Intelligent Design Advocates All Change Mind

Advocates of the Intelligent Design concept capitulated en masse today when opponents of ID showed them the Second Life user interface.

"Not only does the SL UI show that the universe is not intelligently designed," said one former ID advocate, "it also makes us believe in dinosaurs."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Related Stories
Intelligent Designer Says No To Judge
Bill Gates Reverses Intelligent Designer's Reversal

Intelligent design believers don't believe in dinosaurs? I think you made that up.

I'm a pterodactyl! KRAAWW! KRRRAWW!!

Suezanne <3

Second Life Interface designer...

You mean they were able to log in to see it?

Actually, he quit, said the population of SL was too juvenile...

Virtual environment avatar Dianne Mechanique is facing a lawsuit filed today by Mad magazine cartoon character Alfred E. Neuman.

Ms. Mechanique recently used a likeness of Mr. Neuman in a manner suggesting that Mr. Neuman was responsible for the design of the Second Life virtual world's user interface.

"I am deeply hurt by being associated in any way with the Second Life user interface", Mr. Neuman stated at a press conference held only seconds after Ms. Mechanique's post appeared in the publication Off Topic Enquirer.

"I would never have created anything like the SL UI, " continued Mr. Neuman. " Just because I am MAD doesn't mean I am stupid and evil."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Related Stories
Intelligent Designer Says No To Judge
Bill Gates Reverses Intelligent Designer's Reversal

No, Intelligent Designers (I think) hold the belief that dinosaurs and humans co-existed. So, dinosaurs were frolicking with everyone else, and the the flood came and the dinosaurs were just too big so they got left off.

Again, this is just a guess - all the research I've done on the matter seems to suggest this, I wasn't able to find any definitive answer about dinosaurs and where they fit in with ID.

For ID, forget everything you know of creationism first, because it has nothing to do with that. No earth age, no dinosaur issues, no God issues, no religious issues. It only concerns itself with the possibility of a designer behind the plan we call life, universe, existence. No mention of what or who the designer is. Nothing about dinosaurs with humans or not. It's not the issue.

ID assumes there is a purpose, macro-evolution/abiogenesis as taught to students assume no purpose.

Wrong. Science will not teach purpose to students until purpose can be demonstrated according to method. ID, by assuming there is a purpose, defines itself as a philosophy or religious doctrine, in spite of the claims of some of those who adhere to it.

Really - as so many have pointed out - it's a very, very easy issue to understand and come to the right conclusion about.

If this is the case, why is it that every time the defenders of ID win or lose they start saying things like "There is no separation of Church and State in the Constitution" and "God will punish the unbelievers"? Why is that? The judge in Pennsylvania (a conservative, church going Republican) said in his ruling that struck down the teaching of ID that the people pushing for it lied repeatedly about their motives when they claimed it was about science and not religion.

ID postulates that a non-biological being from outside our universe guides the development of life in our universe. That's the basic definition of God. To say there is no mention of who or what the Designer is, is disingenuous. The ID'ers will say that in court, while looking over to their allies and winking and nodding.

I know the arguments will come that it could be aliens or (even stupider) humans from another time that are guiding the evolutionary process. But that isn't what ID teaches. How did those aliens evolve? Who designed them? And the idea that humans used time travel to go back and create themselves is just, just, well, just as silly as the idea that the high school football team that prays the hardest will win the game.

hahahah
love it.

I'm not convinced ID is required to assume a purpose, unless it were motivated by religion or some such.

I intelligently design stuff all the time, with no purpose - or purposes as trivial as 'won't it look interesting when the waves destroy my sand castle.'

It seems the ID you speak of includes the following elements:

1. Everything was designed
2. There was a purpose behind the design

...which is a rather significant addition.




I have yet to hear Kevn (or to be fair, lots of others) really address some commonly verifiable science.

And I haven't seen much in the way of the atheists addressing science's capability (or incapability) of detecting intelligence, even in humans.

It seems very unfortunate and clear to me that most folk are merely interested in supporting their positions on matters - rather than breaking into new territory.




Edit: in 1. I mean 'everything' in a rather loose sense, not critical to the discussion

I learned a couple of days ago that Santa isn't believed in by Christians. They used to but now they refer to it as intelligent burglary.