Intelligent design... are you mad?

Question

Surely this is nothing more than religious zealots trying to match their ridiculous belief system to the observable facts that have shown their primitive religion to be no more than ignorant, pre-historic mumbo jumbo.

Answer 1

Don't underestimate it. They're pretty successful in convincing people who are science challenged. And the majority of the world fits in that category.

The same people promoting it are the ones who went through the creationism wars and they have honed their argument skills.

They have been pretty successful in starting a war with scientists then pretending that somehow scientists started it. They push the notion of belief being science hard enough to force scientists to declare the obvious. "Religion is not science" which is the cue for creationists cry that scientists are attacking religion.

They state invented notions like "irreducible complexity" which thankfully has been completely discredited. But it sounds good to those who are science challenged. They claim all they want is "fairness" when they actually want the same type of preferential treatment religion gets in every other part of society.

Some say they want the definition of science and scientific methodology tossed out. This isn't entirely true. They actually want a back door just for them. And they want an extreme double standard. They want the bar for real science set impossibly high and the bar to disappear for themselves.

Answer 2

Evolution... are you mad?
Only people that refuse to see the truth can believe in evolution. There is no proof, but there is SOLID proof that the Earth can not be more then 30,000 years old...
1) The Sun is Shrinking.
Does the size of the sun change over the years? Recently, "John A. Eddy (Harvard -Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and High Altitude Observatory in Boulder) and Aram A. Boornazian (a mathematician with S. Ross and Co. in Boston) have found evidence that the sun has been contracting about 0.1% per century--?? corresponding to a shrinkage rate of about 5 feet per hour.
o.1% would mean a half-life of 10,000 years, so 10,000 years ago, it would be twice as big as it is now, 20,000 years, 4 times as big, 30,000 years, 8 times as big...
The inverse square law means the gravity would be 64 times then what it is now. What would it be in 65 million years?
2) Carbon dating is based on 3 assumptions that can not be proven.
1. The amount of carbon-14 in the body is the same as in the air.
2. The amount that was in it at the time of death is the same as in the air today.
3. Nothing has removed or washed-out any of the carbon-14
4. The rate of decay is a constant.
1,3,and 4 are assumptions. There is no way to prove them.
2 was proven wrong at lest twice, never proven right. The amount of Carbon-14 in the air is still increasing.
3) The geologic column is based on circular reasoning.
The use the bones to tell the age of the rocks, and the rocks to tell the age of the bones.
If the different layers are different ages, then why are there plants, and even animals going through several layers.
4) Every "missing link" has been proven to be a honest mistaken or a deliberate fraud.
1) Lucy.
A 3 foot skeleton of a chimp, the “evidence” that she was becoming human was her knee joint, which was found more then a mile away, and over 200 feet in the earth.
2) Heidelberg Man.
Built by a jaw bone that was considered to be quite human.
3) Nebraska Man.
Built from a pigs tooth
4) Piltdown Man.
The jaw was a modern ape
5) Peking Man.
Lived 500,000 years ago, but no remains were ever found.
6) Neanderthal Man.
Old Man with arthritis.
7) New Guinea man.
?
8) Gro-Magnon Man.
Skeletal Structure is exactly the same as modern man.

Answer 3

While I don't believe that all religion is mumbo-jumbo, I don't find that "intelligent design" is either.

BTW.... you should be careful how you word things if you wish to slam religions based on their lack of intelligence. The Bible is NOT pre-historic. If it were, there would be no record. The beliefs may have some basis in pre-history, but the fact that they remain is clearly historic, and not pre-historic.

Making fun of people while making yourself look bad isn't the way to get a point across.

Answer 4

Studies show schizophrenics are the largest U.S. based demographic of "evangelical" Christians (between 90-95% of Shizophrenics are Christians). So I guess mad shizophrenics must be a part of intelligent design, considering God employs them most often. Most of these Schizophrenics are probably dellusional and believe God has chosen them as the next savior. Hey... you think Christ was schizo? Could be...

Answer 5

--SO THEN aside from the club of INTELLIGENT DESIGN adherents , you refuse to believe that there is intelligence in the authoring of the universe--that seems MAD also , in view of independent expressions different from THE CLUB members of I.D.

HERE ARE some who are not club members, and yet express strong feeling for intelligence in God's creation:

*** ct chap. 5 p. 73 The Handiwork—What Is Behind It? ***

For instance, Albert Einstein was convinced that the universe had a beginning, and he expressed his desire “to know how God created the world.” Yet Einstein did not admit to belief in a personal God; he spoke of a cosmic “religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man’s image.”
--For example, mathematician William A. Dembski wrote that the “intelligent design” evident in “observable features of the natural world . . . can be adequately explained only by recourse to intelligent causes"
--Aerospace engineer Luther D. Sutherland wrote in his book Darwin’s Enigma: “The scientific evidence shows that whenever any basically different type of life first appeared on Earth, all the way from single-celled protozoa to man, it was complete and its organs and structures were complete and fully functional. The inescapable deduction to be drawn from this fact is that there was some sort of pre-existing intelligence before life first appeared on Earth.”
--Donald E. Chittick, a physical chemist who earned a doctorate degree at Oregon State University, comments: “A direct look at the fossil record would lead one to conclude that animals reproduced after their kind as Genesis states. They did not change from one kind into another. The evidence now, as in Darwin’s day, is in agreement with the Genesis record of direct creation. Animals and plants continue to reproduce after their kind. In fact, the conflict between paleontology (study of fossils) and Darwinism is so strong that some scientists are beginning to believe that the in-between forms will never be found.”

Answer 6

actually nothing that science proves or disproves god. when you go to the website about evolution a scientist made it very clear "THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A GOD TEST"

So no matter what you read in your local newspaper, You do not know as much as scientist in Intelligent Design. Whether or not its all true or false, I do not know. But then again, Neither do you.

Just like the whole thory of how evolution was thrown out when they found that human skull, when we were suppose to be apes, or whatever.

Looks like everything--evoluion, ID, Creation..all of it is theories..and nothing has been 100% without a doubt proven.

So let them have their opinions, as well as yours

Answer 7

What is worse is the proponent of the theory knew that he had no evidence and that it would not stand up to peer review, so he decided to publish it for the layman anyway. This shows that either he has no principles or that he was after financial gain.

Answer 8

Yeah I'm crazy, crazy like God!
Bwahahaha!

Intelligent design is a bad philosophy masquerading as science. It's not based on any experimentation, only the manipulation of statistics by creationists.

Answer 9

Evolution...Are You Mad ?

Surely this is nothing more than Secular Atheist trying to match their ridiculous belief system to the observable facts that have shown their immoral secular Society to be no more than ignorant, pre-historic mumbo jumbo.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2863648693594434534

Answer 10

The courts agreed -- ID is religion, not science -- in Katzmiller v Dover.