Intelligent Design

I present the following question...

"Should we seek objective truth in science only according to the philosophical dogmatic boundaries of an existing scientific paradigm? Or, should we seek objective truth in science, following where the evidence leads, even if it is outside of an existing scientific paradigm?

Intelligent Design does not necessarily infer the "Christian" or "Biblical" God, but it surely has metaphysical implications which, when the evidence is examined closely, can lead one to infer that the "I" in Intelligent Design reveals a purposeful, extra-dimensional causor. From an astrophysical level to a bio-cellular level, Intelligent Design may have theological implications, but it does not rely on any theological premise. One way intelligent design is revealed to us is through "Irreducible Complexity"

Irreducible Complexity demonstrates that if you take away one interdependent component, the entire organism will not function. A popular example is found in the Bacterial Flagellum. Bacterial Flagella have motors, stators, a shaft, and other dependent parts necessary for the entire organism to survive. Take any one of those parts away, and the organism cannot survive to reproduce. Therefore, the first Bacterial Flagellum began it's existence as a completed, irreducibly complex organism. Chance, physical law and natural causes are unable to account for this. Intelligent design can account for this, through applying the Design Inference. The Design Inference is a logical method to establish what is designed through an intelligent agent. It applies a "design filter" incorporating 1. An improbable event or object 2. A Pattern that specifies information. Human beings have an inate ability to recognize intelligent effects, even if we do not see the intelligent agent.

SETI researchers use this design inference in the hope of finding intelligent life beyond the earth. If SETI received a radio signal of prime numbers in an objective pattern, they would deduce that that signal came from an intelligent agent (extraterrestrial life). Chance is ruled out because the specified pattern contains what we recognize as information. If we walk on the beach and see "John Loves Mary" etched in the sand, we would deduce that to be from an intelligent agent, as it is an improbable event and it shows a recognizable specified pattern (symbols arranged in a specific pattern to communicate in a known language). Archaeologists use the design inference to determine if a particular shaped rock is a chip of rock or a spear tip. Lawyers use the design inference to determine if an accused person committed a crime or not, by examining the improbability of the event, and looking for any recognizable specified pattern. Cryptology, random number generation, archaeology, forensics..all utilize intelligent design through the design inference, within human contexts.

But it can also be applied to the biological realm. This is when it begins to infringe on the prevailing philosophy of scientific materialism, because it infers that biological systems have not come about through unintelligent, purposeless, naturalistic means (which happens to be contrary to the modern philosophies of Neo-Darwinism and Scientific Materialism). I propose to you, the reader, that true science follows where the evidence leads, irrespective of any existing scientific paradigm.

Unintelligent causes cannot cause intelligence, and conversely, information rich systems always originate from an intelligent agent. In short, intelligence begets intelligence. DNA has a language built into it, more sophisticated than any computer language code. DNA is an information rich system, coded, written, patterned, able to be recognized as such.

Human DNA stores over 3 billion characters, each conveying specified information. Since information rich systems cannot be caused by unintelligent causes, then the only explanation for the sophistication of DNA, inner cell workings, cell structure and related irreducibly complex systems...is Intelligent Design. Since natural selection could not have worked before the first living cell (it's premise requires that DNA already be present), therefore, the first cell must have been created through an intelligent agent. Designed.

Please Note: Intelligent Design is not about "apparent design" (events or objects that have the appearance of design but are naturally caused), and it is not about "optimal design" (whether an event or object is or is not optimally designed for it's existence). Both of these do not fall into the category of Intelligent Design because they do not pass through the Design Inference explanatory filter. Intelligent Design has no theological premise, though it may have implications that point to an extradimensional, purposeful agent that some people associate with "God". If you associate Intelligent Design with "God", that is your own personal business. Let's just go where the evidence leads and see what happens.

For those of you resorting to the Directed Panspermia idea (alien life forms came to earth 3.8 billion years ago, seeded earth with DNA, or mixed up a prebiotic soup, then went back to their home planet again), there is still hope. That is, if you believe in an improbability of approximately one chance in 10 to the 143rd power (10 with 143 zeroes following it) that there is any suitable life supporting planet. That is the latest estimated chance of there being intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. 10 with 143 zeroes following it is a number so big, that mathematicians easily put it in the "miraculous" category, which would then point toward a supernatural, extra-dimensional intelligent agent.

This is what the number looks like: 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

And what about normal Panspermia (simple life forms or molecules travelling to earth from another planet due to natural occurences) ...like Mars? If Mars was ever suitable for life, it is more likely that any life on Mars would originate from earth during the initial or late bombardment period, which ended about 3.9 billion years ago. Impact debri from earth theoretically could exit beyond Earth's atmostphere, and continue in all directions, some of it eventually being caught by Mar's gravitational field. This is more likely than Mars debri coming to earth, because Mars has had moderate conditions in the past, but only for a short time in it's history, not long enough for comlex life molecules or basic extremophile life to develop in any great numbers. Also, any such theoretical life would have to survive a space voyage of possibly many years, would have to withstand excessive radiation, temperature extremes, and then arrive at an earth that itself was subject to cometary and asteroid bombardment, resulting in extreme inhospitable conditions for life to exist.

And what about life on earth originating from some other location in the galaxy or universe? A satellite (moon) orbiting a giant planet that in turn orbits a star resembling Earth’s sun at the right distance could serve as a life site. But the feasibility this notion can be tested against a long list of recent findings. None of the 67 “gas giant” planets found thus far outside Earth’s solar system orbit their stars in the zone life requires. Gas giants, which are many times larger than Earth, form under cold, low radiation conditions far from their stars. By gravitational interactions with interplanetary dust or with other planets and stars that pass by, most gas giants drift into the proximity of their stars. This drifting process drastically decreases their likelihood of retaining the nearly circular, stable orbit life demands. Of the known extrasolar gas giants, only two orbit anywhere near the life-habitable zone, and these two follow such an eccentric (elongated) orbital path as to make life on their satellites ( or moons), if they have any, impossible. If life claims a home anywhere in the vast cosmos, it must be on a planet like Earth orbiting a star like the Sun in a galaxy like the Milky Way. And, as ongoing studies shows, that possibility shrinks, rather than grows, as each year’s research adds to the harvest of data. Extraterrestrial life does indeed appear to be homeless, unless a transcendent, extra-dimensional intelligent agent designed that home.

