Liberals smarter then conservatives?

[godslanguage]

Well, first of all - to make the claim that the media leans more to the left than to the right is vastly debatable (to say the least).'

Yes, the fact is that the media DOES tend to lean more to the left wing then to the right, this is in fact not debatable, only perhaps in your own imagination.

"Just pick your topic - abortion, women's rights, gay marriage, stem cell research, immigration and do your homework, and you'll find both sides providing articles, news stories, criticisms and attempts to sell their viewpoints."

Sure, I pick global warming, where no real hard evidence has helped the claim that human technology is responsible for the climate change, in fact evidence leans towards a natural cycle. Many scientists have provided evidence on the contrary to the human induced cause and claims, but this material is never published or heard about.

"But thats even beside the point - as soon as you find a newspaper or station giving their opinion on the matter (like Fox News DOES do so very well - but not to say that other stations don't do it - MSNBC, CNN, they all do it (aside perhaps, from BBC)), than it isn't news anymore - its someone else's opinion."

How can you tell whether its "news" or not and just "someone else's opinion"? Most people swallow whatever the news perpetuates and take it as fact. You really don't know what the real facts are because they purposefully skew the facts to fit they're intended agenda.

The reason Fox News is worth mentioning, is that they hold a large sum of the fault of what we see today in terms of news media skewing events to favor a political agenda. This goes back to when Reagan sat in office, and Ruport Murdoch took the helm of Fox - the trouble is that this kind of influence and opinionated news provided for great numbers in ratings - forcing other news networks, like CNN and NBC, to play the same game to maintain their numbrers - and what you see today is what we have - whats objective anymore? Is anyone actually doing journalism anymore? The documentary Outfoxed does a good job at making this point - call it liberal bias or left wing, or what have you - it only encourages the game...

How do you know if CNN or Fox is to blame for skewing they're facts in favor of a political agenda. Is it FOX that first started skewing the news, or was is CNN and its counterparts doing the skewing first, only for Fox News having no choice to play the same game CNN plays?

You bring up ID. I assume your point of how it isn't heard in the NYTimes or some other 'left' media source is a comment on how specific issues 'intentionally' don't get any time. Well, ID (or rather, creationism, as ID is merely a new form of it) has actually had its time - for thousands of years in fact, depending on how you look at history and peoples' understanding of things. Unfortunately for creationism, science has made vast improvements by leaps and bounds to our understanding of reality and the way the universe works (and in a relatively short period of time) so much so that it has been able to explain much about things like how we might have gotten here (without the expression of a deity, or a creator, or intelligent designer)."

No, ID is not creationism, it seems you have not read any ID material including the basic definition of ID. Advancements in technology has only helped science with that leap and gain, and in effect has only rendered Darwinian theory more futile and improbable then before.

As we keep on learning and developing a better understanding of things, we often leave behind ideas or concepts or beliefs which no longer hold any relevance or meaning as we have been able to (with the help of things like the scientific method, facts and evidence) determine better, more accurate solutions or alternatives to those ideas, concepts and beliefs. Would anyone maintain, today, that the earth is flat? Some people actually do - but certainly the majority of us now know better and find no need to push the idea of a flat earth anymore."

I'm glad that you know people used to believe the earth was flat, however doesn't say much since in fact ID uses the current scientific methods to our understanding of the design inference (mathematics, engineering, physics, biology etc...) and accumulates/formulates evidence for its theory based on that premise.

I see ID in the exact same way - it's had its opportunities to sell itself again and again - both in the scientific community AND in courts of law. It has been clearly unsuccessful. It has failed in providing the kind of evidence necessary to support itself in both of those forums. It hasn't even been able to rid itself of its original premise - it is religious in origin.

Wrong again, ID is only in its infancy and to this point has succeeded its main objective, which is to open the blind mans eyes to a new era of interpretation relating to the study of natural phenomena. BTW, what does "it is religious in origin" actually mean, when it has nothing to do with the actual real-time evidence.

"For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child" (page 24)

"A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." (page 26)

ID does nothing in that respect, it does not define a God of Christianity. Proponents (engineers, scientists, mathematicians, biologists and anyone else etc...) may all be God-fearing individuals, they may as well be fundamentalists, it still wouldn't mean that ID is not scientific if it uses a scientific method to quantify and measure biological/cosmological features/properties to say, for example; X has met the equation of being specified complex or irreducibly complex, and therefore its best explained by a intelligent cause. The most failed hypothesis in the history of modern man (Darwinian Evolution) has done miserably to explain what ID is trying to. By using Darwinian standards, it will continue to fail to explain how it might have happened.

to be continued....

[animal]

Yes, the fact is that the media DOES tend to lean more to the left wing then to the right, this is in fact not debatable, only perhaps in your own imagination.

