I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Friday, June 19, 2009

"Intelligent design creationism"? How about "Darwinian atheism"?

Darwinists who use the disingenuous stereotyping term "intelligent design creationism" pretend that they are unable to separate a scientific or pseudoscientific idea from the religious implications of that idea. So I have an idea -- I am going to start mimicking them by using the name "Darwinian atheism."

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

8 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is no connection. Intelligent Design is a form of creationism. Evolution stakes no position either way on religion.

If you can't defend your position that ID is not creationism, why call attention to it?

Friday, June 19, 2009 8:32:00 AM  
Anonymous Lars said...

If they are so different, why was a "designer" introduced instead of "creator" as a search/replace operation after the US supreme court ruled creationism can't be tought in public schools?

"cdesign proponentsists" is kind of hard to explain isn't it?

Friday, June 19, 2009 12:46:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Anonymous driveled,
>>>>>>> Evolution stakes no position either way on religion. <<<<<<

Dunghill, there is a gigantic blog war going on right now over the religious implications of "Darwinian atheism."

>>>>> If you can't defend your position that ID is not creationism, why call attention to it? <<<<<<

I can defend my position and you know it, bozo. I have pointed out numerous times that ID is based on scientific observation and reasoning whereas creationism is based on religious sources. The whole reason for my interest in ID is that it is separate from creationism. I consider the disingenuous stereotyping term "intelligent design creationism" to be a personal insult that attacks my core beliefs.

You lousy dunghill, you have nothing intelligent to say but you just try to sabotage this blog by cluttering it up with your worthless repetitive crap.

Saturday, June 20, 2009 2:00:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Lars said,
>>>>>> If they are so different, why was a "designer" introduced instead of "creator" as a search/replace operation after the US supreme court ruled creationism can't be tought in public schools? <<<<<<<

Actually, the term used in the law that was struck down in that Supreme Court decision (Edwards v. Aguillard) was "creation science," not "creationism."

So there was one book, just one stinking solitary book, Of Pandas and People, where "creationism" was replaced by "intelligent design," and you Darwinian atheists are forever going to beat us over the head with that one lousy solitary book. It is typical of you Darwinian atheists to blow cherry-picked evidence out of proportion. That's what you do because you can't make fair arguments. The story of the guy accused of stealing chickens is another example of blowing cherry-picked evidence out of proportion:

Defendant to witness: Did you see me go into the henhouse?

Witness: Yes

Defendant: Did you see me come out of the henhouse?

Witness: No

Defendant: Aha! Ise still in that henhouse!

Saturday, June 20, 2009 8:34:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

BTW, even if ID is a creationist idea, is adding the word "creationism" to "ID" really necessary? Why not just plain old "ID"?

Monday, June 22, 2009 11:03:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Remarkably I agree. Since it is obvious from its name that ID is a form of creationism, it is redundant to call it ID creationism.

Monday, June 22, 2009 2:17:00 PM  
Anonymous Heinrich said...

re anonymus:

while it seems indeed redundant to the sane and knowledgeable to call 'ID' 'ID creationism', keep in mind that the term 'ID' was coined with the specific intent to hide the fact that is creationism. Thus, labeling it as such is just a form of clarification.

Wednesday, June 24, 2009 12:53:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Heinrich barfed,
>>>>> the term 'ID' was coined with the specific intent to hide the fact that is creationism. <<<<<<<

No, you stupid ignoramus, the term "ID" was already in existence at the time of the Edwards v. Aguillard decision against the teaching of creationism -- it was not "coined" as a substitute for "creationism" or "creation science."

>>>>> Thus, labeling it as such is just a form of clarification. <<<<<<

Wrong, you stupid fathead, it only confuses, not clarifies. No clarification is needed anyway because all people who are interested have already formed their own opinions about the relationship between ID and creationism. There is no consensus about that relationship. Right now there is a big debate going on over the religious implications of evolution. "ID creationism" is like "evolution atheism" or "evolution Christianity" -- which name for evolution do you prefer?

You are just a lousy disgusting troll, you dumb sack of shit.

Wednesday, June 24, 2009 7:13:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home