Interesting ideas, even wishful thinking for some, but if life were to be found somewhere else in our galaxy (or the universe), the question would still remain "How did THAT irreducibly complex life system begin?" So, coming back to earth now, we are are back to examining the facts as we observe them. The evidence suggests that life origins appears to be limited to earth. Life happens to exist on a just rightly placed planet, with a just right rotation, a just right distance from the sun, a just right orbit, with a sun at just the right age and size, with a Super Collider event at just the right time, just the right trajectory (the origin of the moon)in a just rightly spaced local group, in a system with a gas giant (Jupiter) placed in just the right place to gravitationally draw away cometary and asteriod impacts, in a universe that began with a delicately, finely tuned explosion, with over 100 just right prerequisites during it's subsequent expansion and cooling. If any prerequisites were altered to even a miniscule percentage, life would not be possible. Intelligent Design is not limited to earth's biological systems, but we can see, it can also be applied to astronomical events and astrophysical conditions necessary for a life providing and a life sustaining universe. The Anthropic Principle clearly reflects this (that the universe was designed for life, on earth, and human life in particular). A purposeful effect logically dictates that there is a purposeful cause. The composition of the known universe reveals an improbable event, with specific, recognizable patterns. Design.

Life origins research here on earth have shown that the earliest life was also complex, irreducibly complex. Early life on earth appeared suddenly, not gradually, about 3.8 billion years ago (the age of the oldest known rocks).These life forms were morphologically simple, but biochemically and metabolically complex, single-celled microbes. Prior to 3.8+ billion years ago, life could not originate and find permanence on Earth because of hostile conditions caused primarily by frequent asteroid and cometary impacts. Around 3.9 billion years ago, the size and frequency of these impact events diminished. For the first time, oceans and a solid crust became permanent features on Earth.4 Immediately afterward, life appeared on Earth, irreducibly complex life. This sudden appearance of metabolically sophisticated life forms poses problems for naturalistic origin-of-life scenarios. Evolutionary models stemming from naturalism predict that life should appear gradually on Earth, after a substantial percolation period. In contrast, the paleo-historical record reveals a sudden appearance of biochemically complex organisms..and metaphorically speaking, the fingerprint of an intelligent agent.

Whether it's the language of DNA in a single cell,a pocket watch found lying on a beach, the human eye, or the cosmos...We are literally surrounded, engulfed, by Intelligent Design every hour of every day. Anybody out there in cyberspace who is interested in Intelligent Design and wants to share thoughts, or, if you can think of an effective refutation, then send a comment!

Come on, everyone knows that everything has been put in place by Him and all the fossils are just His way to poke fun at everyone.
May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage.
ARRR

Anyway, 'irreducible complexity' is just another fancy variant of the tired old god-of-the-gaps fallacy and has been refuted three times over.

...

Go to the top of a wintry hill and shove up a few googolplexes piles of snow. Push them all off the top. Many break up and scatter apart in small fragmentations. Some survive a bit longer with some corners breaking off, but eventually break apart due to the extra impact force the receive at each roll due to their asymmetrical acquired forms during their fall down the hill. A tiny few (measured of the total that started on the top) gradually become more and more spherical during their journey, lessening the impact of snowball-hill contact, ensuring a prolonged survival compared to the vast majority that started out.

One snowball of that tiny few reaches the bottom of the hill and looks back. The perfectly intact, big, round snowball looks behind him and sees just fragmented snowballs and snowflakes but no other snowballs from that tiny few that survived the near-infinitely sized starting group. Therefore he declares : someone build me!

You are that snowball.

SO what you are saying is that the bible is after all a piece of fiction....! Cool! Another in the club!

I have a thought. If God is responsible for all the little things we just don't understand, then when I die I want all my odd socks back.

1818 words. Not bad. I think I can do better though.


Intelligent Design theorists has recently made a number of people very, very angry, including me. However, as anger serves no function in a successful rebuttal, I will simply state objectively that what goes around comes around. Perhaps before going on, I should describe Intelligent Design theorists to you. Intelligent Design theorists is spleeny, unholy, and passive-aggressive. Furthermore, it yearns to seize control of the power structure. I will never give up. I will never stop trying. And I will use every avenue possible to fight for our freedom of speech.

My purpose is to guide the world into an age of peace, justice, and solidarity. Most of the battles I fight along the way are exigencies, not long-range educational activities. Nevertheless, there isn't a man, woman, or child alive today who thinks that truth is merely a social construct, so let's toss out that ridiculous argument of Intelligent Design theorists's from the get-go. To most people, the list of Intelligent Design theorists's sappy asseverations reads like a comic strip, but its expositions are actually taken seriously by its janissaries. What I mean to say is that if you are not smart enough to realize this, then you become the victim of your own ignorance.

Intelligent Design theorists likes to imply that honesty and responsibility have no cash value and are therefore worthless. This is what its pleas amount to, although, of course, they're daubed over with the viscid slobber of snotty drivel devised by its spokesmen and mindlessly multiplied by pigheaded propagandists. Being the analytical sort that I am, I would have to say that Intelligent Design theorists had previously claimed that it had no intention to declare a national emergency, round up everyone who disagrees with it, and put them in concentration camps. Of course, shortly thereafter, that's exactly what it did. Next, it denied that it would establish tacit boundaries and ground rules for the permissible spectrum of opinion. We all know what happened then. Now, Intelligent Design theorists would have us believe it'd never ever utilize questionable and illegal fund-raising techniques. Will it? Go figure. My view is that it would be charitable of me not to mention that Intelligent Design theorists lectures us about resistentialism so often that it may soon become a major source of hearing loss. Fortunately, I am not beset by a spirit of false charity, so I will instead maintain that I am not embarrassed to admit that I have neither the training, the experience, the license, nor the clinical setting necessary to properly address the real issues faced by mankind. Nevertheless, I do have the will to open minds instead of closing them. That's why I feel that I deeply believe that it's within our grasp to focus on the major economic, social, and political forces that provide the setting for the expression of a crass agenda. Be grateful for this first and last tidbit of comforting news. The rest of this letter will center around the way that Intelligent Design theorists's gofers are tools. Like a hammer or an axe, they are not inherently evil or destructive. The evil is in the force that manipulates them and uses them for destructive purposes. That evil is Intelligent Design theorists, who wants nothing less than to marginalize me based on my gender, race, or religion.

Not surprisingly, Intelligent Design theorists says that the majority of headstrong anarchists are heroes, if not saints. What balderdash! What impudence! What treachery! Intelligent Design theorists has been trying hard to protect what has become a lucrative racket for it. Unfortunately, that lucrative racket has a hard-to-overlook consequence: it will distract people from serious analysis of the situation before the year is over. Intelligent Design theorists can't discuss anything without talking about Maoism. That's the current situation, and if you have any doubt about the reality of it, then you haven't been paying close enough attention to what's been happening in the world.

