Friday, July 8, 2011

Oh gordy, you blithering IDiot

7 July 2011
What does Plato have to do with design theory and debates over origins views? (ANS: A lot.)

Plato & Aristotle (Raphael)

The above challenge has been thrown down, in rather intemperate language accompanied by more outing misbehaviour.

It is revelatory on the depth of ignorance cultivated by the imposed dominance of evolutionary materialism via its cat’s paw, so-called methodological naturalism, in science education.

First, as was pointed out in the post on Plato’s warning on the amorality and ruthless factionism of evolutionary materialism day before yesterday, Plato is one of the first to record the rise of evolutionary materialism as a worldview of origins and the nature of reality. In so doing, he plainly showed that the roots of such a view are philosophical rather than scientific, and in fact“evo mat” is thus shown to have the functionally equivalent status of a religion.

And yes, that means that the de facto establishment of evolutionary materialism in the public square and key institutions is tantamount to an undeclared establishment of the functional equivalent of a religion.


I'm sure you believe that you're fooling some people with all of your bullshit, gordo, and you probably are, but I'm also sure that any people you're fooling are just as fucked up as you are.

Just so you know that you're not fooling me, I'll point out a few things to you:

Science doesn't give a rusty fuck about what Plato opined. No one but some historians, philosophers, and religious nutcases gives a rusty fuck about what Plato opined. Plato's opinion doesn't mean shit. Plato lived a LONG time ago and he didn't know squat compared to what is known now. Plato is not the arbiter of truth or fact or definition. Plato's opinion about what a religion is doesn't matter one iota. Plato's opinion about evolutionary materialism doesn't mean a damn thing.

Since, according to you, ID relies on what some ancient philosopher opined, ID doesn't have anything substantial or scientific to stand on, but then that is well known anyway. ID is NOT scientific. It is a religious and political agenda based on fairy tales, wishful thinking, delusions, control, arrogance, lies, and ancient philosophies (opinions).

The more you write, gordy, the more you show how empty ID 'theory' is, and how crazy you are. Keep up the good work, you're doing science a favor by demonstrating just how unscientific ID 'theory' is. With mental cases like you promoting it, ID 'theory' will never be accepted by science, even if it were a worthwhile 'theory', which it's not.

It's 2011 gordy. You might want to think about catching up to it one of these days.