# Quiz in honor of Darwin's 200 anniversary, and why many Republicans would not take it **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 12, 2009, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quiz-in-honor-of-darwins-200-anniversary-and-why-many-republicans-would-not-take-it/485557 "2009-02-12T17:17:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quiz-in-honor-of-darwins-200-anniversary-and-why-many-republicans-would-not-take-it/485557/41 "2009-02-13T03:46:20Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > In general my sense is that these sorts of “quizzes” which purport to ask questions for which the other side has no answer accomplish little. I would not be surprised to find a long list of questions for which evolution has no answer, and I would not be surprised to find that such a list could be compiled by those of us who believe in evolution, much less those who hold to external design. The problem with this is that, by experience, all the lists of questions brought forth by people who think evolution has no answer for them were already answered, sometimes the questions were answered even hundreds of years ago. > [@](#): > > In any case, it seems to me the more accurate split is along religious and not party lines, even though there is some difference at a political party level. But it seems to me a better title would be “Quiz…and why many church-goers would not take it.” But perhaps better titling accuracy would cost you the opportunity to get in a wee gloat about your political affiliation. Speaking of eyes, why do you look at the straw in the other party’s eye, but do not consider the rafter in your own? 😉 BTW I did mention my disappointment with the good number of democrats that do not believe in evolution, bringing this to attention is only one small way to deal with them, I think I would not be a happy doper knowing the massive rafters I would have to deal if I was a Republican. ---
**Author:** ![Locrian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/locrian/32/14146_2.png) [@Locrian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Locrian)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quiz-in-honor-of-darwins-200-anniversary-and-why-many-republicans-would-not-take-it/485557/42 "2009-02-13T04:01:44Z")
Isn’t the real element to believing either evolution or a Creator desire for knowledge vs. fear of knowledge? Or maybe just denial? I think the point of the quiz is to make people THINK for once! How flipping hard is this to understand? Looking at something like “Jesus Camp” (shuddering) and seeing videos explaining that Earth is 6,000 years old and humans rode dinosaurs like horses? I mean, how much denial is possible? We CAN prove that fossils are 65 million years old and Pangea was once the only available continent Earth, can’t we? Although films like “Jesus Camp” IS proof enough to believe in Evolution for me. Evolution isn’t instant, and, clearly, all Humans don’t evolve simultaneously either. Toasting Charles right now with a kamikaze. (!) ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quiz-in-honor-of-darwins-200-anniversary-and-why-many-republicans-would-not-take-it/485557/43 "2009-02-13T10:06:11Z")
> [@Mtgman](#): > > The quiz is a gotcha. Asking sensible questions stupid people can’t answer is not a ‘gotcha’. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 10:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quiz-in-honor-of-darwins-200-anniversary-and-why-many-republicans-would-not-take-it/485557/44 "2009-02-13T10:55:08Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The problem with this is that, by experience, all the lists of questions brought forth by people who think evolution has no answer for them were already answered, sometimes the questions were answered even hundreds of years ago. That’s amazing! I did not realize that; in fact I was thinking just yesterday that’s it’s only been a couple hundred years since Darwin was born… I think if you look back over my post you’ll see the list of questions to which I was referring would be one generated by evolutionists–not creationists and their ilk. Any good scientist (and this is one of the reasons creationsists are lousy scientists) admits to any number of currently unanswered questions within their discipline. That’s why unanswered questions are not a litmus test. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Speaking of eyes, why do you look at the straw in the other party’s eye, but do not consider the rafter in your own? 😉 FWIW my party affiliation is the Correct Party. Members can be found within assorted other political parties. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > BTW I did mention my disappointment with the good number of democrats that do not believe in evolution, bringing this to attention is only one small way to deal with them, I think I would not be a happy doper knowing the massive rafters I would have to deal if I was a Republican. You are a very fortunate person indeed. May you continue to find your significance within your chosen affiliation. ---