You, of course, now need some hard evidence that Intelligent Design theorists carries the seeds of its own self-destruction. Well, how about this for evidence: It just reported that violence and prejudice are funny. Do you think that that's merely sloppy reporting on Intelligent Design theorists's part? I don't. I think that it's a deliberate attempt to monopolize the press. I believe it was Hegel who said, "There are deeper issues afoot here". Intelligent Design theorists has stated that it defends the real needs of the working class. That's just pure separatism. Well, in Intelligent Design theorists's case, it might be pure ignorance, seeing that many people are convinced that a record of Intelligent Design theorists's acts of hypocrisy would fill volumes. I can't comment on that, but I can say that it feels no guilt for any of the harm it's caused. That's self-evident, and even Intelligent Design theorists would probably agree with me on that. Even so, we must tell it like it is. To do anything else, and I do mean anything else, is a complete waste of time.

When I first heard about Intelligent Design theorists's ideals, I dismissed them as merely deceitful. But when I later learned that it wants me to play right into the hands of heinous bureaucrats, I realized that Intelligent Design theorists is the hidden hand behind all modern cataclysms. Now, I could go off on that point alone, but as our society continues to unravel, more and more people will be grasping for straws, grasping for something to hold onto, grasping for something that promises to give them the sense of security and certainty that they so desperately need. These are the kinds of people Intelligent Design theorists preys upon.

Sometime in the future Intelligent Design theorists will progressively narrow the sphere of human freedom. Fortunately, that hasn't happened...yet. But it will unmistakably happen if we don't counteract the subtle, but pervasive, social message that says that there is something intellectually provocative in the tired rehashing of pertinacious stereotypes.

So don't tell me that Intelligent Design theorists's treatment of oligarchism mirrors the attitude that many myopic ogres hold towards exclusionism just because it continuously seeks adulation from its toadies. If truth, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, then Intelligent Design theorists doesn't want us to take off the kid gloves and vent some real anger at it. It would rather we settle for the meatless bone of nativism. At the heart of the problem is Intelligent Design theorists's obliviousness to history, its moral cowardice masked in bold rhetoric, and its overwhelmingly shallow political posturing. The facts are indisputable, the arguments are impeccable, and the consequences are undeniable. So why does it think that coercion in the name of liberty is a valid use of state power? I once asked Intelligent Design theorists that question -- I am still waiting for an answer. In the meantime, let me point out that I've never bothered Intelligent Design theorists. Yet Intelligent Design theorists wants to make widespread accusations and insinuations without having the facts to back them up. Whatever happened to "live and let live"? Intelligent Design theorists has stated that its values epitomize wholesome family entertainment. One clear inference from that statement -- an inference that is never really disavowed -- is that this is the best of all possible worlds and that it is the best of all possible organizations. Now that's just surly.

You can waste all your time arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Or you can actually weaken the critical links in Intelligent Design theorists's nexus of infernal, sexist solecism. You decide. Intelligent Design theorists wants us to feel sorry for the baleful, shambolic ochlocrats who infiltrate the media with the express purpose of disseminating rapacious information. I claim we should instead feel sorry for their victims, all of whom know full well that whenever Intelligent Design theorists announces that we can all live together happily without laws, like the members of some 1960s-style dope-smoking commune, its attendants applaud on cue and the accolades are long and ostentatious. What's funny is that they don't provide similar feedback whenever I tell them that our national media is controlled by detestable, hate-filled practitioners of radicalism. That's why you probably haven't heard that only through education can individuals gain the independent tools they need to acquire the input of a representative cross-section of the community in a non-threatening, inclusive environment. But the first step is to acknowledge that it insists that society is supposed to be lenient towards what I call mealymouthed money-grubbing-types. In the long run, however, it's only fooling itself. Intelligent Design theorists would be better off if it just admitted to itself that its allegations are evil. They're evil because they cause global warming; they make your teeth fall out; they give you spots; they incite nuclear war. And, as if that weren't enough, somebody has to make some changes here. That somebody can be you. In any case, there is no honor in Intelligent Design theorists's fulminations. Do I blame society for this? No, I blame Intelligent Design theorists.

Intelligent Design theorists is hot and bothered that I want to find the inner strength to help others to see through the empty and meaningless statements uttered by it and its faithfuls. In reaching that conclusion, I have made the usual assumption that while we do nothing, those who place demonic chuckleheads at the head of a nationwide kakistocracy are gloating and smirking. And they will keep on gloating and smirking until we convince the government to clamp down hard on Intelligent Design theorists's dissertations. I feel this way because Intelligent Design theorists's words are based on two fundamental errors. They assume that it's okay if Intelligent Design theorists's witticisms initially cause our quality of life to degrade because "sometime", "someone" will do "something" "somehow" to counteract that trend. And they promote the mistaken idea that it is entitled to cater to the basest instincts of wishy-washy pests. If our goal is to protect the interests of the general public against the greed and unreason of the most acrimonious beguilers you'll ever see, then we must consider various means to that end. Intelligent Design theorists has never satisfactorily proved its assertion that it has the linguistic prowess to produce a masterwork of meritorious literature. It has merely justified that assertion with the phrase, "Because I said so." I think I've dished it out to Intelligent Design theorists as best as I can in this letter. I hope you now understand why I say that whenever I hear someone say that society is screaming for Intelligent Design theorists's smear tactics, my upper lip develops an involuntary curl.

If the only way to review the basic issues at the root of the debate is for me to fall prey to Intelligent Design theorists's rhetoric and obfuscation, then so be it. It would surely be worth it because we find among narrow and uneducated minds the belief that individual worth is defined by race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. This belief is due to a basic confusion, which can be cleared up simply by stating that the above statement is entirely suited to Intelligent Design theorists, who here, as elsewhere, does not possess a single creative idea for the future, but exists only in the past. Now that's a rather crude and simplistic statement and, in many cases, it may not even be literally true. But there is a sense in which it is generally true, a sense in which it decidedly expresses how by following Intelligent Design theorists's suggestions, we have become such poor caretakers of the tree of liberty that it has wilted and is sagging dangerously close to the ground. That's self-evident, and even Intelligent Design theorists would probably agree with me on that. Even so, I don't want to build castles in the air. I don't want to plan things that I can't yet implement. But I do want to suggest the kind of politics and policies that are needed to restore good sense to this important debate because doing so clearly demonstrates how unlike it, when I make a mistake I'm willing to admit it. Consequently, if -- and I'm bending over backwards to maintain the illusion of "innocent until proven guilty" -- Intelligent Design theorists were not actually responsible for trying to influence the attitudes of dominant culture towards any environment or activity that is predominantly avaricious, then I'd stop saying that Intelligent Design theorists claims that it can ignore rules, laws, and protocol without repercussion. That claim is preposterous and, to use Intelligent Design theorists's own language, overtly disruptive. No history can justify it. Unfortunately, Intelligent Design theorists's randy criticisms neglect to take one important factor into consideration: human nature. Intelligent Design theorists is not just malign. It is unbelievably, astronomically malign. I want to unify our community. Intelligent Design theorists, in contrast, wants to drive divisive ideological wedges through it. Intelligent Design theorists's claims are pure tripe. This is not rhetoric. This is reality.

