the others do and I am.

  13. Frankie: ID adds quite a bit, Alan. For one it adds that there is intent and purpose to our existence. For another it adds that there is more to life than chemistry and physics.

    Those would fall under philosophy, not science.

  15. Frankie,

    Frankie: THEY HAVE TO COMMENT WITHIN THE RULES. I said I will abide by the same rules the others do and I am.

    Avoid personal attacks and you’ll be fine. The rules allow for the attacking, refuting and debunking of ideas.

  16. Alan Fox: Those would fall under philosophy, not science.

    When archaeologists determine they have an artifact it follows that there was intention/ purpose. Science 101

  17. Alan Fox:
    Frankie,

    Avoid personal attacks and you’ll be fine. The rules allow for the attacking, refuting and debunking of ideas.

    What about observations? Observations are not attacks.

  18. Alan Fox: Those would fall under philosophy, not science.

    More better, under theology.

    But I have to ask, why is serving another entity’s purpose more desirable than making one’s own?

    Are cows in a philosophical superior position compared to wolves?

  19. Alan Fox: Those would fall under philosophy, not science.

    And saying there is more to life than physics and chemistry is a scientific claim

  20. Frankie: Cuz you say so? Care to TRY to make your case?

    It is a matter of testability. How do you test there is more to physics than physics?

  21. Frankie:
    Robin,

    LoL! If Wells’ statement has everything to do with ID then Dennett’s statement, along with what Dawkins and Provine have said have everything to do with evolutionism.

    Again, you’re welcome to try to make a case with Dennett’s statements, but I don’t see you getting anywhere with that since Dennett isn’t considered by anyone an authority on anything (whereas ALL ID folk recognize and hold Behe, Dembski, and Johnson in the highest regards. Go figure…)

    As for Dawkins and Provine, I would love to see you make a case that evolution is religion using their words as evidence. Go for it Joe. I’ll make some popcorn… LOL!

  25. Alan Fox: So how to test the claim?

    First you tell us how to test the claim that life is only physics and chemistry. I am sick of answering your questions when all you do is deny, deny, deny and never put forth anything to compare with.

  27. Alan Fox: It is a matter of testability. How do you test there is more to physics than physics?

    It is a matter of testability. How do you test that life is only physics and chemistry?

  28. Alan Fox,

    You suggestions are useless Alan, when you refuse to apply the rules universally. You have shown that once again this evening.

    You encourage us to not respect the site.

  30. Frankie:
    I would test my claim by trying to create life in a lab, from scratch

    Craig Venter is trying something along those lines, I think.

  33. Frankie: LoL! The decision only pertains to that small, insignificant school district. And the judge ruled on the religious motivations of the SB

    Uhh…Joe…I’m not sure you understand our legal system. Kitzmiller v Dover established national legal precedent regarding ID not being science or teachable in public schools.

  36. Robin,

    That is your opinion. However I know if there was a secular SB who did the same thing it would be allowed. And we are working on that

  37. Robin: Kitzmiller v Dover established national legal precedent regarding ID not being science or teachable in public schools.

    No. It was not appealed and established no precedent.

    However, if there is ever a similar trial elsewhere, the transcript of the Dover trial can be read in as evidence. Saving 40 days and 40 nights of legal expense on the part of the defense.

    What it did establish is the likelihood that any challenge to ID in schools is likely to succeed, and the school district is likely to pay legal costs.

  40. Frankie:
    What is Richie adding to the discussion? Why are his asinine antics OK?

    You’ll never know as you can’t read my posts! ;P

  41. phoodoo:
    Frankie,

    I have asked this question of Alan repeatedly.He has decided he won’t even pretend to be unbiased.His role is to be a propagandist, and allow whatever he wants from his side.

    I 3will not respect the site any longer.

    I don’t pretend to be unbiased in my views. I do try to be fair as an administrator. Feel free to take me to task in the appropriate thread.

  42. Frankie: LoL! Unless you can show a non-human designer is supernatural- Behe did not say the designer was supernatural- you don’t have anything

    Hate to burst your bubble Joe, but Behe did say that…in a court of law. Ooops!

    Here it is again:

    Behe: ““[It is] implausible that the designer is a natural entity”

  43. petrushka: No. It was not appealed and established no precedent.

    However, if there is ever a similar trial elsewhere, the transcript of the Dover trial can be read in as evidence. Saving 40 days and 40 nights of legal expense on the part of the defense.

    What it did establish is the likelihood that any challenge to ID in schools is likely to succeed, and the school district is likely to pay legal costs.

    I sit corrected. Thanks Petrushka!

  45. Frankie: When archaeologists determine they have an artifact it follows that there was intention/ purpose. Science 101

    Correction: when archaeologists find a human artifact, it follows that there was human intention/purpose behind it. Thus far, no one has established that there are anything other than human-made complex artifacts.

  46. Frankie:
    Robin,

    That is your opinion. However I know if there was a secular SB who did the same thing it would be allowed. And we are working on that

    Well, good luck with that Joe!

  47. Frankie: You don’t even know what makes a human a human nor a cat a cat. Tat means you have no idea what has to be modified in order to facilitate the changes required

    Uhh…Joe…there’s this little thing called the Human Genome Project. Perhaps you’ve heard of it?

    You’re statement above makes no sense.

  48. Alan Fox,

    So whenever I want I can just say your post is stupid right? I can just say your post is scurrilous right? I can say, you don’t know what you are talking about. I don’t need to explain why, it doesn’t need to be relevant, I can just give my opinion about every idiotic post your write, as many times as I want. Is that what you are saying Alan? Because that is what you are overlooking other posters doing Alan. I can give you plenty of examples if you are having trouble finding them. Just let me know.

    So we can flag this post right here, right now, because you are claiming this is perfectly within the rules-for everyone to do- Right Alan? Right?

    Let’s make it nice and clear so we all get it.

Leave a Reply