How is this fact? Based on only your say-so? Sounds like an opinion to me...

Sure, I pick global warming, where no real hard evidence has helped the claim that human technology is responsible for the climate change, in fact evidence leans towards a natural cycle. Many scientists have provided evidence on the contrary to the human induced cause and claims, but this material is never published or heard about.

Hmm.. I just googled global warming and the first site that pops up - globalwarming.org, is dedicated to "This web site is a project of the Cooler Heads Coalition, formerly a sub-group of the National Consumer Coalition, but now run as an informal and ad-hoc group focused on dispelling the myths of global warming by exposing flawed economic, scientific, and risk analysis. Coalition members will also follow the progress of the international Global Climate Change Treaty negotiations."

So a simple investigation taking no more than a mere few seconds kinda refutes your notion that it isn't heard about or may be hard to find... (of course the onus is on the person trying to find out information on global warming)

How can you tell whether its "news" or not and just "someone else's opinion"? Most people swallow whatever the news perpetuates and take it as fact. You really don't know what the real facts are because they purposefully skew the facts to fit they're intended agenda.

This is where it is important for the person to not simply be satisfied with what he or she hears or reads at first glance and instead makes an attempt to further their understanding of whats being reported.

Also, MediaMatters.org is website that does a good job keeping tabs on these kinds of things.

How do you know if CNN or Fox is to blame for skewing they're facts in favor of a political agenda. Is it FOX that first started skewing the news, or was is CNN and its counterparts doing the skewing first, only for Fox News having no choice to play the same game CNN plays?

It doesn't matter who started it, Fox - whether they did start it or not made the greatest attempt to exploit it. Speaking of CNN, a Ted Turner network, I am certainly not giving them any relief of criticism of skewing facts or being politically biased - Ted Turner, afterall, has certainly been a key figure for conservatives arguably in the last century (as even purported by Ann Coulter)...

No, ID is not creationism, it seems you have not read any ID material including the basic definition of ID. Advancements in technology has only helped science with that leap and gain, and in effect has only rendered Darwinian theory more futile and improbable then before.

ID most certainly is creationism, albeit in a new form - in favor more of the teleological argument and argument from ignorance. I would certainly like some examples to support that last sentence.

I'm glad that you know people used to believe the earth was flat, however doesn't say much since in fact ID uses the current scientific methods to our understanding of the design inference (mathematics, engineering, physics, biology etc...) and accumulates/formulates evidence for its theory based on that premise.

Do enlighten me. What current scientific methods are these? Specified complexity? Irreducible complexity? If those will be your best arguments, than why do they do not stand even in a court room, never mind scrutiny from the scientific community?

Wrong again, ID is only in its infancy and to this point has succeeded its main objective, which is to open the blind mans eyes to a new era of interpretation relating to the study of natural phenomena. BTW, what does "it is religious in origin" actually mean, when it has nothing to do with the actual real-time evidence.

Explain how this is so - I refer you to what yadinka posted.

ID does nothing in that respect, it does not define a God of Christianity. Proponents (engineers, scientists, mathematicians, biologists and anyone else etc...) may all be God-fearing individuals, they may as well be fundamentalists, it still wouldn't mean that ID is not scientific if it uses a scientific method to quantify and measure biological/cosmological features/properties to say, for example; X has met the equation of being specified complex or irreducibly complex, and therefore its best explained by a intelligent cause. The most failed hypothesis in the history of modern man (Darwinian Evolution) has done miserably to explain what ID is trying to. By using Darwinian standards, it will continue to fail to explain how it might have happened.

Quite a stretch... Again, this continued use of Dembski's and Behe's arguments - which have already been refuted time and time again.

Explain to me this: How is that we determine that something like the diversity on life is of an intelligent product? To what do we have to compare it with to see if it is un-intelligent?

Also - if evolutionary theory is the most failed hypothesis in the history of man - than why does it impact the sciences so? Also, explain to me how do we go about trying to find the cure or vaccine for HIV/Aids without evolutionary theory?

[godslanguage]

How is this fact? Based on only your say-so? Sounds like an opinion to me...

Its rather obvious, but of course anyone can deny it, your welcome too.

Hmm.. I just googled global warming and the first site that pops up - globalwarming.org, is dedicated to "This web site is a project of the Cooler Heads Coalition, formerly a sub-group of the National Consumer Coalition, but now run as an informal and ad-hoc group focused on dispelling the myths of global warming by exposing flawed economic, scientific, and risk analysis. Coalition members will also follow the progress of the international Global Climate Change Treaty negotiations."

