[Ophiolite]

Just two 'housekeeping' corrections relating to Heliotrope.
Firstly, I was so proud of my dendrology-branches joke that I felt real disappointment when Helio picked it up only via eric's comments.
Second, I also referred to ID supporters as IDiots, a term that is surely vastly preferable to intellectually dishonest, conniving, hypocritical scumbags.

Science_guy, as Chris pointed out a scientific viewpoint does not currently exclude the possibility of a creator. (Personally, I find atheism as ill conceived as theism. I am resolutely wedded to my agnosticism: my indecision is final.) What disturbs me about the hard core Intelligent Design advocates is that they focus exclusively on what is wrong with evolution (suprise, suprise - we don't know everything yet), but offer no evidence for their alternative view.

[science_guy]

To take a religious example, it strikes me that to stand up and say you're a creationist on this forum must you must feel a bit like Daniel in the lion's den?!

not so.  I came to this forum because I have a deep interest in the workings of all things existing, and I also firmly believe in my viewpoint, and will scream it out to the world without fear of repercussion.

[joke]Besides, what do I have to fear from a bunch of guys in lab coats? [][/joke]

I'm also curious as to why you (seem to) think that because you are a believer in the traditional creation you are a proponent of ID.
Unless you are a proponent of ID as well of course.

the belief of creationism is that an intelligent being created, or designed, the universe.  Is that not what a proponent of ID is?

Right now, I do not know every answer to your questions, and possibly because some of them do not exist.  I have posted this link at least three times, but lets do it once more: http://www.reasons.org/.  This site belongs to the organization, Reasons to Believe, founded by Dr. Hugh Ross, Astrophysicist.  I know him personally and he is very good at what he does.

[Ophiolite]

the belief of creationism is that an intelligent being created, or designed, the universe.  Is that not what a proponent of ID is?.

No. It is possible to believe that an entity created the Universe, establishing its Laws and characteristics in such a way that stars, galaxies and planets would arise, and that later life, some of it intelligent would come to exist on one or more of these planets.
A proponent of ID argues that the complexity of life is such that it could not have arisen by chance, and most certainly not by the 'random' process of natural selection over a period of four billion years. ID is a counterargument to evolution. It is not, in my view, the respectable face of creationism.

[Mjhavok (OP)]

IDiots have been debunked by people older than my granmother who are long gone by now.

[Heliotrope]

Firstly, I was so proud of my dendrology-branches joke that I felt real disappointment when Helio picked it up only via eric's comments.

[]
It was the dryness of Eric's comment that made me laugh.
[]

[Heliotrope]

[joke]Besides, what do I have to fear from a bunch of guys in lab coats? [][/joke]

[]
Touche.

I'm also curious as to why you (seem to) think that because you are a believer in the traditional creation you are a proponent of ID.
Unless you are a proponent of ID as well of course.

the belief of creationism is that an intelligent being created, or designed, the universe.  Is that not what a proponent of ID is?

Definitely not.
Believers in creationism simply have a different viewpoint with varying degrees of interaction in the Universe on the part of their deity.
No problems there at all. You believe what you want. I'll back you up to the hilt.

ID(iots) are destructive and nihilistic.
They have only the extinction of Darwinism, Evolution and the evidence for Natural Selection in mind as their objectives.
They do not seem (to me) to believe in anything except wanton intellectual vandalism.
ID(iots) offer nothing, no new information, nothing that can be understood, nothing that can be used to make anyone's life better.

Creationism still follows it's own internally consistent 'laws'. It gives support and comfort to those who require it.
Science follows internally consistent laws arrived at by observation and experiment. It gives sureity and repeatability to those who require it.
ID follows no laws. It has no internal self-consistency. It gives nothing to anyone.
It would strip sciene of it's validity by destroying the methodologies that allow it to function and it would also strip traditional creationism of it's comfort and solidity by founding it's distorted tenets on the ashes of Darwinism.

ID offers nothing.
ID is utterly empty.

[science_guy]

ID(iots) are destructive and nihilistic.
They have only the extinction of Darwinism, Evolution and the evidence for Natural Selection in mind as their objectives.
They do not seem (to me) to believe in anything except wanton intellectual vandalism.
ID(iots) offer nothing, no new information, nothing that can be understood, nothing that can be used to make anyone's life better.

Creationism still follows it's own internally consistent 'laws'. It gives support and comfort to those who require it.
Science follows internally consistent laws arrived at by observation and experiment. It gives sureity and repeatability to those who require it.
ID follows no laws. It has no internal self-consistency. It gives nothing to anyone.
It would strip sciene of it's validity by destroying the methodologies that allow it to function and it would also strip traditional creationism of it's comfort and solidity by founding it's distorted tenets on the ashes of Darwinism.

ID offers nothing.
ID is utterly empty.

ok... I see your point.  But, I still see calling them ID(iots) is rude and uncalled for.  Scientists are usually supposed to be above such antics.  They ARE Human Beings, and also should be treated as such, even if you dislike them.

[Mjhavok (OP)]

Sometimes a spade is just a spade. Calling it a misguided digging instrument doesn't make it any less a spade.

[Heliotrope]

ok... I see your point.  But, I still see calling them ID(iots) is rude and uncalled for.

I can be rude when I choose.
And I choose to be rude to them.
I'd prefer to be hitting them with a piece of wood that had a nail hammered through the end but you can't have everything.
Not even for Christmas.
*shrug*
[]

Scientists are usually supposed to be above such antics.

I'm not a scientist. Even though I would very much like to be.
I'm an Electronic Design Engineer, drummer and photographer.
I take your point though.

It is extremely frustrating when it seems that all around one is falling apart due to the seemingy routine acceptance of quite the most crassly stupid and obviously incorrect things.
It's back to the stick with the nail in the end.
As I said I don't have any issues with what people choose to believe. They are the masters of the insides of their own heads.
If they choose to be idiots then that's their lookout.
My problem comes when some of them get themselves into positions where they can distort the information being fed to our children and the public at large.
I actually don't have any children. I intend to sustitute them with a Bentley [] Less hassle all around methinks.
Anyway...

[gecko]

i never understood that either, that somehow a book from thousands of years ago is "more credible" than a book today. its a logical fallacy, that someone old must be correct and something new incorrect.

case in point- the scientology garbage. its written by a "prophet" from our time with a bunch of illogical, nonsense beliefs, and most people can see right through it as having no truth or substance. why then, are older holy books revered? they have the same "proof" to back them up. just because it happened long ago, and through force and political control it has been forced onto people to where they are born into it, its accepted.

[Mjhavok (OP)]

Its true. Scientology for all its crazyness is no crazier than most religions.

[Heliotrope]

That's people for you.

[Gaia]

I heard that L Ron Hubbard had a bet with a fellow science fiction writer that he could start a religion - scientology was the result.

[Aigbusted]

This guy seems to have the idea that evolution can't add anything 'new'. He is dead wrong. Here is proof:
newbielink:http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2007/08/evolution-cant-produce-new-information.html [nonactive]