Intelligent Design Rockumentary Redux

A rockumentary about the present controversy surrounding the theories of evolution and intelligent design

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Christianity
• science
• agnosticism
• controversy
• evolution
• intelligent
• design

[Scruffers2011]

@Gamesbok, and lastly, Dover was in now way a precedent setting case. It was presided over by a small town magistrate judge who was not qualified to rule over matters of science, ignored evidence, relied on dated material prepared by the ACLU (verbatim in some cases, even the mistakes!), and finally, was a lowly district court in an unknown town in Pennsylvania....a town, and a court ruling that is back to being unknown to this day.

[Scruffers2011]

@Gamesbok, furthermore ID does not deny that some, limited change does occur over time., that which is commonly referred to as "evolution". Microevolution is well documented. Macroevolution is the position of faith that materialists make to perpetuate a naturalistic philosophy in public school science classes, a philosophy that is known to directly result in atheism. Neither the philosophy of naturalism or atheism belong in science class.

[Scruffers2011]

@Gamesbok - You said in your email " HJ Muller proved, and I do mean proved, in 1918 that Irreducable Complexity was no basis for judging if a system is evolved or not. ID remains an answer to a question that doesn't exist."

I'm sorry to break this to you, and as much as you would like it to wish it away, but yes, the question "Does intelligence contribute to the observed complexity in some living things?" does in fact exist.

[Scruffers2011]

Thanx! I like it too.

Note to those who think ID is creationism. I think you're using faith to come to that conclusion. Why? Because creationism has it's premise on a belief that God exists and seeks to make a literal interpretation of the Bible fit with existing scientific observations. ID is not based on any religious text, and as such makes no religious claims. ID is based on a knowledge base of how intelligent agents work and the evidences of their activity that they leave behind.

[Maklaka]

@Scruffers2011 Science is by definition, methodological naturalism. Naturalism absolutely belongs in the science class. Get an education and learn why irreducible complexity has died.

[CebuBangkaRacer]

Your comment is literally loaded with fallacies. Lets try to sort them all out. Calling others stupid and "creationist" when many ID proponents are not (some are atheist, agnostic, Jewish et etc) is what is wrong. Next, design is oftentimes an inference to the best explanation, not a proof. Next, who the designer is is irrelevant to determining that design is present. Next, it makes sense if you do your research, from ID sources.

[thismortalsoul]

How is this even funny? It just shows how stupid and wrong creationists are. ID is not a theory at all, it simply points out they no one knows certain things...so how can that prove a designer? How did the designer make it happen...? No one knows...so how can you prove a designer did it if you don't know how they did it...or who the designer is...or where they came from. None of it makes any damn sense.

[Tobytrim]

This is a very silly video - Is it a satire of the way that creationists and ID proponents dishonestly edit and quote mine what REAL scientists say?

There's certainly no controversy.....I.D. got handed it's ass long since! - Lol!

[Tobytrim]

This is a very silly video - Is it a satire of the way that creationists and ID proponents dishonestly edit and quote mine what REAL scientists say.

There's certainly no controversy.....I.D. got handed it's ass long since! - Lol!

[gamesbok]

@Scruffers2011 No, it isn't. HJ Muller proved, and I do mean proved, in 1918 that Irreducable Complexity was no basis for judging if a system is evolved or not. ID remains an answer to a question that doesn't exist.