**Author:** ![Discordia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Discordia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Discordia)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quiz-in-honor-of-darwins-200-anniversary-and-why-many-republicans-would-not-take-it/485557/45 "2009-02-13T11:14:10Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > Are there any ID proponents who are _not_ Christian? I believe they have some allies in the nutty Islamic fundamentalists. An amusing alliance, if ever there was one. Not sure what the point of the quiz is. Everyone with a clue knows the human body is hopelessly flawed, but that fact certainly won’t convince any Creationists/IDers, no facts will. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quiz-in-honor-of-darwins-200-anniversary-and-why-many-republicans-would-not-take-it/485557/46 "2009-02-13T12:44:56Z")
> [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > I may be mistaken, but as I understand, Creationism and Intelligent Design both assume that God did it, but they go about it in different ways. The Creationism approach is, obviously, the whole bit about how the Earth is ~6k years old and everything was created more or less like it is today. As I understand the Intelligent Design perspective doesn’t have an issue with natural selection, but does have a problem with abiogenesis and speciation and it hinges largely around the concept of irreducible complexity and the claim is that God created the irreducibly complex things and asserts that there is no evolutionary mechanism to account for those. So, sure, it is creationism, because it necessitates a creator, but it is a very different thing from what is usually called Young Earth Creationism. No, it’s a front, there are very few IDers who aren’t also Creationists. ID was devised just to sidestep the issue that religious ideas should not be taught in a science class. I think your understanding of the division is a little off too. _Answers in Genesis_ (the main Creationist website) definitely teaches that natural selection is a fact; they need it so that a small number of original “kinds” can become the millions of species we see today. In fact, they need natural selection to work incredibly quickly and then to dramatically slow down for the modern age. But hey, no problem: _everything_ was on super fast-forward during the Flood. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quiz-in-honor-of-darwins-200-anniversary-and-why-many-republicans-would-not-take-it/485557/47 "2009-02-13T13:52:33Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Well, YMMV, but I would wonder then what would an intelligent quiz would be in this context..\* There isn’t one. You can’t explain science though a poorly written list of “Gotcha” questions. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quiz-in-honor-of-darwins-200-anniversary-and-why-many-republicans-would-not-take-it/485557/48 "2009-02-13T14:21:01Z")
> [@](#): > > Morning sickness during the first trimester of pregnancy protects the developing fetus from harmful substances in spicy or other foods with strong flavors. Some of these substances can cause developmental problems because the fetus is at a critical time for development. This sounds at least as much like an ID answer as an evolutionary one. “Because it protects the fetus” makes it sound like there is a reason behind it. DISCLAIMER: I am not a creationist. I do not believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis. I think that the modern theory of evolution thru natural selection is the best available explanation for the origin of species. That having been said, a scientific statement ought to be falsifiable. How would the idea that “pregnant women evolved to get morning sickness because it protects the fetus” be falsified? What is the evidence that **this specific adaptation** arose thru evolution? Is there fossil evidence? How has it been demonstrated that **this specific adaptation** arose thru evolution? Or are we assuming that the explanation is true because we believe in evolution based on other evidence? Again, I would request that, if possible, we stick to **this specific adaptation**. I don’t care what you think about who Cain married or how many animals fit on the Ark or whatever. **This specific adaptation**. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quiz-in-honor-of-darwins-200-anniversary-and-why-many-republicans-would-not-take-it/485557/49 "2009-02-13T14:55:05Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > That’s amazing! I did not realize that; in fact I was thinking just yesterday that’s it’s only been a couple hundred years since Darwin was born.. Is there a rule that says one can not say hundreds instead of “200 years ago”? > [@](#): > > I think if you look back over my post you’ll see the list of questions to which I was referring would be one generated by evolutionists–not creationists and their ilk. Any good scientist (and this is one of the reasons creationsists are lousy scientists) admits to any number of currently unanswered questions within their discipline. That’s why unanswered questions are not a litmus test. I think we agree more then you think. The OP questions have an answer. I did say specifically that “all the lists of questions brought forth by people who think evolution has no answer for them were already answered”, that is based on previous SDMB postings of ID defenders. I know that there are questions with no answers in evolution, but this is not the point of the current exercise. \*\*Tagos \*\*gets it. ---
