RationalWiki's 2018 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff — we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2018.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $2835Goal: $5000

Talk:Intelligent design

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon creationism.svg

This Creationism related article has been awarded GOLD status for quality. Please keep this in mind when editing the article. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Information icon.svg Cover Story
This article is, among others, randomly included on the Main Page.
Please keep this in mind and be sure that your edits are of the quality that this implies.
Its front-page abstract can be found here and its editnotice here.
This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Lost Me At Pseudoscience[edit]

"Any man who must say 'I am the king' is no true king." Tywin Lannister

Similarly any site that must call itself rational isn't truly rational. (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

So anyone who must state what they are aren't really what they claim to be, and that is in turn due to them having had to say what they were? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I am BobM. Therefore ...--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I bought some sausages today. It clearly said "sausages" on the packet. Does this mean they're not actually sausages? Flannan Isle (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
So someone who proudly self-identifies as a hateful internet asshole isn't actually one, and conversely, those who would refer to themselves as reasonably fair and nice people are literally not that? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
If you trained your parrot to say "I'm a parrot", then he must clearly be a pigeon and thus deserves to get punched in the kidney with a broom handle? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
And like BobM points out; how the hell are you supposed to introduce yourself!? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

It's about sex, politics, and epistemology[edit]

The Sexual Politics of Intelligent Design. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 12:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Refutation of ID opinion piece[edit]

http://article.sapub.org/10.5923.j.als.20160602.02.html oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 12:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Arguments against ID no...[edit]

  • 'The wrong number of digits' for computer binary code (4 or 8 on each limb would be much more logical).
  • Limited visual range (should include #all# parts of the spectrum creatures can access).

Perhaps there could be some snark involving Eloi, Morlocks and Monsters from the Id. (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The Quotations Are Very, VERY Condescending[edit]

My further argument against Intelligent Design (at least i think it's mine)[edit]

It's all bollocks! Exactly which 'Intelligent' designer would design organs such as testicles that only work properly when outside the body they belong to, yet are so delicate that they cause extreme pain to their owner when even slightly knocked or bruised? QED

Ps. I'm very new here and tried to add this once already but it disappeared, no idea what i did wrong, just the fates punishing me for hubris i guess...hope you don't mind my temerity, i've been reading here a long time and like what i see. Changeling (talk) 23:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Better question: why would a perfect Intelligent Designer create external sexual organs only for humans to cover them? Why not hide them to begin with? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, it's a very quirky not to say perverse designer that will do that for whales and delphines, that apparently have no sense of shame, but not for humans, whose sense of shame is seriously over-developed.Changeling (talk) 04:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it's the whales that are God's chosen people... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I like it! Perhaps Noah was merely an oversight, and the whole Ark story was made up by the accidental survivors to cover up their marginal position in the great scheme of things. Changeling (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that design is really pretty unintelligent. Everything is based on things that came before. A God "intelligent designer" would have been able to uniquely design every beast to uniquely fit it's role without any consideration of the designs of other organisms. (Yes, I understand that that's a better argument against the "Young Earth" version of ID.)--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)