To further clarify my previous comments and to point out the dishonesty and confusion in arrington's so-called "contest" I want to add this:
When arrington starts out his post on UD he says:
"ID is often disparaged as “creationism in a cheap tuxedo.” One assumes the point being made is that ID is a stalking horse for theistic creationists. Now, as has been explained on this site many times, while many ID proponents are theists, ID itself stands apart from theistic belief. For the umpteenth time, ID does not posit a supernatural designer. Nor does ID posit any suspension of the laws of nature."
He then goes on to say:
"To drive this point home UD is going to put its money where its mouth is. UD hereby offers a $1,000 prize to anyone who is able to demonstrate that the design of a living thing by an intelligent agent necessarily requires a supernatural act (i.e., the suspension of the laws of nature)."
Now, look carefully at both quotes. They're not consistent. The first one is a rant against people who say that ID is creationism in a cheap tuxedo and that ID posits a supernatural designer.
The second quote is about something altogether different, even though it says "To drive this point home....". The second quote is about offering "a $1,000 prize to anyone who is able to demonstrate that the design of a living thing by an intelligent agent necessarily requires a supernatural act (i.e., the suspension of the laws of nature)."
Maybe the best way to explain would be to reword arrington's "contest" to the way he must have meant it in the first place:
*ID is often disparaged as “creationism in a cheap tuxedo.” One assumes the point being made is that ID is a stalking horse for theistic creationists. Now, as has been explained on this site many times, while many ID proponents are theists, ID itself stands apart from theistic belief. For the umpteenth time, ID does not posit a supernatural designer. Nor does ID posit any suspension of the laws of nature.
To drive this point home UD is going to put its money where its mouth is. UD hereby offers a $1,000 prize to anyone who is able to demonstrate that ID relies upon and posits that the intelligent design of living things by an intelligent agent necessarily requires a supernatural act by a supernatural god/designer/creator (i.e., the suspension of the laws of nature).*
That version of the second paragraph would at least be consistent with the first paragraph of arrington's post. The way he worded the second paragraph actually challenges the claims of a supernatural creator/designer/god that the IDiots constantly promote! The guy is an IDiot! And the other IDiots don't seem to have noticed yet that he is challenging and insulting their (and his own) beliefs. In fact they're going right along with him and making it sound like all living things could have been designed/created by little green natural aliens or who knows what.
Because they're so quick to speak before they think, they just obediently went along with arrington and contradicted their own beliefs and their own claims about who the designer is (the christian god). They're so anxious to have ID thought of as 'scientific' that they won't and don't even stand up for their own beliefs when it counts! But what they conveniently forget is that their religious beliefs are thoroughly obvious!
No matter what, arrington has no intention of ever paying up. He's just a bullshitting, arrogant, delusional, dishonest, bible-thumping dipstick with no integrity whatsoever.
And of course IDiots do constantly rely upon and posit that the alleged intelligent design of living things by an intelligent agent necessarily requires a supernatural act by a supernatural god/designer/creator, no matter what they say to the contrary. Their entire premise is 'God-did-it', which can easily be seen in all of the religious claptrap they regurgitate.
When arrington starts out his post on UD he says:
"ID is often disparaged as “creationism in a cheap tuxedo.” One assumes the point being made is that ID is a stalking horse for theistic creationists. Now, as has been explained on this site many times, while many ID proponents are theists, ID itself stands apart from theistic belief. For the umpteenth time, ID does not posit a supernatural designer. Nor does ID posit any suspension of the laws of nature."
He then goes on to say:
"To drive this point home UD is going to put its money where its mouth is. UD hereby offers a $1,000 prize to anyone who is able to demonstrate that the design of a living thing by an intelligent agent necessarily requires a supernatural act (i.e., the suspension of the laws of nature)."
Now, look carefully at both quotes. They're not consistent. The first one is a rant against people who say that ID is creationism in a cheap tuxedo and that ID posits a supernatural designer.
The second quote is about something altogether different, even though it says "To drive this point home....". The second quote is about offering "a $1,000 prize to anyone who is able to demonstrate that the design of a living thing by an intelligent agent necessarily requires a supernatural act (i.e., the suspension of the laws of nature)."
Maybe the best way to explain would be to reword arrington's "contest" to the way he must have meant it in the first place:
*ID is often disparaged as “creationism in a cheap tuxedo.” One assumes the point being made is that ID is a stalking horse for theistic creationists. Now, as has been explained on this site many times, while many ID proponents are theists, ID itself stands apart from theistic belief. For the umpteenth time, ID does not posit a supernatural designer. Nor does ID posit any suspension of the laws of nature.
To drive this point home UD is going to put its money where its mouth is. UD hereby offers a $1,000 prize to anyone who is able to demonstrate that ID relies upon and posits that the intelligent design of living things by an intelligent agent necessarily requires a supernatural act by a supernatural god/designer/creator (i.e., the suspension of the laws of nature).*
That version of the second paragraph would at least be consistent with the first paragraph of arrington's post. The way he worded the second paragraph actually challenges the claims of a supernatural creator/designer/god that the IDiots constantly promote! The guy is an IDiot! And the other IDiots don't seem to have noticed yet that he is challenging and insulting their (and his own) beliefs. In fact they're going right along with him and making it sound like all living things could have been designed/created by little green natural aliens or who knows what.
Because they're so quick to speak before they think, they just obediently went along with arrington and contradicted their own beliefs and their own claims about who the designer is (the christian god). They're so anxious to have ID thought of as 'scientific' that they won't and don't even stand up for their own beliefs when it counts! But what they conveniently forget is that their religious beliefs are thoroughly obvious!
No matter what, arrington has no intention of ever paying up. He's just a bullshitting, arrogant, delusional, dishonest, bible-thumping dipstick with no integrity whatsoever.
And of course IDiots do constantly rely upon and posit that the alleged intelligent design of living things by an intelligent agent necessarily requires a supernatural act by a supernatural god/designer/creator, no matter what they say to the contrary. Their entire premise is 'God-did-it', which can easily be seen in all of the religious claptrap they regurgitate.