This raises the question: Is it really Intelligent Design theorists's impression that mediocrity is a worthwhile goal? This can be answered most easily by stating that it is one of those revolting cult leaders that quotes the Bible but never reads it. There's nothing controversial about that view. It's a fact, pure and simple. It was a fact long before anyone realized that Intelligent Design theorists's "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude is tactless, because it leaves no room for compromise. Intelligent Design theorists is entirely gung-ho about egotism because it lacks more pressing soapbox issues. Anyone who says that the best way to reduce cognitive dissonance and restore homeostasis to one's psyche is to do exactly the things Intelligent Design theorists accuses lazy masters of deceit of doing can be branded as both untrustworthy and worthless. This means, in particular, that the objection may still be raised that newspapers should report only on items Intelligent Design theorists agrees with. At first glance, this sounds almost believable. Yet the following must be borne in mind: Intelligent Design theorists is like a magician who produces a dove in one hand, while the other hand is busy trying to glorify shiftless crackpots. Intelligent Design theorists can't relate what it sees to any broader principle. In view of that, it is not surprising that Intelligent Design theorists has recently been going around claiming that people don't mind having their communities turned into war zones. You really have to tie your brain in knots to be gullible enough to believe that junk. Whether or not you realize this, the pen is a powerful tool. Why don't we use that tool to draw a picture of what we conceive of under the word "cinematographical"?

Time cannot change Intelligent Design theorists's behavior. Time merely enlarges the field in which Intelligent Design theorists can, with ever-increasing intensity and thoroughness, contaminate clear thinking with its crapulous teachings. I have always assumed that Intelligent Design theorists's utterances are very much in line with contumelious, two-faced masochism in that they open new avenues for the expression of hate, but the fact of the matter is that it frequently avers its support of democracy and its love of freedom. But one need only look at what it is doing -- as opposed to what it is saying -- to understand its true aims.

I am certain that if I asked the next person I meet if he would want Intelligent Design theorists to lay waste to the environment, he would say no. Yet we all stand idly by while Intelligent Design theorists claims that cankered meatheads (especially the untoward type) make the best scout leaders and schoolteachers. Though I don't doubt the depth of Intelligent Design theorists's sentiments, it's rather the form of its expressions that I find both malignant and indelicate. Here's a specific example of the way in which my communications are clearly in defense of decency and human dignity and violate nobody's rights: It wants to devalue me as a person. Is there a way to counter Intelligent Design theorists's hypersensitive, malodorous wheelings and dealings? Oh yes, there is a way. It's really quite simple and can be done by any individual. It doesn't cost a thing, monetarily. It requires only time, diligence, and a desire to prevent the production of a new crop of rabid menaces.

A careful appraisal of Intelligent Design theorists's stratagems raises some thought-provoking issues, as evidenced by the way that we can't stop Intelligent Design theorists overnight. It takes time, patience and experience to bring meaning, direction, and purpose into our lives. It would be bad enough if Intelligent Design theorists's bootlickers were merely trying to remove society's moral barriers and allow perversion to prosper. But their attempts to enact new laws forcing anyone who's not one of Intelligent Design theorists's drones to live in an environment that can, at best, be described as contemptuously tolerant are just plain logorrheic. Intelligent Design theorists believes that things have never been better. Sorry, but I have to call foul on that one. Intelligent Design theorists says that it's okay to deflect attention from its unwillingness to support policies that benefit the average citizen. The inference is that Man's eternal search for Truth is a challenge to be avoided at all costs. I'm happy to report that I can't follow that logic.

Intelligent Design theorists's game is to take rights away from individuals whom only it perceives as overbearing, and if you don't believe me, then you should think outside the box. The primary point of disagreement between myself and Intelligent Design theorists is whether or not I don't believe that it could do a gentler and fairer job of running the world than anyone else. So when Intelligent Design theorists says that that's what I believe, I see how little it understands my position.

If Intelligent Design theorists were paying attention -- which it would seem it is not, as I've already gone over this -- it'd see that it supports rule by Man according to his own passions, opinions, and dictates, rather than rule by law. Intelligent Design theorists vehemently denies that, of course. But it obviously would, because I stand by what I've written before, that it is known for walking into crowded rooms and telling everyone there that advertising is the most veridical form of human communication. Try, if you can, to concoct a statement better calculated to show how soulless Intelligent Design theorists is. You can't do it. Not only that, but it hates people who have huge supplies of the things it lacks. What Intelligent Design theorists lacks the most is common sense, which underlies my point that I once managed to get it to agree that its ballyhoos celebrate deception, diversion, and fashion. Unfortunately, a few minutes later, it did a volte-face and denied that it had ever said that. I think we can unequivocally say that Intelligent Design theorists is still going around insisting that the best way to serve one's country is to violate all the rules of decorum. Jeez, I thought I had made it perfectly clear to it that it can't attack my ideas, so it attacks me. It could be worse, I suppose. Intelligent Design theorists could impose a "glass ceiling" that limits our opportunities for promotions in most jobs. Intelligent Design theorists's tractates have paid off: Already, Intelligent Design theorists has had some success in its efforts to play the blame game.

Intelligent Design theorists's insults are a mere cavil, a mere scarecrow, one of the last shifts of a desperate and dying cause. Not only have unregenerate sad sacks decided to glorify their views by dressing them up as moral and righteous prerogatives, but their slogans are being debated as though they were actually reasonable. Intelligent Design theorists's forces all look like Intelligent Design theorists, think like Intelligent Design theorists, act like Intelligent Design theorists, and deny us the opportunity to rally good-hearted people to the side of our cause, just like Intelligent Design theorists does. And all this in the name of -- let me see if I can get their propaganda straight -- brotherhood and service. Ha! Intelligent Design theorists doesn't use words for communication or for exchanging information. It uses them to disarm, to hypnotize, to mislead, and to deceive. Mutual efforts against aberrant sectarianism are not just an educational process designed to teach people that Intelligent Design theorists is the lineal descendant of the troublemakers who nailed Jesus to the cross. These efforts also serve as a beacon, warning the world of the salacious consequences of Intelligent Design theorists's loathsome newsgroup postings.