You know, not everyone has the internet, or is capable of using a computer. Google isn't the god King of information, I never said that you can't use google and NOT find anything on both sides of an issue. What I meant that the information leaking out to the public by mainstream media is much more susceptible to being accepted as "fact", and therefore even if someone did happen to be skeptical on a issue they would intuitively and logically deny another view, even if it happens to be as much or more scientific then its predecessor-view, especially when the predecessor view is held by "scientists say" or "scientists found". I'm generally referring to ALL media as one group, this includes the internet, but nothing suggests that the higher percentage of the public gets they''re views from doing google searches.

So a simple investigation taking no more than a mere few seconds kinda refutes your notion that it isn't heard about or may be hard to find... (of course the onus is on the person trying to find out information on global warming)

So a simple investigation taking no more then a mere few seconds kinda refutes your claim that you have refuted all my claims and any other claim made by others who share the same side of the story as I.

This is where it is important for the person to not simply be satisfied with what he or she hears or reads at first glance and instead makes an attempt to further their understanding of whats being reported.
It doesn't matter who started it, Fox - whether they did start it or not made the greatest attempt to exploit it. Speaking of CNN, a Ted Turner network, I am certainly not giving them any relief of criticism of skewing facts or being politically biased - Ted Turner, afterall, has certainly been a key figure for conservatives arguably in the last century (as even purported by Ann Coulter)...

Ofcourse, it only doesn't matter to "animal" who started it, because Fox being one-in few, and CNN's being one in many, it would be a logical step for Fox to exploit it to the point of making completely outrageous and bogus right-wing claims. Fox is right, but animal thinks Fox is wrong, and therefore CNN is completely right, therefore only Fox News makes biased claims.

ID most certainly is creationism, albeit in a new form - in favor more of the teleological argument and argument from ignorance. I would certainly like some examples to support that last sentence.

Wikipedia and howstuffworks.com may tell you intelligent design is creationism in disguise, quote "The scientific community believes ID is creationism dressed up in a cheap tuxedo". Thats a worthy claim made by scientists, however its nowhere near a scientific claim. Its as much as a assumption/opinion by scientists as it is animal's claim that ID is most certainly creationism. My advice, visit a few links, you'll find plenty of reputable scientists in the field of biology who are skeptical of the Darwinian claims, many of them don't embrace ID and perhaps never will, but they are fundamentally more skeptical of the Darwinian paradigm, then they are of ID.

http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-forum-f-6.html
http://www.arn.org
http://www.uncommondescent.com

Do enlighten me. What current scientific methods are these? Specified complexity? Irreducible complexity? If those will be your best arguments, than why do they do not stand even in a court room, never mind scrutiny from the scientific community?

I think you can answer your own question here. BTW, have you heard of "open source code" before, Linux implements this method to gather the community to add functionality and to overall improve its operating system ( kernel of the OS). You'll find this is exactly what ID is doing, its allowing more input from the overall community on the issue, the same reason Linux succeeds further on and has succeeded against competing companies "Microsoft", will be the same reason ID succeeds, even though "animal" and the other Darwinists don't appeal to it.

[godslanguage]

Wrong again, ID is only in its infancy and to this point has succeeded its main objective, which is to open the blind mans eyes to a new era of interpretation relating to the study of natural phenomena. BTW, what does "it is religious in origin" actually mean, when it has nothing to do with the actual real-time evidence.

Explain how this is so - I refer you to what yadinka posted.

What did "yadinka" post thats more or less different then what you wrote? I don't understand what I should explain something that I explained. It seems that your suggesting ID is non-scientific because "it is religious in origins", by the same token, Darwinian evolution does not need -or- care -or- incorporate origins into its theory, making it far more religious then "animals" claim that ID is religious because it has religious origins, and therefore DE dismissing the origins altogether makes it far more religious then ID is. Does that make sense? Of course it doesn't, the whole point is that if Biologists can study the fairy tale of DE without going into origins, then ID should Not have the same privilege of studying they're theory without adhering or being accused of being of religious origins?

Quite a stretch... Again, this continued use of Dembski's and Behe's arguments - which have already been refuted time and time again.

Every third paragraph you have written you refuted or you believe others have refuted all them "dumb" creationist, conservative and ID arguments, you have refuted all my claims, and now your claim that Dembski and Behe and altogether ID has been refuted, perhaps by you as well...indeed thats quite a stretch. And I challenge you to take all the arguments you have at your disposal that refute ID (which is primarily based on Dembski's and Behe's claims), and create a thread at arn.org to discuss it.

Explain to me this: How is that we determine that something like the diversity on life is of an intelligent product? To what do we have to compare it with to see if it is un-intelligent?

