Darwin’s evo-atheist creation myth has never been science. As many have pointed out, it is nothing more than “a long argument” devoid of macroevolutionary detail. But just out of curiosity, why are you assuming that Creation/Intelligent Design is not science?
47 comments
Because Creation or Intelligent Design has absolutely no science to back it up. It starts with the conclusion of "Goddidit" and goes from there, keeping any possible "evidence" which appears to support the theory, and trying like hell to discard the mountains of evidence which disprove it.
How can these people write things like this and not realize that they have everything backwards. Evolution has more supporting evidence published in peer-reviewed journals each month than ID/Creationism has EVER PRODUCED, published or not. Which isn't hard considering that there has never been any evidence put forth that supports ID, only weak arguments against evolution.
Okay sir, you win, evolution isn't science.
Incidentally, the bible is still wrong. Same with your dumbass political views.
Kent Hovind’s fundy creation myth has never been science.
Fixed.
Once again, Freepers prove they are dumber than earthworms.
"Darwin’s evo-atheist creation myth has never ..."
And right there the conversation ends. It also shows that you have no fucking clue what evolution is; and just as importantly, what it is not. Evolution is not concerned with "craetion", a.k.a. our origins. Evolution is concerned with the fact that things, ummmmm, evolve.
God
Guns
Guts
but obviously no brain.
"Darwin’s evo-atheist creation myth has never been science."
Neither Darwin's version nor the modern version of evolution has anything to do with "creation" you moron.
"As many have pointed out, it is nothing more than “a long argument” devoid of macroevolutionary detail."
You keep using words you apparently don't know the meaning to and making up others haphazardly. I think you should stop while you're ahead.
"But just out of curiosity, why are you assuming that Creation/Intelligent Design is not science?"
It's not testable, has no supporting evidence, makes no predictions, has no experiments to conduct, has no actual support from scientists in the appropriate fields, has no peer reviewed papers in any reputable scientific journals... should I go on?
I feel a quote from biologist Richard Dawkins can explain this fundy's rant perfectly:
"Evolution is almost universally accepted among those who understand it, almost universally rejected by those who don't."
"why are you assuming that Creation/Intelligent Design is not science?"
Nobody's assuming that. We -know- that, because we've looked at it and understood what it is and what it isn't. Obviously you haven't done the same with evolutionary theory, since you think we follow Darwin to the letter.
"Darwin’s evo-atheist creation myth has never been science."
Liar.
"As many have pointed out, it is nothing more than “a long argument” devoid of macroevolutionary detail."
Liar.
"But just out of curiosity, why are you assuming that Creation/Intelligent Design is not science?"
It makes no testable predictions and has no evidence to support it. But the biggest problem creationism has in being considered science is that its a religious belief - it appeals to the supernatural, something which science cannot detect or test and thus can safely ignore.
" But just out of curiosity, why are you assuming that Creation/Intelligent Design is not science?"
I don't quote Star Trek very often but, it's because ID is, "highly illogical".
If it is science, then where are the scientific papers published by Creationist/ID Researchers, which support Creationism/ID?
(with papers of course I mean papers which adhere to scientific standards and haven´t been disproven yet)
Intelligent design is, to quote one of its proponents , "the set-theoretic complement of the disjunction regularity or chance."
What all those big words mean is that design is what you call anything that didn't just happen and wasn't bound to happen. But random variation does "just happen", and selection through competition is "bound to happen" where variation exists and resources are not inexhaustible. So intelligent design boils down to just "everything we can't yet explain through mutation and evolution."
That's not science, that's labelling ignorance and being proud of it.
Can't think of anything to say, listening to Rage Against The Machine so...
ALL. HELL. CAN'T STOP US NOW!
ALL. HELL. CAN'T STOP US NOW!
ALL. HELL. CAN'T STOP US NOW!
ALL. HELL. CAN'T STOP US NOW!
"why are you assuming that Creation/Intelligent Design is not science?"
For the same reason I don't consider the Bible to be accurate on: history, geography, cosmology, ethical behavior, or, well, just about anything.
"why are you assuming that Creation/Intelligent Design is not science?"
Because Kitzmiller vs. Dover proved otherwise. And Judge John E. Jones III didn't need to assume when weighing up the evidence prior to finding for the plaintiffs. Because the Creationist defendants mad a complete bollocks-up of their testimony, in defence of 'Intelligent Design'.
Butthurt that as of 2005, the teaching of 'Intelligent Design' (i.e. Creationism by Stealth') in US educational establishments is now illegal much, little Freepers? Tough. Evolution is now law. Evolution is superior. Evolution is now God.
But just out of curiosity, why are you assuming that Creation/Intelligent Design is not science?
Because it is nothing but religious drivel supported by nothing, it is not science, it's bullshit at best, mental insanity at worst!
Let's make a deal: Home-schooled Christians stop talking about evolution, the big bang, and other scientific subjects you've never actually studied, and we atheists will tactfully refrain from mentioning that the Dead Sea Scrolls contain no mention of Jesus and generally make your neat assumptions about what Judaism was like before C.E. 70 look like 52 pick-up.
And today class, we will discuss the issue/concept of Intellgent Design, as it applies to biology, & pose the question "If God was a intellgent designer, does he/she suffer from body image problems...?".
No proof whatsoever, that is all, whereas evolution has truckloads of testable and verifiable evidence that you, retards, always willfully ignore.
Because it doesn't follow the scientific method. It starts with a conclusion and works backward. It is not testable or falsifiable.
I'm a politics and history graduate, but even I understand that much.
If you want to believe creationism or ID based on faith, that's your choice; but don't confuse faith with science. If it doesn't follow the rules and methods of science, it ain't science.
Actually mr. guts, you are 100% correct. Creation/Intelligent Design IS science. Absolutely without question. And I expect you to make sure it is taught in every school in the nation. And seeing how there are thousands of religions, each with their very own creation story, I am assuming you will teach the science of each one of them in class. Afterall, there is nothing in Intelligent Design that suggest any particular gawd. So...teach all of them.
Nothing can be created out of nothing, that's basic science, the whole universe has always existed (even though there was no before the big bang because time didn't exist) and all the moleculs that made the first cells are still on earth.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.