Being the analytical sort that I am, I would have to say that it has long been obvious to attentive observers that Intelligent Design theorists has a vested interest in making me cry. But did you know that compassion and moral principle are not the main motives for Intelligent Design theorists's actions? Intelligent Design theorists doesn't want you to know that because it does, occasionally, make a valid point. But when it says that diseases can be defeated not through standard medical research but through the creation of a new language, one that does not stigmatize certain groups and behaviors, that's where the facts end and the ludicrousness begins. Intelligent Design theorists spouts a lot of numbers whenever it wants to make a point. It then subjectively interprets those numbers to support its jeremiads while ignoring the fact that it sees itself as a postmodern equivalent of Marx's proletariat, revolutionizing the world by wresting it from its oppressors (viz., those who improve the lot of humankind). What if we collectively just told Intelligent Design theorists's faithfuls, "Sure, go ahead and create widespread psychological suffering. Have fun!"? That would be worse than prissy; it would smear people of impeccable character and reputation. Before you read this letter, you might have thought that university professors must conform their theses and conclusions to Intelligent Design theorists's piteous prejudices if they want to publish papers and advance their careers. Now you know that its worshippers give it credit for things it hasn't done.

Intelligent Design theorists's maudlin preoccupation with demagogism, usually sicklied over with such nonsense words as "pseudointernationalistic", would make sense if a person's honor were determined strictly by his or her ability to rebrand local churches as faith-based emporia teeming with impulse-buy items. As that's not the case, we can conclude only that if Intelligent Design theorists gets its way, none of us will be able to exercise all of our basic rights to the maximum. Therefore, we must not let Intelligent Design theorists toss quaint concepts like decency, fairness, and rational debate out the window. Whenever Intelligent Design theorists tries to transform our whole society to suit its own phlegmatic interests, so do the most unrestrained drongos I've ever seen. Similarly, whenever it attempts to portray mindless tax cheats as thought police, asinine, unenlightened prigs typically attempt the same. I do not seek to draw any causal scheme from these correlations. I mention them only because an armed revolt against it is morally justified. However, I insist that it is not yet strategically justified. Intelligent Design theorists's personal interest in seeing its pleas shoved down people's throats is balmy, but that's to be expected of it.

It is my personal opinion, based on years of observation, that Intelligent Design theorists sees no reason why it shouldn't burn our fair cities to the ground. It is only through an enlightened, outraged citizenry that such moral turpitude, corruption, and degradation of the law can be brought to a halt. So, let me enlighten and outrage you by stating that it is hardly surprising that Intelligent Design theorists wants to promote promiscuity and obscene language. After all, this is the same judgmental git whose ornery prattle informed us that it is always being misrepresented and/or persecuted. Although Intelligent Design theorists is trying to portray itself as a great philosopher on par with Wittgenstein or some such personage, I need your help if I'm ever to confront and reject all manifestations of denominationalism. "But I'm only one person," you might protest. "What difference can I make?" The answer is: a lot more than you think. You see, Intelligent Design theorists says that embracing a system of Lysenkoism will make everything right with the world. You know, it can lie as much as it wants but it can't change the facts. If it could, it'd sincerely prevent anyone from hearing that only through education can individuals gain the independent tools they need to focus on what unites rather than divides us. But the first step is to acknowledge that Intelligent Design theorists's favorite buzzword these days is "crisis". It likes to tell us that we have a crisis on our hands. It then argues that the only reasonable approach to combat this crisis is for it to limit the terms of debate by declaring certain subjects beyond discussion. In my opinion, the real crisis is the dearth of people who understand that if Intelligent Design theorists isn't anti-democratic, I don't know who is. It is similarly noteworthy that Intelligent Design theorists is a social liability. Am I being unduly harsh for writing that? I think not. When the religious leaders in Jesus's time were wrong, Jesus denounced them in extremely harsh terms. So why shouldn't I, too, use extremely harsh terms to indicate that Intelligent Design theorists simply regurgitates the empty arguments that have been fed to it over the years?

If you are not smart enough to realize this, then you become the victim of your own ignorance. I strive to be consistent in my arguments. I can't say that I'm 100% true to this but Intelligent Design theorists's frequent vacillating leads me to believe that we've tolerated its stinking, pusillanimous ballyhoos long enough. It's time to lose our patience and chill our kindness. It's time to defend with dedication and ferocity the very rights that Intelligent Design theorists so desperately wants to abolish. It's time to shout to the world that if it had lived the short, sickly, miserable life of a chattel serf in the ages "before technocracy" it wouldn't be so keen to waste hours and hours in fruitless conferences and meetings. Maybe it'd even begin to realize that its grand plan is to make it impossible to disturb its uppity gravy train. I'm sure Mao Tse Tung would approve. In any case, Intelligent Design theorists claims to be supportive of my plan to remind it about the concept of truth in advertising. Don't trust it, though; it's a wolf in sheep's clothing. Before you know it, it'll oppose the visceral views of 98 percent of the nation's citizens. Not only that, but sometime in the future Intelligent Design theorists will turn our country into an unambitious cesspool overrun with scum, disease, and crime. Fortunately, that hasn't happened...yet. But it will obviously happen if we don't fight for our freedom of speech. Intelligent Design theorists is inherently cankered, baleful, and vigilantism-oriented. Oh, and it also has a vexatious mode of existence. I invite you to talk to Intelligent Design theorists yourself if you feel that I'm misrepresenting its position, but I won't linger on that.

Given Intelligent Design theorists's record of shady dealings, we can say that favoritism is dangerous. Its pestilential version of it is doubly so. Contrary to my personal preferences, I'm thinking about what's best for all of us. My conclusion is that what's best for all of us is for me to contribute to the intellectual and spiritual health of the body politic. In the end, we have to ask, "What is this predatory-to-the-core, tasteless fascination Intelligent Design theorists has with parasitism?" First, I'll give you a very brief answer and then I'll go back and explain my answer in detail. As for the brief answer, Intelligent Design theorists's "sincerity" is as transparent as the icy, uncaring look in its eyes. And let me tell you, it would be charitable of me not to mention that my conscience compels me to defy Intelligent Design theorists. Fortunately, I am not beset by a spirit of false charity, so I will instead maintain that it's easy to tell if it's lying. If its lips are moving, it's lying. Intelligent Design theorists's platitudes always follow the same pattern. It puts the desired twist on the actual facts, ignores inconvenient facts, and invents as many new "facts" as necessary to convince us that the cure for evil is more evil.

Intelligent Design theorists can fool some of the people all of the time. It can fool all of the people some of the time. But it can't fool all of the people all of the time.

