'Bill Nye the Science Guy' to Take On Creationist in Evolution Debate (Muslim, suspect)

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

In that case. Not in all cases.

There are no demonstrated exceptions.

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Even an NIH cataloged publication cites: Denison RF. When can intelligent design of crops by humans outperform natural selection?

And of course we have established that this is a bald equivocation and a red herring having nothing whatsoever to do with the ID movement.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by suzy_q2010

No, you are denying that "intelligent design" is creationism. "Intelligent designer" is an avatar for God.

Nope. There is no indication whatsoever that intelligent design implies God as the designer in either the definition of ID, or the citation in this:

NIH cataloged publication cites: Denison RF. When can intelligent design of crops by humans outperform natural selection?
Past evolutionary tradeoffs represent opportunities for crop genetic improvement and increased human lifespan

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

I'm not arguing against ToE. I've said many times that ID does not preclude ToE, nor does ToE preclude ID. They coexist. Some species and variations of species have evolved in an undirected process, and others haven't (example: GMO crops).

GMO crops have nothing whatsoever to do with the ID movement.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

The NIH disagrees with you.

Actually, no. The NIH does not disagree with us.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by suzy_q2010

Has the NIH issued a policy statement on "intelligent design"? Link, please.

I already posted the link of the NIH article citing "intelligent design."

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by sanspeur

You are to be congratulated...You have come up with one of the lamest arguments for creation that I have ever seen.

Lame? I've cited the ACTUAL DEFINITION AND have given factual examples.

What's lame is all the ridiculously absurd assumptions so many of you ID deniers are posting.

[twinArmageddons]

Either way, the idea that "Intelligent Design" is a theory on par with evolution and should be taught in science classrooms is laughable at best. Because there is nothing scientific about it.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

GMO crops have nothing whatsoever to do with the ID movement.

So... your assertion is that GMO crops evolved naturally with no intelligent guidance or intervention whatsoever?

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by twinArmageddons

Either way, the idea that "Intelligent Design" is a theory on par with evolution and should be taught in science classrooms is laughable at best. Because there is nothing scientific about it.

How would you then explain the existence of GMO crops? They DIDN'T just evolve.

[css9450]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Nope. There is no indication whatsoever that intelligent design implies God as the designer in either the definition of ID, or the citation in this:

NIH cataloged publication cites: Denison RF. When can intelligent design of crops by humans outperform natural selection?

Is it possible you're placing entirely too much significance to the coincidental pairing of "intelligent" and "design" in that particular sentence? I doubt even intelligentdesign.org would agree with your, shall we say, "unique" interpretation of what they stand for.

The author of that article could have just as likely used terms such as "clever planning" or "wise management" or "smart utilization" and meant exactly the same thing. The article is NOT an endorsement of the psuedo-science known as "Intelligent Design".