Please respect other members. Please do not post links or information about hacking/warez/cheats.
Read the rules of these forums as we rarely warn before banning. Lost or need RSS check the forum map.
A new form of creationism is slowly gaining support throughout the nation, going by the name of "Intelligent Design." Wired Magazine has an article on in this month, but unforunately they don't post their magazine articles on their site (www.wired.com ) until the magazine has been out for a while.
Here are some links about the issue, one of them is pro-ID while the other is anti-ID (and correct). I only skimmed the two links (I need to head off to religious services pretty soon), but they both seem to represent their respective side well enough.
Given that he made "What the dumb people think." as the link to the pro-ID site and "How the dumb people are wrong." as the anti-ID link, (and refered to it as the correct one) I think thats a fair assumption, Bhs Crew.
Lol. Intelligent design, new? It's been around for centuries. For reasons I've already delivered ad nauseum, I think it will always have the last laugh - no matter how you look at it, it's wildly improbable that the universe could be this organized. But I really don't want to revive that now. Suffice it to saywhether or not biologists are bound by ID, it's going to haunt physicists for a long, long time.
Second link is useful. The first is completely useless, unless there's some essay buried in that site I missed.
And Booms? Most of the important people on both sides of this debate are far, far, more intelligent than you.
Haha, I guess my title (and link titles) were psuedo-trolls, but I had fun with them. Besides, evil is a subjective term; what may be evil to me may not be to you.
And Andarcel? The word you were looking for was 'knowledgeable,' not 'intelligent'.
"But scientists aren't buying it. What Meyer calls "biology for the information age," they call creationism in a lab coat. ID's core scientific principles - laid out in the mid-1990's by a biochemist and a mathematicion - have been thoroughly dismissed on the grounds that Darwin's theories can account for complexity, that ID relies on misunderstandings of evolution and flimsy probablility calculations, and that it proposes no testable explanaions.
As the Ohio debate revealed, however, the Discovery Institute doesn't need the favor of the scientific establishment to prevail in the public arena. Over the past decade, Discovery has gained ground iun schools, op-ed pages, talk radio, and congressional resolutions as "legitimate" alternative to evolution."
I don't know about you, but it seems to me that ID is forcing it's way into school curriculums on faulty premises, teaching faulty "science." It's attemping to put religion into science even though the scientific community does not support it.
I find there to be aspects of 'evil' in what the ID people are doing.
Haha, I guess my title (and link titles) were psuedo-trolls, but I had fun with them. Besides, evil is a subjective term; what may be evil to me may not be to you.
And Andarcel? The word you were looking for was 'knowledgeable,' not 'intelligent'.
No, I meant precisely the word I used, in much the same way you meant precisely the word "dumb."
Linear Mode