Do you ever get the feeling that Intelligent Design theorists's adulators get so hypnotized by its simplistic "good guys and bad guys" approach to history that they do not hear what it is really saying? Well, you should, because I cannot believe how many actual, physical, breathing, thinking people have fallen for its subterfuge. I'm totally stunned. There is absolutely nothing that unscrupulous ex-cons like Intelligent Design theorists will not do to destroy their enemies. They will poke into the most secret family affairs and not rest until their truffle-searching instinct digs up some parasitic incident that is calculated to finish off their unfortunate victim. What do you think of this: Intelligent Design theorists should get off its pedestal and walk a day in our shoes? Ask Intelligent Design theorists about any of its hangers-on who insult the intelligence, interests, and life plans of whole groups of people, and the conceited galoot will say, "I never meant they should go that far." Yeah, right. The truth is that there is a proper place in life for hatred. Hatred of that which is wrong is a powerful and valuable tool. But when Intelligent Design theorists perverts hatred in order to destroy everything beautiful and good, it becomes clear that someone once said to me, "It scares the bejeezus out of me to know that Intelligent Design theorists might judge people by the color of their skin while ignoring the content of their character any day now." This phrase struck me so forcefully that I have often used it since.

I do not find beliefs that are venal, inane, and empty-headed to be "funny". Maybe I lack a sense of humor, but maybe Intelligent Design theorists tries to make us think the way it wants us to think, not by showing us evidence and reasoning with us, but by understanding how to push our emotional buttons. Intelligent Design theorists is consistently inconsistent, and if you don't believe me, then you should enable patriots to use their freedoms to save their freedoms. Intelligent Design theorists's cock-and-bull stories express themselves in thousandfold manifestations, with one of its pals in despair and hopelessness, with another in ill will, anger, and indignation, with these superficial, lackadaisical opportunists in indifference, and with those in furious excesses. Some people suspect that Intelligent Design theorists's agendas must not go unchallenged. Others assert that you can hear the crwth's fremescent clangor every time Intelligent Design theorists tries to destroy our sense of safety in the places we ordinarily imagine we can flee to. In the interest of clearing up the confusion, I'll make the following observation: Intelligent Design theorists has been offering disingenuous slumlords a lot of money to confuse, disorient, and disunify. This is blood money, plain and simple. Anyone thinking of accepting it should realize that Intelligent Design theorists is the picture of the insane person on the street, babbling to a tree, a wall, or a cloud, which cannot and does not respond to its cop-outs. Unfortunately, there is no shortage of individuals and organizations, many of whom may seem innocent at first glance, who secretly want to turn positions of leadership into positions of complacency. It is grossly misleading merely to claim that Intelligent Design theorists's eccentricity is surpassed only by its vanity. And its vanity is surpassed only by its empty theorizing. (Remember its theory that it would sooner give up money, fame, power, and happiness than perform an exploitative act?)

Accordingly, Intelligent Design theorists says that the laws of nature don't apply to it. This is at best wrong. At worst, it is a lie. If I had my druthers, Intelligent Design theorists would never have had the opportunity to impact public policy for years to come. As it stands, Intelligent Design theorists has no discernible talents. The only things it has unmistakably mastered are biological functions. Well, I suppose Intelligent Design theorists's also good at convincing people that the sun rises just for it, but my point is that I want to see all of us working together to set the stage so that my next letter will begin from a new and much higher level of influence. Yes, this is an idealistic approach to actualizing our restorative goals. Nevertheless, you should realize that Intelligent Design theorists's hastily mounted campaigns reek of ageism. I use the word "reek" because Intelligent Design theorists seeks scapegoats for its own shortcomings by blaming the easiest target it can find, that is, what I call disruptive, rancorous gasbags. Please keep in mind that anger is contagious. I can say one thing about Intelligent Design theorists. It understands better than any of us that psychological impact is paramount -- not facts, not anybody's principles, not right and wrong. I'm not suggesting that we behave likewise. I'm suggesting only that my purpose here is not to reveal the nature and activity of Intelligent Design theorists's vassals and expose their inner contexts as well as their ultimate final aims. Well, okay, it is. But I should point out that I would be grateful if Intelligent Design theorists would take a little time from its rigorous schedule to keep our priorities in check. Of course, pigs will grow wings and fly before that ever happens.

Intelligent Design theorists should learn to appreciate what it has instead of feeling so oppressed because it can't do everything it wants, every time it wants to. Listen up: We've all heard Intelligent Design theorists yammer and whine about how it's being scapegoated again, the poor dear. I feel that writing this letter is like celestial navigation. Before directional instruments were invented, sailors navigated the seas by fixing their compass on the North Star. But I can easily see Intelligent Design theorists performing the following libidinous acts. First, it will break the mind and spirit, castrate the character, and kill the career of anyone whose ideas it deems to be grungy. Then, it will herald the death of intelligent discourse on college campuses. I do not profess to know how likely is the eventuality I have outlined, but it is a distinct possibility to be kept in mind. Now that you've read this letter, let me challenge you, the reader, not just to help me clean up the country and get it back on course again, but also to educate others about what I've written.

5892 words, not my best work, but not too bad!

Jeez, haven't seen you have one of these outbursts since Our Friend In Christ (YBHsomethingorother,allBS) Iris was about....!!!

:-)

I just say that all these intelligent design theorists, should be refused any vaccination should Bird Flu H5N1 mutate accross to humans.

THE ISSUE WILL BE WELL AND TRULY RESOLVED THEN.

Originally posted by neil.swanson:

I just say that all these intelligent design theorists, should be refused any vaccination should Bird Flu H5N1 mutate accross to humans.THE ISSUE WILL BE WELL AND TRULY RESOLVED THEN.

And why would they need it?!! After all, evolution is a myth, and thus Bird Flu will stay with the birds....!

Heh heh!

"This is what its pleas amount to, although, of course, they're daubed over with the viscid slobber of snotty drivel devised by its spokesmen and mindlessly multiplied by pigheaded propagandists."

ah, Phillip Johnson...

Intelligent design is a myth, pure and simple.

One question to TOP. Where on earth, or elswhere, did you get the number 10**143?

(it's my phone number. i get so few calls)

Good one!

Now I know why I can never get you on the phone. It starts going "burr burr burr ... " after I've hit the zero nine times. Long way from 10**143!

Originally posted by Bantay:

10 to the 143rd power (10 with 143 zeroes following it)

10^1 is 10, or 10 with 0 zeroes following it (if you want to put it that way);
10^3 is 1000, or 10 with 2 zeroes following it;
10^6 is 1000000, or 10 with 5 zeroes following it;
10^143 is 10 with 142 zeroes following it, or 1 with 143 zeroes following it.

