Shiny! Lets be bad guys!

But Abbie, even if we did, Would Socrates Believe It?

And how could we confirm this?

Where would we find some really good channeler or medium who could translate (or whatever they do...) this into old-school Greek so Socrates could dialogue with us?

I like how I'm a creationist enemy, right along with Richard Dawkins. They really know how to make my day!

Anyway...remember the origins of the Univ. of OK IDEA club:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/04/fun-fact.html
========
IDEA Club

Welcome to the University of Oklahoma IDEA Club website! We are no longer the Creation Science Society. Our new name is Intelligent Design & Evolution Awareness Club. That's IDEA Club for short!
========

You are soooo lucky???!!

Are you gonna have a book signed??

Stacy

I love that the website was registered and created by someone at The Apologia Project in California that "is a Christian research organization whose aim is to present the unadulterated view of the Christian faith." All science so far!

Let us know when they announce the locations of the various "lectures". I am thinking of attending.

I have heard that all IDEA members only accept members that wear a crucifix, and have a weird ritual / initiation, where they have to wear a strange sickly sweater made of all man-made fibers out in public, and utter out loud La La La while their fingers are in their ears while pretending to be expelled from school.

Could you please stop by their booth and verify this?

Thanks,

Please warn us ahead of time when you post a link that contains excerpts from "Expelled". I got a little throw up on my computer screen watching that.

WAHHH! I wants edit button!!!

Why would they care if Socrates would believe in evolution? Socrates was not a christian.

Juat to make it clear - this debate is NOT part of the University of Oklahoma Darwin celebration. Indeed, most of the organizers of the University events were displeased with Ruse for agreeing to this debate, but they had no control.

Will Bill get another 'hostile' (but appropriate) reception at OU???

We are no longer the Creation Science Society. Our new name is Intelligent Design & Evolution Awareness Club.

Ooooh, someone is into the genetic fallacy! Don't drink the well water, nothing to see here, folks.

It's only a fallacy if there are meaningful differences between the origin and the current organization.

And no one has ever explained the differences between creationists and ID-ers? Never? Really? Do you revel in and celebrate your ignorance in other areas of life or just this one?

Sure, the difference is that an ID'er wears a paper bag over his head, with two eyeholes punched in it and the words "NOT A CREATIONIST" scrawled on it.

(The "S" is backwards.)

Seems to still fool some people, though.

Oh, thanks for clearing that up. And all this time I thought that creationists used the same appellation as ID-ers, and were never critical of them! Silly me!
And I thought that ID advocates use the terms interchangeably too. Again, what was I thinking?

If you want to be taken seriously (which may not be your goal, given the emotional and given-to-random-rants-and-obscene-insults tenor of the blog on which you are commenting), it would help if you at least try to represent your opponent correctly. Or maybe ERV said it best. eeeeeeeeeeeegiddyclappingeeeeeeeeeeee

âIntelligent Design: Would Socrates Support It?â

Plato's Socrates? The man who proposed the "Noble Lie"--a propaganda campaign stating that God programs everyone's proper social class into him/her at birth, so the lower classes should be content with their crappy lives?

Why, yes, he would support Intelligent Design.

(The historical Socrates, on the other hand, would probably just ask IDers a lot of obnoxious questions about their grounds for believing Intelligent Design to be true. Unable to provide satisfactory answers, they would eventually condemn him as an atheist and execute him by forcing him to read A Tour of the Calculus in one sitting.)

Rhology, the main difference between creationists and IDers is that IDers are somewhat less likely to mention God when they're talking to secular audiences. IDers' arguments are all old-time Creationist arguments with the serial numbers filed off and a fresh coat of paint (I mean, what's the difference between the Creationist "what good is half an eye?" argument and IDists' yammerings about "irreducible complexity", hm?); IDers are no more able to present a positive case for ID, than Creationists are able to present a positive case for Creationism; IDers and Creationists are indistinguishable on the basis of dishonest use of out-of-context quotations; and so on, and so forth. Does the phrase "cdesign proponentists" ring any bells?

Read this - got the link from UD: http://oudaily.com/news/2009/feb/03/darwin-anniversary-reignites-ideolo…

Abby

I have a copy of Ruse's new book (the second edition of this one). If I sent it to you, could you get Ruse to autograph it? You could ask Dembski too, but he probably wouldn't want you to get that close (and vice versa).

Now, guys, be nice to Rho. He is the very model of a modern cdesign proponentsists!

And I dont believe you all have ever thanked him for the bounty of lulz he gave us last time Dembski showed his face round these parts. Thanks for that video, Rho!

Haha, you're welcome. Maybe I'll see you at the Dick Dawk event. If I do, I'll say hi if neither of us is busy. Maybe we can even have an argument or two.

Rhology, the main difference between creationists and IDers is that IDers are somewhat less likely to mention God when they're talking to secular audiences.

It doesn't seem to have occurred to Rhology that Luskin et al. might actually be *gasp* lying about their intent.

Those of us who have observed the creationist/ID movement over the decades, have seen them lie their asses off about science and scientists, and repeat those lies ad nauseam even when caught time and again... well, we don't see it as being quite so far-fetched.

Not to mention we've documented the mountains of evidence that ID is simply a relabeling scam (as Cubist and ERV said, see "cdesign proponentsists"; also see the "Wedge document", and hell, while I'm making unreasonable expectations of a two-line troller, try reading Barbara Forrest's Creationism's Trojan Horse). This still gives me the giggles.

Funny thing is, even the goobers advocating ID in Dover knew it was a scam, just a way to sneak Christianity into the schools using codewords -- their downfall was that they just couldn't resist blabbing about the Jesus. I can't imagine the sort of person who still thinks ID and creationism are meaningfully different, or that the former wasn't born directly and solely out of the latter's inability to get past the courts.

Shoot, Henry Morris, young earth creationist founder of the Institute for Creation Research, even did a book review bitching because the IDiots stole creationist ideas without giving them proper credit. Morris wrote

Our concern with the intelligent design approach probably devolves upon two main factors. First, it is ineffective, no more convincing to evolutionists than is young-earth creationism; second, it is not really a new approach, using basically the same evidence and arguments used for years by scientific creationists but made to appear more sophisticated with complex nomenclature and argumentation. (emphasis added)

And here are a few choice quotes from Dembsi's response to Morris:

And even though intelligent design has emerged as the most visible banner under which evolution is now being challenged, the challenge would not exist without the efforts of Henry Morris and young earth creationists.

and this one:

If you will, young earth creationism is at worst off by a few orders of magnitude in misestimating the age of the earth. On the other hand, Darwinism, in ascribing powers of intelligence to blind material forces, is off by infinite orders of magnitude.

A few orders of magnitude? Try 6 orders of magnitude, Billy (you do have a Ph.D. in math, right?). And here's nice bit:

By contrast, much of my own work on intelligent design has been filling in the details of these otherwise intuitive, pretheoretic ideas of creationists.

Sure looks like a direct lineage of crap to me.

Anyone needing something to entertain themselves can wander over and "contribute" at:

http://talk.thinkingmatters.org.nz/

Example article: "Creation Ministries International Needs Help.
By Stuart. A request for help from Creation Ministries International and an invitation to equip pastors and churches on refuting evolution."

They need help...?

More

"Everyday at Creation Ministries International our PhD scientist & staff around the world are working to tear down the evolutionary stronghold and replace it with good science based on the accuracy and authority of the Bible."