Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, you didn't. The full title of the article cited is: When can intelligent design of crops by humans outperform natural selection?
You are missing the point. Their use of those two words is not an endorsement of the psuedo-science known as "Intelligent Design" (IE, "Creation", or "God did it"). Why is that so hard for you to understand?
I think even the most ardent pro-religion types among us here are struggling with the straws you are trying to grasp.
I've given atheists documented cases of divine
healing with verification from doctors and pictures of tests. Not good
enough.
Lol! Divine healing? Why is it always healing we can't see, like "My back used to hurt, but now it doesn't" or "I had killer migraines and now I don't"? It's never anything like an amputated limb or even a pinkie toe growing back, or even a bad case of acne disappearing spontaneously on video.
The fact that's it's always something we can't see screams fraud or placebo effect.
You are missing the point. Their use of those two words is not an endorsement of the psuedo-science known as "Intelligent Design" (IE, "Creation", or "God did it").
ID doesn't state that "God did it." That seems to be where you are making your mistake.
ID: "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
Then they shed the references to the Bible and pretended to be non-sectarian "Scientific Creationists."
When that didn't work, they pretended to shed any specific creator and became "Intelligent Design" advocates.
That explains such psuedo-scientific organizations such as the "Creation Museum". Dress it up as "science" and maybe they can sneak it into the schools.
The naturalistic fallacy is when we assume what is natural is better or more healthy. In other words, natural climate change is good while man-made climate change is bad because what is natural is better.
Straw man.
The reason AGW is considered worse than natural global warming has to do with the velocity of the change. Environmental changes that take place faster than the biosphere can respond result in mass extinctions. It has nothing to do with the naturalistic fallacy.
This is certainly a position only maintainable by somebody who has a pathetically low threshold for "miraculous."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