The central core theme of ID is around the denial of Darwinian mechanisms allowing for the diversity of life. Diversity of life is not really a strong argument for evolution, its the mechanism that is the differance between ID and DE, in fact, Darwinian mechanisms of RM&NS are weak to explain the diversity of life as you suggest. We know that complex, goal-directed and purpose driven systems are formed though intelligent input or simply, intelligence. id employs this fact that in fact that "complex, goal-directed and purpose driven systems are formed through intelligent input ". The mechanism is intelligence, therefore a biological feature which exhibits complexity as well as goal-directed/intended processes, would best be explained by intelligence. Purpose driven system is arguably deniable, because we don't in fact know if there is any purpose to Natural phenomena, however to our slight intuition we could assume it is purposeful and at this point it would have religious implications as you said. But the best-known evidence tells us that you can't have a) complex b) goal-intended processes and Not have c) purposeful. So if Intelligent design proponents believe in God or some other unknown force, then they have the best-known scientific reason to do so.

Also - if evolutionary theory is the most failed hypothesis in the history of man - than why does it impact the sciences so? Also, explain to me how do we go about trying to find the cure or vaccine for HIV/Aids without evolutionary theory?

I can point you to articles stating how useless evolutionary theory really is to these studies.

[animal]

You know, not everyone has the internet, or is capable of using a computer. Google isn't the god King of information, I never said that you can't use google and NOT find anything on both sides of an issue. What I meant that the information leaking out to the public by mainstream media is much more susceptible to being accepted as "fact", and therefore even if someone did happen to be skeptical on a issue they would intuitively and logically deny another view, even if it happens to be as much or more scientific then its predecessor-view, especially when the predecessor view is held by "scientists say" or "scientists found". I'm generally referring to ALL media as one group, this includes the internet, but nothing suggests that the higher percentage of the public gets they''re views from doing google searches.

Such a cop-out. I'm sure the literature is out there as well... but not everyone can read. I'm sure there are some networks on television which do promote each side or one or the other when they can... but not everyone has cable or even televisions, for that matter. How far can you stretch this weak argument? I never said google was a 'king' of info - I have a computer, I have the internet, I used the quickest resource available to me to find info on a subject. My point is the onus is one the person in search for info - to NOT limit themselves to one medium (or news channel) or another.

Ofcourse, it only doesn't matter to "animal" who started it, because Fox being one-in few, and CNN's being one in many, it would be a logical step for Fox to exploit it to the point of making completely outrageous and bogus right-wing claims. Fox is right, but animal thinks Fox is wrong, and therefore CNN is completely right, therefore only Fox News makes biased claims.

I already pointed out that I am not limiting such scrutiny to FOX - I even pointed out CNN. Your point is moot. I do, however, stress that FOX certainly makes their intentions much more deliberate. And if you think CNN is an appropriate network which can be used as the 'flagship' network for liberal media - than you're entire premise for this argument is completely flawed and needs reconsideration.

I appreciate the links, I am familiar with uncommondescent and arn (as per research on Dembski's contributions in writing), that discussion forum is new to me, I'll have a gander. Still, ARN or uncommondescent or any pro-ID website still runs into the same repeated nonsense which has already been dealt with - most overwhelmingly so in the Dover vs Kitzmiller trial. You still have evaded my question as to how, considering ID is such an 'obvious' and 'increasingly successful scientific alternative' was able to fail at convincing a trial?

Why keep using a broken umbrella in a storm? Cause its exactly what you're doing by propagating Dembski's and Behe's arguments - who both have a problem getting their work published in peer-review journals - as I've quoted Behe's concession before from that trial - he himself concedes failures.

I think you can answer your own question here. BTW, have you heard of "open source code" before, Linux implements this method to gather the community to add functionality and to overall improve its operating system ( kernel of the OS). You'll find this is exactly what ID is doing, its allowing more input from the overall community on the issue, the same reason Linux succeeds further on and has succeeded against competing companies "Microsoft", will be the same reason ID succeeds, even though "animal" and the other Darwinists don't appeal to it.

Evade the questions all you want. You still need to account for how this stunningly obvious better alternative to evolutionary theory can't even make any head-way in the scientific community or even a court room... as lobbying for it as opposed to facing scientific scrutiny and criticism has been the only alternative ID can manage - they have a strange definition for what it means to be 'fair'.

What did "yadinka" post thats more or less different then what you wrote? I don't understand what I should explain something that I explained. It seems that your suggesting ID is non-scientific because "it is religious in origins", by the same token, Darwinian evolution does not need -or- care -or- incorporate origins into its theory, making it far more religious then "animals" claim that ID is religious because it has religious origins, and therefore DE dismissing the origins altogether makes it far more religious then ID is. Does that make sense? Of course it doesn't, the whole point is that if Biologists can study the fairy tale of DE without going into origins, then ID should Not have the same privilege of studying they're theory without adhering or being accused of being of religious origins?

