Understanding the Idites.
So,
You could infer from the proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) that the confluence of the concepts of Evolution and Creationism come down to one word: “Theory”.
The “Theory of Evolution” suggests that though a process called “natural selection” all creatures are the products of the elimination of non-best attributes. All creatures, we’ll consider plants and bacterium as creatures for the sake of limited argument, as we are discussing intelligence of design, a theory most often proposed by those who lack design skills or the other attribute. Plus I’ve had a few beers and can’t remember the word for flora and fauna, so I’m ready to understand IDs merits. But anyway, all F&F are therefore are the product of the somewhat malevolent forces of nature on the products of itself. Those forces favor the attribute(s) which best suit the current situation for that species. (Oops, I remembered) That attribute may be favored only temporarily, as things change, like the climate. This change of favor over the millennia has led to the diversity of creatures we see today. (or find in the fossil record.)
The “Theory of ID” equates diversity of species with divine intervention. (ID=DI, not too clever huh?) The Universe didn’t have time to wait for evolution, so everything must be the product of ID (An intelligence, which btw, has always been here. If not, it probably designed itself. ID begat ID.) “Natural Selection” is okay, but, err, an ID must “of” set natural selection into play. (Forgive me for my Southern use of idiom there.)
They are indeed both theories. One has a bit of evidence to back it up. (The constant observed evolution of the flu virus, for one. The mathematical proofs of cosmology -not cosmetology, cosmology- and the ability of people with too many tattoos to find mates, another)
ID, is a bit of conjecture based on campfire whoppers handed down over the last six millennia. The inability of the Idite’s to stop wanting to believe the whoppers has led them to whopperize more. In a democracy where debate and free expression of ideas rule, I suppose proposing whoppers to evidence supported theory has equal merit. John Stewart Mill did advocate the calculus of truth through debate. Though, one does have to question the merits of ID, when one of its major proponents, Pat Robertson, declares that not believing in the theory relegates the challenging citizens of Dover PA eligible for the wrath of the ID. –And, he hopes they suffer it.
My theory is the “Theory of ID” is only a method of making people with lesser favored attributes think they should be the IDer.
You could infer from the proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) that the confluence of the concepts of Evolution and Creationism come down to one word: “Theory”.
The “Theory of Evolution” suggests that though a process called “natural selection” all creatures are the products of the elimination of non-best attributes. All creatures, we’ll consider plants and bacterium as creatures for the sake of limited argument, as we are discussing intelligence of design, a theory most often proposed by those who lack design skills or the other attribute. Plus I’ve had a few beers and can’t remember the word for flora and fauna, so I’m ready to understand IDs merits. But anyway, all F&F are therefore are the product of the somewhat malevolent forces of nature on the products of itself. Those forces favor the attribute(s) which best suit the current situation for that species. (Oops, I remembered) That attribute may be favored only temporarily, as things change, like the climate. This change of favor over the millennia has led to the diversity of creatures we see today. (or find in the fossil record.)
The “Theory of ID” equates diversity of species with divine intervention. (ID=DI, not too clever huh?) The Universe didn’t have time to wait for evolution, so everything must be the product of ID (An intelligence, which btw, has always been here. If not, it probably designed itself. ID begat ID.) “Natural Selection” is okay, but, err, an ID must “of” set natural selection into play. (Forgive me for my Southern use of idiom there.)
They are indeed both theories. One has a bit of evidence to back it up. (The constant observed evolution of the flu virus, for one. The mathematical proofs of cosmology -not cosmetology, cosmology- and the ability of people with too many tattoos to find mates, another)
ID, is a bit of conjecture based on campfire whoppers handed down over the last six millennia. The inability of the Idite’s to stop wanting to believe the whoppers has led them to whopperize more. In a democracy where debate and free expression of ideas rule, I suppose proposing whoppers to evidence supported theory has equal merit. John Stewart Mill did advocate the calculus of truth through debate. Though, one does have to question the merits of ID, when one of its major proponents, Pat Robertson, declares that not believing in the theory relegates the challenging citizens of Dover PA eligible for the wrath of the ID. –And, he hopes they suffer it.
My theory is the “Theory of ID” is only a method of making people with lesser favored attributes think they should be the IDer.
posted by Stan at 1:42 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home