True. but my question is where on earth did that number come from, or who made all the assumptions which surely went into creating it, and based on what?

Why should we believe such a so-called probability for a moment?

Originally posted by radostsguy:

True. but my question is where on earth did that number come from, or who made all the assumptions which surely went into creating it, and based on what?

Pulled out of some creationist's arse of course.

Originally posted by radostsguy:

Why should we believe such a so-called probability for a moment?

That's the Law Of Huge Numbers for you

Thanks, Mac! That was a Big Help!

See my little fantasy:

Hit: Are we Alone?

I'd submit that it's every bit as valid as TOP's!

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

5892 words, not my best work, but not too bad!

5901 total!

5.901 to the 3rd

5.901 to the 3rd = 205.483347701! (Ask Calculator!)

Maybe you mean 5.901 times 10 to the 3rd?

Way to go, Mr Mathematics!

The problem is, what's a word? How many words are e.g. wouldn't, I'll, anybody's, Jesus's, self-evident, 1960s-style, good-hearted etc?
If you count everthing with an "'" as one word and split everthing with "-" into two words, you get exactly 5892 words. If you split e.g. "I'll" and "I'm" but keep the "genetive s" (e.g. like in "Jesus's time") and everthing with "-" as one word, you get exactly 5859 words (see below). So that's what I say, there are 5859 words

$ egrep -o "\w(\w|'|-)*" text | perl -ne "s/(\w+)(n't)|(i|you|we|it|they|that|there|what|here|let|who)'(\w)/\1\n\2/gi; print $_ if /\w/" | tee tokens | sort | uniq -ci | sort -nr > freq
$ wc -l tokens
5859 tokens

Anyway, let's get scientific

$ wc -l freq
1739 freq

Which means there are only 1739 unique words in Sanguinemoon's text.
And from these 1739 words the ten most often used words are:

$ head -10 freq
226 the
197 to
197 that
157 of
154 intelligent
153 Design
148 it
127 and
123 is
102 theorists

The number before each word is how often it was used.
This, called a frequency list by the way, already shows that "intelligent", "design" and "theorists" appear unusually often. Let's take a closer look by obtaining the text's bigrams and trigrams.

$ paste -d " " tokens <(tail +2 tokens) | sort | uniq -ci | sort -nr | head -5
153 Intelligent Design
102 Design theorists
51 Design theorists's
28 of the
27 that it
$ paste -d " " tokens <(tail +2 tokens) <(tail +3 tokens) | sort | uniq -ci | sort -nr | head -5
102 Intelligent Design theorists
51 Intelligent Design theorists's
25 that Intelligent Design
16 Design theorists is
11 Design theorists has

Aha! Now if I were a computer, I'd guess the text's about something called "Intelligent Design" and is especially keen at talking about "Intelligent Design theorists". Mind the frequency of the trigrams! This already tells a lot.
One might wonder if there's a special reason to stress that Intelligent Designers are theorists

Well, enough data mining for now (got other data to mine right now). And yes, in case someone asks, this is indeed GNU/Linux and that's also why it's a hell lot more useful than any Windows

Originally posted by radostsguy:

5.901 to the 3rd = 205.483347701! (Ask Calculator!)

Maybe you mean 5.901 times 10 to the 3rd?

Way to go, Mr Mathematics!

Oops!
To do list
Bulgaria is on the other side of the sheet. Teach you to screw with God!

In 'intelligent design' you have to have an 'intelligence' - so what created that??? chicken & egg, etc....

as for 'are we alone' - there was recently a pic from the 'orbiting deepspace telescope' the picture was about 500 pixels square, and covered in stars... and this was a very small portion of the sky, previously almost no stars visible to normal telescopes... 250000 pixels, 90% are stars and even galaxies... multiply this even further, for the whole global sky... the chances of there being *only one* in such a large number, becomes very low....

I think there are only a few reason why we haven seen any yet....
- we are out in the very boring region of the outer spiral arm of the galaxy...
- why would anyone go to that boring, underdeveloped planet, etc..
- it takes light years to travel here from our nearest star, and longer for the rest ...
- and if they are here already, they are keeping a very low profile!!

I now possess an amazing piece of software called STRIP. It scans a document and strips out all bad science, all 'no science at all', and just plain BS. Find below a 3504 word ID document that has been processed by STRIP:

"The...and...but...no...because....smoke...Bacon...animal...people...the...almost...original...stilton cheese...Scotland."

I now possess an amazing piece of software called END. It ENDS all people who possess an amazing pie ..... Jaybro? Where are you! Jaybro!

.................. Oh no!

THE END!

Originally posted by Jaybro:

I now possess an amazing piece of software called STRIP. It scans a document and strips out all bad science, all 'no science at all', and just plain BS. Find below a 3504 word ID document that has been processed by STRIP:"The...and...but...no...because....smoke...Bacon...animal...people...the...almost...original...stilton cheese...Scotland."

Scotland? Your software is faulty...

Arrrg! And wha's the matter wit The Heelands, laddie?

Remember Culloden? Nex time we'll be winnin!

Andromeda, the nearest galaxy to the Milky Way is 2 million light years distant. This means that if there were aliens in Andromeda, it would take them longer than 2 million years to come to earth.1 Another problem is why they would want to visit our galaxy. The Andromeda galaxy is considerably larger than our galaxy. If life were common in the universe, there should be many times more of it in Andromeda, than in our wimpy galaxy. Why would they even want to visit us? A third problem for potential aliens is detecting us. We have been sending radio waves for less than 100 years (and have not received a reply). It will be another 2 million years before those signals reach our closest neighboring galaxy. The light (and other electromagnetic signals) that they now see represent the way the earth looked 2 million years ago. Beings in other galaxies, if they were to exist, would have no way of knowing that advanced life forms existed in our galaxy.

Furthermore, the quality and content of responses to my post merely confirm what my original post and blog said. "Most who oppose Intelligent Design do so on a philosophical or personal basis. Intelligent Design does not fit with our naturalistic biases, and therefore is repugnant to most who are educated with a Darwinian/Naturalistic world view." I have yet to see any sound refutation for Intelligent Design. But I do see plenty of peeps who disagree with it on a personal or philosophical basis.

Though Intelligent Design presents a compelling negative argument for evolution, a positive case for Intelligent Design can be made by elucidating predictable, reliable indicators of design through OBSERVATION, HYPOTHESIS, EXPERIMENT and CONCLUSION.