Because you haven't explained how ID stands apart from creationism - and if you think you have, than I'm afraid you have a poor understanding of how one should differentiate the two. Their arguments differ as two primary points, which I've pointed out, are being focused on, but it doesn't mean the ones who argue for it are any different. It's not my fault that creationists had to regroup themselves and promote their agenda under a new title because of a failed court case in 1987 (once again). It's theirs.

I also do not see how omitting a point of origins into evolutionary theory makes it religious... that's just an assertion which is unsubstantiated. The point of ID being religious in origin is its OBVIOUS CONNECTION to creationism. Ignore it all you want, your welcome to - it only weakens your case.

Every third paragraph you have written you refuted or you believe others have refuted all them "dumb" creationist, conservative and ID arguments, you have refuted all my claims, and now your claim that Dembski and Behe and altogether ID has been refuted, perhaps by you as well...indeed thats quite a stretch. And I challenge you to take all the arguments you have at your disposal that refute ID (which is primarily based on Dembski's and Behe's claims), and create a thread at arn.org to discuss it.

If you think creationists are dumb.. than that's your opinion, but don't imply that that is what I am saying simply because arguments have already been refuted.

Dembski's and Behe's arguments and ID HAVE been refuted time and time again. Kennith Miller, Eugenie Scott, Richard Dawkins, Massimo Piggliuci, Michael Shermer, just to name a few, have all done well to counter the arguments any key ID proponent has had to offer. Even our court systems do not see ID's viability - what more do you want to get you to throw out that broken umbrella!

Also, I accept that challenge and will do so when I have completed my personal research work as I also have been working on a detailed essay which counters ID as thoroughly as I can manage possible - countering each of the most stressed arguments ID proponents still willingly promote - primarily Dembski's and Behe's continued failed regurgitation of their most recent submissions and articles.

The central core theme of ID is around the denial of Darwinian mechanisms allowing for the diversity of life. Diversity of life is not really a strong argument for evolution, its the mechanism that is the differance between ID and DE, in fact, Darwinian mechanisms of RM&NS are weak to explain the diversity of life as you suggest. We know that complex, goal-directed and purpose driven systems are formed though intelligent input or simply, intelligence. id employs this fact that in fact that "complex, goal-directed and purpose driven systems are formed through intelligent input ". The mechanism is intelligence, therefore a biological feature which exhibits complexity as well as goal-directed/intended processes, would best be explained by intelligence. Purpose driven system is arguably deniable, because we don't in fact know if there is any purpose to Natural phenomena, however to our slight intuition we could assume it is purposeful and at this point it would have religious implications as you said. But the best-known evidence tells us that you can't have a) complex b) goal-intended processes and Not have c) purposeful. So if Intelligent design proponents believe in God or some other unknown force, then they have the best-known scientific reason to do so.

The real 'mechanism' you speak of here is really ignorance, not intelligence - you assume, as you've conceded that it is intelligence, yet have no evidence to support or even make such a claim - which is why I said one of ID's main two points is an argument from ignorance. You also cannot make that claim that the best explanation for a complex system is intelligence without assuming it.

Snowflakes, diamonds, weather, lightning, tornadoes are all complex things comprised by complex systems which allow for random/chaotic events as a precursor, rather than intelligence.

Again you evade my questions - how do know if what we see is of an intelligent designer? How do know it is not an unintelligent design we are really seeing? It only begs the question and doesn't explain anything - merely states that this is too complex (or specifically or irreducibly complex) and therefore go.. err, rather, an intelligent designer must have done it!

I can point you to articles stating how useless evolutionary theory really is to these studies.

Instead of telling me about your ace in the hole - how about just simply revealing it?

[godslanguage]

I already pointed out that I am not limiting such scrutiny to FOX - I even pointed out CNN. Your point is moot. I do, however, stress that FOX certainly makes their intentions much more deliberate. And if you think CNN is an appropriate network which can be used as the 'flagship' network for liberal media - than you're entire premise for this argument is completely flawed and needs reconsideration.

Explain yourself here, either you haven't been reading what I posted, or you are completely ignorant. I never said CNN is a flagship network for liberal media, I said that Fox is one in a few, and CNN is one in many. CNN DOES tend to lean toward the liberal side, read Liberal Bias by Goldberg and you might find out a thing or too about Liberal bias such as Bias by commission, Bias by commission etc.. find out who CNN and liberal media follow, once you have a better idea on this issue, your perspective until then will remain static and unchangeable. What sources for your claim that FOX news makes their intentions more deliberate, this is a "moot" opinion and probably not worthy of considering.

I appreciate the links, I am familiar with uncommondescent and arn (as per research on Dembski's contributions in writing), that discussion forum is new to me, I'll have a gander. Still, ARN or uncommondescent or any pro-ID website still runs into the same repeated nonsense which has already been dealt with - most overwhelmingly so in the Dover vs Kitzmiller trial. You still have evaded my question as to how, considering ID is such an 'obvious' and 'increasingly successful scientific alternative' was able to fail at convincing a trial?

