Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

It’s not just the design theorists.

arroba Email

In an uncertain age, anyone who suggests that consensus beliefs could be improved on can find themselves looking for work.

Caroline Crocker at AITSE tells us of a popular University teacher, Nicholas Drupela at Oregon State University, who doubted the current bumf  about climate change, and got the boot. Here’s a probable reason. More.

The part we don’t get is, we just heard recently that the climate change lobby voted to accept “grey” papers and put political correctness before achievement. Plus, scandals in that quarter are nothing new.

Meanwhile, there are purportedly serious academic studies going on about why we don’t believe the climate change alarmists – studies that owe nothing to the possibility that they have not behaved in such a way as to make themselves believable.

Like we say here: They can compel obedience, but not trust. Trust is earned.

If these evolutionary materialists with their atheistic religion of global warming could remove the blinders that constrain their worldview to materialism, they would realize that Intelligent Design theory forbids global warming. Intelligent Design is the ONLY explanation for the observed fine tuning of the universe. If any of the 6 basic parameters of the laws of physics are changed by even a tiny amount, life could not possibly exist. Therefore, Intelligent Design has proven that no amount of pollution or damage to the environment can ever make life on earth impossible. But the evolutionary materialist Inquisition that dominates academia and the media will suppress freedom and truth until the bitter end. But the true patriots at the Heartland Institute have an unbeatable strategy, and will silence the enemies of freedom. Prince of Eternity
No "Intelligent Designer" would permit "Climate Change." Mung
‘Intelligent design’ is classified as ‘theological argument.’ It certainly can be. Any scientific theory is a scientific theory because it's yet to be validated sufficiently to be an engineering exercise. That is, scientific theories are pure Philosophy. And it's hardly out of line to call such things religious if you Believe™ a given philosophical standpoint is True™ because you say so or True™ because you have special access to knowledge. Same things are just as true with Evolution, Climate Change, Pop Psych, Evo Psych, and just about every other statistical science. Not that statistics mandate this, but they sure make it easier to pull an ad hoc ergo propter hoc with any ad-hoc propter hoc. Maus
According to Wikipedia ...‘Intelligent design’ is classified as ‘theological argument.’ Yet another maltreatment, who’d have thought? ;)
Anyone paying attention would have thought. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/06/wikipedias_tyra061281.html cantor
‘Intelligent design’ is classified as ‘theological argument.’ Yet another maltreatment, who’d have thought? ;) Who'd have thought? Anyone who's been paying attention I guess: Wikipedia's Tyranny of the Unemployed Wikipedia on Intelligent Design: We're Not the Only Ones Who Noticed Wikipedia and the Sociology of Darwinian Belief Fact-Checking Wikipedia on Common Descent: The Evidence from Observed Natural Selection Fact-Checking Wikipedia on Common Descent: The Evidence from Biogeographical Distribution Fact-Checking Wikipedia on Common Descent: The Evidence from Paleontology Fact-Checking Wikipedia on Common Descent: The Evidence from Comparative Anatomy Fact-Checking Wikipedia on Common Descent: The Evidence from Comparative Physiology and Biochemistry Wikipedia and the Myth of Falsifiability Another Expose of Wikipedia Wikipedia Under (Justifiable) Attack Again Notice to Students: Wikipedia No Longer an Acceptable Source 'Design' Proponents Accuse Wikipedia of Bias, Hypocrisy Wikipedia "Intelligent Design" Entry Selectively Cites Poll Data to Present Misleading Picture of Support for Intelligent Design Did an Anti-ID Wikipedia Editor Shut Down a Darwin-Dissenter? Wikipedia (Mis)Rules! Airbrushing the Evidence for Reverse Engineering in Biology: Darwinist Makes Wikipedia Reference 'Disappear' Wicked Wikipedia Putting Wikipedia On Notice About Their Biased Anti-ID Intelligent Design Entries cantor
According to Wikipedia, there are (only?) 6 types (what about graphic design or costume design?) of 'design theory' (and thus 'design theorists'). 'Intelligent design' is classified as 'theological argument.' Yet another maltreatment, who'd have thought? ;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_theory Gregory
And it's not just design theorists who recognize design in nature. Look at the video of this drone invented by copying the flight characteristics in the Maple seed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_q_DD_4LNg&feature=youtu.be nroys

Leave a Reply