Quote# 2704

Intelligent Design was first. Evolution challenged it, not vice versa.

Christine, Rapture Ready 16 Comments [8/22/2005 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 3

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 | bottom


Much the same way that lightbulbs challenged fire, electricity challenged burning things, and transistors challenged vacuum tubes.

11/28/2007 4:24:13 PM


Well, you're certainly not advancing the cause of intelligent design.

11/28/2007 4:27:29 PM


Exactly the argument I used repeatedly, only with the opposite standpoint.

Countless mythologies came before the christian one. Burden of proof still lies with you, fuckwit.

11/28/2007 5:15:43 PM


True, but it was called Creationism at the time. Intelligent Design is just the latest euphemism.

But y'know... usually the way it works is, we get something wrong, then we get it right, in that order. It doesn't typically happen the other way around.

11/28/2007 5:58:41 PM

TB Tabby

Challenged successfully. With help from the Big Bang and abiogenesis.

11/28/2007 6:03:30 PM


That's because myths came about before true understanding did. Ask the Greeks about Helios's chariot before they knew what the "sun" actually was. Christian creationism (there are other creation stories, too) is a myth. It got its ass handed to it by science.

11/29/2007 1:58:10 AM


It's called "progress". It's why we're not all the property of our local lord.

2/4/2008 6:25:40 PM

Dr. Shrinker

Evolution challenged ID and won, in the scientific literature, in the courts and in practical application.

2/24/2009 7:08:42 PM

G. Fieendish

Ok, then explain then, if Intellgent Design works, why I do not have 2 mouths, one in front of my stomach, for food ingestion, & another seperate one for speech...
Also, if I was Intellgently Designed, why is my air intake, & food ingestion system using the same piping, as there is a risk of the food blocking said pipe, causing me not to breathe, as a result...?
Surely they should be as widely seperated as possible, to avoid such a worst case scenario...?

2/26/2009 5:44:39 PM


Yes, evolution challenged it and won by all rational measures.

11/30/2012 12:55:57 PM


No, ID is just a way of creationists trying to shove their bullshit down non-Christian's throats that was developed because the creationists don't like the fact that evolution doesn't require a designer.

11/30/2012 3:28:38 PM


Sure, like the Dakota challenged the 747 for mastery of the skies.

Except that Dakotas actually exist.

11/30/2012 11:16:54 PM

Quantum Mechanic

Find a reference to 'intelligent design' that predates Darwin.

8/26/2013 12:13:32 PM


Stop fucking lying.

10/5/2014 8:42:30 AM

Sorry. ID was "created" in 1987 when teaching "creation science" in public schools was ruled unconstitutional. Darwin published OOS in 1859.

They began desperately looking for something else to call "creation science" so they could again try to sneak it back into schools. There's a hilarious story about a copy/replace of "creationists" getting turned into "cdesign proponentsists" as they were trying to rebadge "creationism".

It is jokingly referred to as "the missing link between creationism and intelligent design".


"The term "intelligent design" emerged much more recently than the design argument itself. It had been used occasionally during the twentieth century, but was popularized after the aforementioned 1987 legal case of Edwards v. Aguillard, in which "creation science" was ruled to be a religious concept, and therefore unfit to be taught in public schools under American constitutional law. Subsequently, many aspects of creation science were rebranded as "intelligent design," which is ostensibly a non-religious concept since its adherents claim that it leaves open the question of who the designer might be.

The Discovery Institute has taken the lead in promoting intelligent design, and urging for it to be incorporated into public education. The Discovery Institute's Wedge Document specifically states that the intelligent designer is the Christian God, thus undercutting the claims that the intelligent design movement is not strictly religious. In the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case (2005), the Court found that intelligent design was primarily religious and fostered unnecessary entanglement of church and state. The Court further found that intelligent design is not science. As Thunderf00t later noted, the Discovery Institute abruptly altered its stance in light of Kitzmiller, claiming that it considered Intelligent Design a valid scientific theory but did not advocate its integration into public school curricula."

10/5/2014 7:57:55 PM

“Try this experiment if you ever find yourself talking to a proponent of ID. Say, "OK, for the sake of argument let's say evolution is wrong and let's forget about it. Now tell me how intelligent design works." Having tried this a few times myself, I am confident that you will be met with nothing but an awkward silence."

—Amanda Gefter

10/5/2014 8:26:27 PM

1 | top: comments page