No problem. Perhaps if you stop evading my questions, and start facing the real facts, then perhaps I might respond to your claims in more detail. But since you are shifting the discussion (and thats fine with me) and dodging the criteria with unsupported claims, as you believe I am doing as well, then perhaps there is no point in continuing a discussion with each other in relation to the central topic on this thread.

I'll go back to the initial thread, to sum up my response, it was ridiculous for Darwinists to do a philosophically and politically biased study and call it science, secondly, the point of it was to show how Darwinists have taken over mass-media to promote they're illogical and pseudo-scientific non-sense, and I will continue to point this out in every available instance, never mind what animal has to say.

Why keep using a broken umbrella in a storm? Cause its exactly what you're doing by propagating Dembski's and Behe's arguments - who both have a problem getting their work published in peer-review journals - as I've quoted Behe's concession before from that trial - he himself concedes failures.

Evade the questions all you want. You still need to account for how this stunningly obvious better alternative to evolutionary theory can't even make any head-way in the scientific community or even a court room... as lobbying for it as opposed to facing scientific scrutiny and criticism has been the only alternative ID can manage - they have a strange definition for what it means to be 'fair'.

The court room has it wrong, and since the courtroom does not speak for whats on engineers and scientists minds, and since it has no clue about principles of engineering, or hard-scientific predictive method for accumulating facts in modular systems, then it is likely to be unqualified to be subject to denying or rejecting ID to be taught. And since the Darwinists have no clue about those standards either, they also have little say on the issue. Nevertheless, ID doesn't need to be taught in public schools, colleges or universities. It is already freely open subject to the public, the more they deny ID based on its scientific premise, the more feedback they will receive from scientific community who are already skeptic about the creative powers of DE, it is a good marketing tool and only strengthens ID in the long-run.

What did "yadinka" post thats more or less different then what you wrote? I don't understand what I should explain something that I explained. It seems that your suggesting ID is non-scientific because "it is religious in origins", by the same token, Darwinian evolution does not need -or- care -or- incorporate origins into its theory, making it far more religious then "animals" claim that ID is religious because it has religious origins, and therefore DE dismissing the origins altogether makes it far more religious then ID is. Does that make sense? Of course it doesn't, the whole point is that if Biologists can study the fairy tale of DE without going into origins, then ID should Not have the same privilege of studying they're theory without adhering or being accused of being of religious origins?

Because you haven't explained how ID stands apart from creationism - and if you think you have, than I'm afraid you have a poor understanding of how one should differentiate the two. Their arguments differ as two primary points, which I've pointed out, are being focused on, but it doesn't mean the ones who argue for it are any different. It's not my fault that creationists had to regroup themselves and promote their agenda under a new title because of a failed court case in 1987 (once again). It's theirs.

I will open a new thread on how ID stands apart from creationism. It will be noted that your central denial of ID not being creationism is because ID's origins are religious.

ie:

I also do not see how omitting a point of origins into evolutionary theory makes it religious... that's just an assertion which is unsubstantiated. The point of ID being religious in origin is its OBVIOUS CONNECTION to creationism. Ignore it all you want, your welcome to - it only weakens your case.

If you think creationists are dumb.. than that's your opinion, but don't imply that that is what I am saying simply because arguments have already been refuted.

This is inevitably what your are saying animal, not me. you deny all evidence or viewpoints held by ID, creationists etc...then what else can this possibly mean then admitting that they are indeed "dumb", because these view points have been refuted in your imagination by the following experts you mention, who are the only "smart-head-authorities" you believe are capable of not only answering questions related to religion, philosophy, and science, but they have also therefore absolute universal knowledge to make valid counters to topics they are not entitled to discuss.

These claims by the following individuals you have listed, have been refuted by the ID community in response to the so-called refutations these individuals have made in correspondence to ID arguments they believe are flawed.

Dembski's and Behe's arguments and ID HAVE been refuted time and time again. Kennith Miller, Eugenie Scott, Richard Dawkins, Massimo Piggliuci, Michael Shermer, just to name a few, have all done well to counter the arguments any key ID proponent has had to offer. Even our court systems do not see ID's viability - what more do you want to get you to throw out that broken umbrella!

Also, I accept that challenge and will do so when I have completed my personal research work as I also have been working on a detailed essay which counters ID as thoroughly as I can manage possible - countering each of the most stressed arguments ID proponents still willingly promote - primarily Dembski's and Behe's continued failed regurgitation of their most recent submissions and articles.

