Thingysomeone Posted:

I don’t understand how ID is Creationism (At least new-earth creationism) hidden. Basically, how I see it, ID says “Evolution happened, but God made it happen, and he decided how it happened.” This doesn’t say that evolutionary proof is false, it just says it isn’t a valid argument against God’s existence. A good way to think of it is with the old quote, “When technology becomes high enough, it is indistinguishable from magic.” God is probably a scientist of some sort, and figured out how to make and control little universes, one of which we live in.

ID is creationism in a trojan horse because it is a deliberate attempt by christian fundamentalists to place religion back in schools.

In this case, it’s more about the intentions than what is actually said.

L2 Posted:

However, it’s narrow-sighted to say that it’s impossible to study ID. At the moment, it certainly is, but in the same scope, we haven’t DISPROVED ID either.

It’s not science’s place to say “We can’t study this, so we’ll ignore it.” Good science constantly searches for a way to study or measure something, then proves or disproves it from the results.

l2 there is no way you are this very special.

I made numerous posts on these previous pages explaining in explicit detail why what you’re saying is horribly, horribly, god awfully wrong.

SO LET ME DO IT AGAIN BECAUSE I AM BORED

Now, throughout this posts there may be reiterations of the same point which some of our readers who are not l2 may consider redundant. Let me bumure you however that it is completely necessary as previous efforts on my part to explain these exact things have failed and I feel it is because L2 may need a guiding hand in his thinking process.

However, it’s narrow-sighted to say that it’s impossible to study ID. At the moment, it certainly is, but in the same scope, we haven’t DISPROVED ID either.

This is really, really twisted reasoning.

Do you know why we haven’t ‘disproved ID’?

Because it’s impossible to study.

Here, lets try this again.

it’s narrow-sighted to say that it’s impossible to study ID

At the moment, it certainly is

(That’s awful narrow minded of you, l2.)

we haven’t DISPROVED ID either

(the “either” there makes it appear as if there is an option between the two things you just said. That it is “Impossible to study ID at the moment”, and that “we haven’t disproved ID”. These are actually two separate statements that are not directly related to each other and the latter could actually be considered a departure, or “non sequitur”, from the previous statements. It almost appears as if you added this last part and phrased it so that it is deliberately misleading.)

Lets break it down again, but without those pesky words of mine getting in the way.

it’s narrow-sighted to say that it’s impossible to study ID

At the moment, it certainly is

we haven’t DISPROVED ID either

And again:

1. “It’s narrow minded to say it’s impossible to study ID.”

2. “We can’t study ID.”

3. “ID has not been disproved.”

I have simplified your statements and broken them into three separate pieces so that this next section of my post will be neatly organized and understandable for those on l2’s reading level. In the next paragraph I will deal with the first two parts.

When someone says that it is impossible to study ID, for example, someone in the scientific community, they say it because at this point in time it is impossible to study ID. Your position is that while it is now currently impossible to study ID it may be possible in the future, and that those who disregard ID because of it’s currently unstudiable are narrow minded.

My question is: What the **** do you want us to do?

Wait until a moment where it can be studied?

Technically, that’s what we’re doing. But at the same time we’re saying the truth; That it is (currently) impossible to study Intelligent Design.

What’s so narrow minded about saying something true?

PART ONE OF MY SERIES ON “WHY L2 IS A BAD PERSON” IS NOW OVER. IN PART TWO OF MY SERIES I WILL ADDRESS THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF HIS POST AND POINT OUT WHY IT IS ALSO WRONG.