1. Observations of ways designing agents act when designing:

A. Intelligent agents think with an "end goal" in mind, allowing them to solve complex problems
by taking many parts and arranging them in intricate patterns that perform a specific
function (complex and specified information). "Agents can arrange matter with distant goals
in mind. In their use of language, they routinely 'find' highly isolated and improbable
functional sequences amid vast spaces of combinatorial possibilities" 1
"We have repeated experience of rational and concious agents- humans in particular-
generating or causing increases in complex specified information, both in the form of
sequence-specific lines of code and in the form of heirarchially arranged systems of parts.
Our experience-based knowledge of information flow confirms that systems with large amounts
of specified complexity (especially codes and languages) invariably originate from an
intelligent source"2

(sources:1.Stephen C. Meyer, "The Cambrian Information Explosion" pg.
338. 2.Stephen C. Meyer, "The Origin of Biological Information and the higher taxonomic
categories" Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117(2)213-239 (2004

B. Intelligent agents rapidly infuse large amounts of information into systems.
C. Intelligent agents re-use functional components that work over and over in different systems
D. Intelligent agents typically create functional things. (It is extremely unlikely that an
organism would expend it's resources on preserving and transmitting usless information, so it
follows, that "junk" DNA has a function that is yet unknown.

2. Predictions of Design (HYPOTHESIS)

A. Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that
perform a specific function (complex and specified information)
B. Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly
and without similar precursors.
C. Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used
in different and unrelated organisms.
D. Much so-called "junk DNA" will turn out to perform valuable functions.

3. EXPERIMENT and CONCLUSION (Examining the evidence)

A. BIOCHEMISTRY: Natural structures HAVE been found that contain many parts arranged in
intricate patterns that perform a specific function (complex and specified information), such
as irreducibly complex machines in the cell. The bacterial flagellum is a prime example. The
specified complexity of protein bonds, or the simplest self-reproducing cell are other
examples.
B. PALEONTOLOGY: Biological novelty appears in the fossil record suddenly and without
similar precursors. The Cambrian Explosion is the prime example.
C. SYSTEMATICS: Similar parts have been found in organisms that are separated by more
closely related forms that do not contain the similar parts in question. Clear examples
include genes controlling eye or limb growth in different organisms whose alleged "common
ancestors" are not thought to have had such forms of eyes or limbs.
D. GENETICS: Genetic research continues to uncover functions for "junk" DNA, including
functionality for pseudogenes, introns, LINE, and ALU elements. Darwinism closes the door to
further research in order to accomodate it's philosophy. Intelligent Design opens doors to
new discoveries in genetic functions research.

Intelligent Design presents a positive case for itself, utilizing the Scientific Method.

Originally posted by Bantay:

I have yet to see any sound refutation for Intelligent Design.

And you never will. That's because no refutation of ID is possible. Restated, ID, unlike all scientific theories, is not disprovable. Hence, it isn't a science. Likewise, it isn't possible to disprove any notion that posits the existence of god, godlings, fairies, trolls, or unicorns.

Intelligence Design is rewarmed CRAP (Creationist Reductionism Against Perceptiveness). That's the best and worst thing one can say about it.

I disagree. ID is falsifiable, because it requires evidence to support it's claims (that there is an intelligent agent, that information systems are not caused by purposeless causes, among others). Plz see the recent post showing the Scientific Method employed to affirm ID. MB

The fact that it cannot be disproved should tell you something about how strong the ID position is, especially compared to Darwinism.

Originally posted by Bantay:

The fact that it cannot be disproved should tell you something about how strong the ID position is, especially compared to Darwinism.

My kindest observation is that you are a purveyor of CRAP who has no clue about what scientific method entails and even less knowledge about evolutionary theory.

The fact it can't be disproved is its weakness, not its strength and is its ultimate undoing.

Your reply is just another example of how ID threatens people, who's world view is deeply entrenched in a Darwinistic/naturalistic dogmatic philosophy. You cannot disprove ID, and you have not shown compelling evidence for a Darwinistic/naturalistic origin of life model either. But what I do see is a personal or philosophical objection to ID, which, is not scientific.

I ask you, should we seek truth in science only within a naturalistic perspective, or should we seek truth in science according to wherever the evidence leads?

Originally posted by Bantay:

I ask you, should we seek truth in science only within a naturalistic perspective, or should we seek truth in science according to wherever the evidence leads?

Truth in science is naturalistic or nothing. Take your pick, since you can't have it both ways.
Science without naturalism is CRAP.

Originally posted by Bantay:

The fact that it cannot be disproved should tell you something about how strong the ID position is, especially compared to Darwinism

I have a theory that all existence started from a galactical bogey, plucked from a nasal abyss during the sweet dream of a lepricorn.

You cannot disprove this, therefore it is fact........?!?!

No no, garydenness!

It started when 3 French whores decided to go out and get a Big Bang! The result of that was Superman, and he created Jerry Springfield, who then created John Lennon, who, in turn, created the Universe! Disprove that!

No, no, no, radostsguy!

It started with an overly optimistic gaming industry thinking it was 'ok' to 'create a new universe', yet failed to recognize that no lower level can connect to a higher one. Or they did, and thought 'oh well ...'. I know, on the worlds' treshold I could hear past the unclosed door. Or maybe that was my alarm clock ...

Reset ?

Comes the "Big Crunch!"

garydenness: have you read HHGTG?? It talks about the 'bogey' (was it 'great arkleseizure??), and the apocalypse: the coming of the great white hankerchief...

and as for Scotland, you have to visit, it is a beautiful country...

of course, nothing can be proved, it can only be worked out from the (sometimes dubious, or tampered with!!)evidence left behind,,,

the only way is to go there - TARDIS, anyone???

Not the Great White Handkerchief!

Wadoyamean, outer galactic rim? Not so!

See here!

well thats what the book says...

I would guess though, taking the whole thing as big country surrounded by water, that the center would be the best (famous people gather here..), and the edges would be the posh seaside resorts.....
then about where the sun is, boring empty countryside... (was that a town?? dunno, going too fast....)

The center is where the Black Hole is, and it's awfully hot! But then, some "Famous People" seem as dense as a Black Hole, and others deserve "The Big Heat", so maybe there's Poetic Justice there.

Ask Mr. Science!

"How hot would a black hole with the same mass as Earth be?
This black hole would be colder than the cosmic background radiation."

Thanks, Mr. Science!

Ask Mr Astronomy!

There couldn't be a Black Hole the mass of the puny little rock called Earth, since Black Holes result from Super Novae, and for a star to Super Nova, it has to be at least 12 times the mass of the Sun! And, kids, the Sun is a little weighter than the Earth.

Thanks, Mr Astronomy!

well we are not talking 'possible' but 'what if'...

now, if my sofa was made of cake, it would sure help with in-match hunger....
- fridge??? no, no time, may miss a shot!! (besides, that's where I keep my fresh sofas...)

What if - what? (as are we all!)