By the looks of it animal, I don't think you will hold up long enough based on this personal research you have briefly exposed to me that refutes all the claims. If you are doing a study on Wikipedia, you will inevtibly fail your journey at arn.org, you will most definitely fail that journey at ISID, however you could start with some aspect of ID here: http://www.topology.org/philo/eng.html, to learn about something that is entirely unrelated to ID, and at the same it is completely related to ID, since you lack the ability to recognize where ID is coming from.

The real 'mechanism' you speak of here is really ignorance, not intelligence - you assume, as you've conceded that it is intelligence, yet have no evidence to support or even make such a claim - which is why I said one of ID's main two points is an argument from ignorance. You also cannot make that claim that the best explanation for a complex system is intelligence without assuming it.


Snowflakes, diamonds, weather, lightning, tornadoes are all complex things comprised by complex systems which allow for random/chaotic events as a precursor, rather than intelligence.

This is a argument for ignorance animal, a complex system means nothing to ID, therefore a snowflake adhering to a pattern, does not mean it meets the criteria of ID. ID is measured in specificity which more specifically is determined by the information that exists in a specified and irreducibly complex system to perform a goal directed and goal specific function. A snowflake is not a information processing system. Snowflakes may meet your own definition of ID which states snowflakes meet ID's standards because they are complex, however they are in no way irreducibly complex, animal may change the appearance of a snowflake to a different level of complexity, however animal should notice all he is doing is changing the appearance of the snowflake.

to be continued...

[animal]

Explain yourself here, either you haven't been reading what I posted, or you are completely ignorant. I never said CNN is a flagship network for liberal media, I said that Fox is one in a few, and CNN is one in many. CNN DOES tend to lean toward the liberal side, read Liberal Bias by Goldberg and you might find out a thing or too about Liberal bias such as Bias by commission, Bias by commission etc.. find out who CNN and liberal media follow, once you have a better idea on this issue, your perspective until then will remain static and unchangeable. What sources for your claim that FOX news makes their intentions more deliberate, this is a "moot" opinion and probably not worthy of considering.

I didn't say that you said that, I was stating that if that is what you're implying about CNN, since you point it out among other networks to counter FOX (which pits right vs left stations in your argument) than you're wrong.

What amazes me though, is your apparent inability to see what I've pointed out twice already - I'll do it a third time and reframe it - that any news station whose reports include opinion or bias, left or right wing views, has failed to do their job - journalism. Whether its FOX, CNN, NBC, whatever. It is not up to a news network to decide which views to support - it is for the people receiving the information on an issue to decide for themselves. If you know nothing about trends in news broadcasting in the past 25 years (which seems possible considering your comments thus far) - be it from FOX or CNN in particular, then your entire argument contains no substance and is just an opinion as you have not supported yourself otherwise. What makes FOX's intentions more deliberate? Are you kidding me? Watch some episodes of Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly - you don't interrupt people immediately after you've asked them a question in an attempt to seek their answer and you certainly don't cut someone's mic or cut them off the air because they've stated something you don't agree with.

This obsession of everything in media being effected by liberals is really quite something. You paint the impression that America is somehow more influenced by liberals (aka Darwinists, apparently) than conservatives (and if you don't think you've done that, than you don't understand your own 'language'). If that is the case than how is it that we have Bush in office? Twice? For someone who accuses others of imagining things, your imagination is nothing short of stupendous.

The court room has it wrong, and since the courtroom does not speak for whats on engineers and scientists minds, and since it has no clue about principles of engineering, or hard-scientific predictive method for accumulating facts in modular systems, then it is likely to be unqualified to be subject to denying or rejecting ID to be taught. And since the Darwinists have no clue about those standards either, they also have little say on the issue. Nevertheless, ID doesn't need to be taught in public schools, colleges or universities. It is already freely open subject to the public, the more they deny ID based on its scientific premise, the more feedback they will receive from scientific community who are already skeptic about the creative powers of DE, it is a good marketing tool and only strengthens ID in the long-run.

Wow.

You accuse me of rebuking things simply on my say so - and here you are simply writing off the U.S. legal system in an unsupported sentence. Unfortunately, this does you no good merit as it tackles one of the two prime arguments of the entire ID 'movement' - irreducible complexity. Which, in the case, was... refuted and debunked - even with the concession of Behe himself under oath (but I'll get to more on this in another post as I would like to tackle the arguments themselves rather than our just going back and forth over generalizations and snide remarks).

These claims by the following individuals you have listed, have been refuted by the ID community in response to the so-called refutations these individuals have made in correspondence to ID arguments they believe are flawed.

I'd be interested in reading them or hearing them from you if we indulge in this further (as I hope we do).

By the looks of it animal, I don't think you will hold up long enough based on this personal research you have briefly exposed to me that refutes all the claims. If you are doing a study on Wikipedia, you will inevtibly fail your journey at arn.org, you will most definitely fail that journey at ISID, however you could start with some aspect of ID here: http://www.topology.org/philo/eng.html, to learn about something that is entirely unrelated to ID, and at the same it is completely related to ID, since you lack the ability to recognize where ID is coming from.

