Tom Watson wrote:

It's always helpful to take an argument to the point of absurdity to
test it.

All the time and energy that has been wasted on the explication,
elucidation and defense of the Intelligent Design Theory, insofar as
demanding that it be taught in Science Classes, in parallel with other
scientific theories, is horse****.

It is not a scientific theory - it is a religious theory.

Science demands a hypothetical which is testable by observation and
the extension of inductive or deductive reasoning.

Intelligent Design presupposes a Designer and attempts to justify ad
reversa.

This is an old chestnut in philosophical theory and has been proven to
lack merit from the time of the Pre-Socratics.

It is disappointing to me that we even entertain the argument.

Only in the Age Of Bush could such idiocy be given common currency.






Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)


Realizing this is not a UG on either religion or science, I hate to say
anything, but which "American Ayatollahs?" Those on the Left or those on
the Right. If you want to put ID down as a stalking horse for religion,
how do you handle Evolution and Humanism (or any "ism" you prefer)? Both
start with certain presuppositions and it requires as much "faith" to
support one as it does the other, simply because we cannot "KNOW" because
we were not there. Both positions are built, supposedly, on solid data.
Since they are diametrically opposed to one another, obviously one cannot
be true.

We laugh at the naivete' of the folks in the Middle Ages who believed in
"spontaneous generation." Yet, is one of the contending positions asking
us to accept that as scientific fact?

In this discussion, the important thing to to do is see which position is
supported by the data, not the presuppositions.