Intelligent Design is not creationism

Busting Another Darwinist Myth: Skeptics of Evolution Do Exist Outside the United States!

by Casey Luskin


A common Darwinist myth is that the only people who are skeptical of evolution are Americans. A recent article in the Virginia Informer stated, “John Swaddler, UK native and associate professor of biology at the College [of William and Mary], noted that the media phenomenon of creationism/ID vs. evolution doesn’t happen in countries besides America.” Saddler is promoting a common Darwinist claim which is simply untrue.

As we’ve noted recently, there has been a push to teach intelligent design in the United Kingdom. This summer an article in the London Guardian noted that over 30% of British students support non-evolutionary accounts of the history of life. Such skepticism extends far beyond the U.K. Nature reported that Poland is experiencing an “aggressive anti-evolution campaign.” According to another Nature article, there’s a legal controversy over teaching evolution in Russia as well. Finally, a very recent Nature news article entitled "Anti-evolutionists raise their profile in Europe" discusses challenges to evolution in Poland, Belgium, France, Germany, Britain, Russia, Italy, and Turkey over the past few years.

Some of these disputes resemble American disputes over evolution-education. For example, Poland's minister of science, Micha Seweryski, perfectly expressed the typical position of Darwinists: “'There is no need for a discussion,'” he told Nature. 'Scientific evidence is clear and the opinion of a minority will not change teaching in schools.'” ("Polish scientists fight creationism," Nature, Vol 443:890, Oct. 26, 2006, emphasis added) Seweryski's dogmatism speaks for itself.

Of course Darwinists try to pretend that evolution-skepticism is unique to America in order to promote what Justice Antonin Scalia called the “beloved secular legend of the [Scopes] Monkey Trial,” which claims Darwin skepticism is entirely religiously based. Regardless of what Micha Seweryski says, there are many scientific reasons to be skeptical of Neo-Darwinism.

In my opinion, we should drop these myths, stop excluding “minority” opinions, and start discussing the evidence!

 

Your inference is clearly stated that a mud puddle is not designed.

Obviously any difficulty of understanding is by yourself on what you have said yourself. Fly posting stuff embedded with more ridiculous errors like the ones you've made, doesn't do much to help you find any basis for making reasonable argument

 

memory not your strength i know, but those were your words my friend:

i was simply concerned that u might be referring to yourself, your own experiences and "struggles"...

what else do u know about "gumming down the separation anxiety medicine like baby food" btw? u had a difficult childhood my friend?


tell us more about your conflicts... your daddy taught u to lie u say?

ooohhh, poor thing... but that wld explain a few things wldn't it?... like not being able to answer straight questions...

 

Stu wrote:

No. Here is what I said:

 

ok then let's examine what you said .. again.

False assertion. Here's why. Telling someone what they will consider is/is not purpose , belongs right there in the ID'ers dank fetid cellar of worn out broken arguments. You don't like the purpose found by scientific enquiry so you assert science finds no purpose.

Darwin for one exudes purpose . It's just a purpose which you don't want and so avoid and will even deceive in order to avoid.

That is indeed what you said. A little more grace from you to admit the clear lack of design in the mud puddle thereby confirming no design, no ID, no teleology, would be a little more honorable on your part , especially considering it is you who confirms that lack of being designed.

And you as a creationist in a teleologist's coat , just do not like the purpose which things are actually seen to get "designed" by and for.
You don't like the science. You don't like the facts. So you don't like Darwin.
You pretend science sees no purpose when purpose is manifestly evident. You want science to look for your own particular self designed purpose. To look for God., where there is no purpose in so doing.

 

Stu wrote:

Nonsense. Darwinian evolution is by definition a purposeless process. Cite any leading Darwinst that disputes this.

Stu wrote:

I didn't say a mud puddle couldn't be designed. I said there is no good reason to think a mud puddle is designed.

Stu wrote:

Not one word of this is true and it completely misses the point. I was disputing the logic of a particular anti-design argument. You know, the argument that claims something is poorly designed. No one argues that a mud puddle is poorly designed because there is no reason to think it was designed in the first place. Dysteleology arguments assume what they are trying to disprove. A 10 year old child could understand this.

 

You'll have to properly define what a "leading Darwinist" means on your planet first.
Things evolving to adapt and to survive is hardly purposeless. The process of evolution of which purpose is survival? That's hardly purposeless.

So you don't like that purpose. Possibly it is not sufficient enough for your requirements. A God's purpose would perhaps fit your purpose more, rather than any purpose nature can be seen to provide.

And I said, here is a teleologist confirming no reason to think something as complex as a mud puddle is designed. Ipso facto, no good reason to think something as complex as a Universe is designed.

Then have a 10 year come here to explain what you mean because you are making no sense.

To suggest you have a personal selection of what might be "designed" and what's not is a demonstration of sheer arrogance, not argument.
You have provided no reason why you say a complex mud puddle doesn't look (intelligently) designed but a Universe does look (intelligently) designed . Just a conceited arrogant declaration is all you got.

Dysteleology arguments assume the lack of purpose. Nowhere does Darwin assume or deny lack purpose or reason.
The purpose Darwin shows is not the purpose you like, that's all.

Your argument that Darwin is trying to both assume no purpose and disprove no purpose is something called a teleologist's nonsensical contradiction. The 10 year old will explain it to you.

 

Survival is only for a higher purpose, as the struggle to survive must be motivated by a desire to live.

So explain why there is an innate desire to live for all biological organisms, what is the purpose of that?

Without knowing the purpose of life, the reason and purpose of living, then life is meaningless and purposeless.

Your argument is circular without something outside of that circle first initiating the mechanical process, and having a goal outside of that mechanical process itself.

Mechanical processes which run mindlessly are purposeless in and of themselves serve no purpose beyond perpetuation of the processes themselves, but when there is no explanation given for why the nature of life is the way it is, the result is mindless existentialism.

There is a huge difference between offering a possible explanation of an ignorant involuntary mechanical process and its mechanics, and saying that the process itself is purposeful and part of a purpose.

 

Don’t make me laugh.
As if I thought there was even half a chance of you holding civil conversation .

With a track record like yours of flaming, abuse , insult , absurdity and trolling against anyone and everyone.. You must be joking
I’ll give you the shortcut. Don’t bother yourself with trying to discuss anything , just start the abuse right here…add to your already ridiculous number of posts per day. Why not make yet another in your more usual vein...

 

Complete dodge, no surprise...