Thanks for the tip. Assuming from where I get my resources from only exposes one of the great flaws in many of the ID arguments - assumption (ie 'goal-driven complex systems').

This is a argument for ignorance animal, a complex system means nothing to ID, therefore a snowflake adhering to a pattern, does not mean it meets the criteria of ID. ID is measured in specificity which more specifically is determined by the information that exists in a specified and irreducibly complex system to perform a goal directed and goal specific function. A snowflake is not a information processing system. Snowflakes may meet your own definition of ID which states snowflakes meet ID's standards because they are complex, however they are in no way irreducibly complex, animal may change the appearance of a snowflake to a different level of complexity, however animal should notice all he is doing is changing the appearance of the snowflake.

The examples I gave were only meant to demonstrate that one cannot assume a complex system automatically requires an intelligence as a precursor.

But it's nice to continue to see you make assumptions, its becoming quite a trend with you...

I also am still anticipating your response regarding my inquiry on the study of HIV for the means of a cure or vaccine without the use of evolutionary theory.

[KrisW]

Like any polarized groups of humans, there are 'smart' conservatives and liberals.

There are also some very 'dumb" liberals and conservatives.

And there are some that use the labels to sow the seeds of discord.

[ARWallace]

I found this to be an interesting albeit off-topic thread, but thought I might add my $0.02 worth.

I think that one does not have to look very hard to find polarizing and often offensive opinions advanced in virtually any human endeavor - conservative or liberal, creationist or anti-creationist, theist or atheist. But it is the polarizing figures who seem to advance the most extreme and often repugnant ideas in the most extreme and repugnant ways. Personally, I find Richard Dawkins just as revolting as Anne Coulter and think the two of them should be banished to a remote desert island. They deserve each other.

And as for the article in question - perhaps some questions are best left unasked much less unanswered.

My apologies to Anne Coulter and Richard Dawkins fans - but I mean really...

[ARWallace]

Like any polarized groups of humans, there are 'smart' conservatives and liberals.

There are also some very 'dumb" liberals and conservatives.

And there are some that use the labels to sow the seeds of discord.

As always, someone has found a better and simpler way of saying what I meant to say. Well said, Kris.

[Gman]

My apologies to Anne Coulter and Richard Dawkins fans - but I mean really...

No offense taken here... I too think Anne Coulter is quite arrogant. It's sad to see many conservatives (and some Christians) side with her child-like behavior. It's ok to differ with people, but when a person makes snide remarks like hers, it simply does no good...

[Canuckster1127]

My apologies to Anne Coulter and Richard Dawkins fans - but I mean really...

No offense taken here... I too think Anne Coulter is quite arrogant. It's sad to see many conservatives (and some Christians) side with her child-like behavior. It's ok to differ with people, but when a person makes snide remarks like hers, it simply does no good...

Anne Coulter is not my favorite pundit by a long shot. There's others on the left that leave me cold as well.

I'm always reminded of a quote attributed to Einstein in this regard, "There's only two things I know of that are infinite; The Universe and Human Ignorance, and I'm not so sure about the Universe ....."

[Gman]

Anne Coulter is not my favorite pundit by a long shot. There's others on the left that leave me cold as well.

Unfortunately many Christians get labeled as conservative warmongers due to the actions of a few.. Half the time I feel like I need to defend myself everytime I call myself a Christian.. Oh, you are one of those? Well why would you associate with those Jim Baker or Pat Robertson types...

Frankly, I think Jesus road into Jerusalem in a VW bug...

[frankbaginski]

Ann Coulter and Richard Dawkins are necessary because they say what many think. I am sure that both of them know they are the extreme mouthpiece for their side and act out the part. Who knows over a beer they both may be fun to talk to. They give everyone a chance to talk about tough issues without directly bring up the subject. One just needs to say "Have you heard what ...... said" Although the lunatic fringe is polarizing it made also serve to motivate someone.

[Gman]

Ann Coulter and Richard Dawkins are necessary because they say what many think. I am sure that both of them know they are the extreme mouthpiece for their side and act out the part. Who knows over a beer they both may be fun to talk to. They give everyone a chance to talk about tough issues without directly bring up the subject. One just needs to say "Have you heard what ...... said" Although the lunatic fringe is polarizing it made also serve to motivate someone.

Frank,

I think the point here is that it is ok to differ with someone, but when it comes to making sarcastic remarks or promoting an intellectual elitism over someone else is not always a healthy way to converse. Much like watching grade schoolers squabble amongst themselves at recess. But then again, certain people are drawn to this for it's shock value... Well at least in America perhaps...