Tuesday, June 28, 2011

So much tard, so little time (part eight) with an addendum

My responses are in bold type.

DrREC

06/25/2011

11:48 pm

“I disagree that ID is science,”

Great, we’re in perfect agreement.

Can we then agree that something that isn’t science shouldn’t be taught in science class?


nullasalus

06/25/2011

11:52 pm

Great, we’re in perfect agreement.

Doubtful. There’s that track record again.

Can we then agree that something that isn’t science shouldn’t be taught in science class?

The moment it’s stated clearly that science is utterly incapable of determining whether or not evolution is guided and therefore whether or not organisms are designed, that science is silent on teleology’s presence or lack in nature, and that it becomes acceptable to point out the flaws in Neo-Darwinism as well as the areas that are still a mystery or a looming question in evolutionary theory, I’ll be more concerned about that.

Hey nullashitass, science is far from done looking for answers. You have NO clue as to what it is capable of. Science is already "silent on teleology’s presence in nature". As far as the "lack" is concerned, there is no evidence of teleology or your god in nature. Your religious beliefs are not evidence, and they're not scientific.

And it's already acceptable to point out actual flaws in the ToE as well as the areas that are still a mystery. It's just not okay to try to push your religious bullshit into science. And "Neo-Darwinism" isn't a scientific theory. It's just a strawman that you conjured up.

You fucked up, dumbshit. If "science is utterly incapable of determining whether or not evolution is guided and therefore whether or not organisms are designed", then WHY are you and other IDiots trying to get science to accept and use ID 'theory', which is allegedly scientific???????? You can't have it both ways! You really put your foot in your mouth. Shouldn't you be telling your fellow IDiots to stop trying to push your religious ID agenda into science, since science, according to you, isn't capable of determining whether or not evolution is guided and therefore whether or not organisms are designed??

Addendum: I'll make it as simple as I can for you:

If ID 'theory' is scientific, then according to you it is utterly incapable of determining whether or not evolution is guided and therefore whether or not organisms are designed. In other words, it is a totally useless scientific endeavor or 'theory'.

If ID 'theory' is not scientific, then it is just a religious and political agenda, masquerading as a scientific endeavor or 'theory'.

GOTCHA!