Comments on: Talk about intelligence in design! http://www.isaiadis.com/2010/12/06/talk-about-intelligence-in-design/ Discussions on science, skepticism, pseudoscience; trips on the borders of religion and science; brief adventures in hi-fi; this is a Journey through a Burning Mind... Sat, 19 May 2012 18:17:37 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Chris http://www.isaiadis.com/2010/12/06/talk-about-intelligence-in-design/comment-page-1/#comment-58953 Chris Thu, 09 Dec 2010 18:03:08 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/?p=1364#comment-58953 ... it's because they're on a mission from God. By: Stavros http://www.isaiadis.com/2010/12/06/talk-about-intelligence-in-design/comment-page-1/#comment-58943 Stavros Thu, 09 Dec 2010 14:59:08 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/?p=1364#comment-58943 One thing I love to hate in the IDiot movement, is their insistence of irreducible complexity -or in other words: "this looks very complex, it must have been designed because I don't understand how it may have occurred otherwise!" After the Dover trial, I wonder how they still have the face to repeat the same bulls**t again and again...
After the Dover trial, I wonder how they still have the face to repeat the same bulls**t again and again…]]> By: Chris http://www.isaiadis.com/2010/12/06/talk-about-intelligence-in-design/comment-page-1/#comment-58902 Chris Wed, 08 Dec 2010 23:11:04 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/?p=1364#comment-58902 Good one. But I doubt that it will disturb the ID clubbers. It may even be that there is a useful function for this apparently ridiculously long nerve. A permanent way of dismissing the ID detractors evidence is to point out that they don't insist that the designer always get it spot on - perhaps he was behind schedule. They can then welcome and ignore "evidence" as suits their theory. I'd rather fit a theory to suit the evidence.
A permanent way of dismissing the ID detractors evidence is to point out that they don’t insist that the designer always get it spot on - perhaps he was behind schedule. They can then welcome and ignore “evidence” as suits their theory.

I’d rather fit a theory to suit the evidence.]]>