**Author:** ![Discordia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Discordia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Discordia)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quiz-in-honor-of-darwins-200-anniversary-and-why-many-republicans-would-not-take-it/485557/50 "2009-02-13T14:57:29Z")
If one uses the falsifiability definition of science, then one cannot provide a scientific demonstration that _x_ arose through evolution, or indeed demonstrate that anything in the past happened as you say it. History can’t be scientific by that definition, and that question is basically historical. ---
**Author:** ![Blaster\_Master](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cab0a1/32.png) [@Blaster\_Master](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blaster_Master)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quiz-in-honor-of-darwins-200-anniversary-and-why-many-republicans-would-not-take-it/485557/51 "2009-02-13T14:58:29Z")
[quote=“AllWalker, post:38, topic:485557”] Yes, a _perfectly_ designed car could run on cakes. It could run on whatever you want. It’s perfectly designed. This does not follow. You’re conflating the concept of absolute perfection with perfection of design. A car could be perfectly designed and not run on cakes because the ability to run on cakes is not part of the criteria of judging the successfulness of a car to serve it’s intended purpose. That is, if we take two cars that are completely identical in all ways, except one can run on cakes and the other cannot, the first is not more perfect that the other they’re, from a design perspective, identical, because they both fit the design criteria equally well. The only way that the ability to run on cakes makes one better is if you add that to the requirements, but now you’re fulfilling a different set of criteria and, obviously, the perfect design that fits that will be different; you’re moving the goal posts. > [@](#): > > But iff that doesn’t make a lick of sense, then follow this logic: > > 1. God is all powerful, all knowing, all loving and perfect. > 2. God designed all animals, including humans. Indeed, humans are his favourite animal. > 3. Epic fail on the design of humans. > It doesn’t follow. First, your logic assumes that because humans are God’s favorite creation, at least inside the Christian paradigm, that he necessarily designed us perfect; that does not follow, at least not without some support. Second, even if the first part is true, you’re still conflating absolute perfection with perfection of design. The fact that there are imperfections in humans does not mean that human design doesn’t fit whatever the design criteria were perfectly. Finally, even if God did create us and created us perfectly, that doesn’t imply that humans are still perfect. At least within the Christian paradigm, it would is generally believed that the fall of man and subsequent events resulted in imperfections being introduce into man, aging being an obvious example. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quiz-in-honor-of-darwins-200-anniversary-and-why-many-republicans-would-not-take-it/485557/52 "2009-02-13T15:09:49Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > This sounds at least as much like an ID answer as an evolutionary one. > > “Because it protects the fetus” makes it sound like there is a reason behind it. No reason behind it? > [@Shodan](#): > > DISCLAIMER: I am not a creationist. I do not believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis. I think that the modern theory of evolution thru natural selection is the best available explanation for the origin of species. > > That having been said, a scientific statement ought to be falsifiable. How would the idea that “pregnant women evolved to get morning sickness because it protects the fetus” be falsified? > > What is the evidence that **this specific adaptation** arose thru evolution? Is there fossil evidence? How has it been demonstrated that **this specific adaptation** arose thru evolution? > > Or are we assuming that the explanation is true because we believe in evolution based on other evidence? > > Again, I would request that, if possible, we stick to **this specific adaptation**. I don’t care what you think about who Cain married or how many animals fit on the Ark or whatever. **This specific adaptation**. > > Regards, > Shodan > **[Morning sickness protects foetus against mother's diet](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-395376/Morning-sickness-protects-foetus-mothers-diet.html)** > > Morning sickness may be nature's way of protecting an unborn baby from being exposed to foods that could damage its development, new research suggests > [@](#): > > They point to the fact that in the days before refrigeration, meat would have raised the risk of the woman being struck down by food poisoning. > > Although now perfectly safe to eat during pregnancy, it may therefore be that the body is preprogrammed to avoid it during early stages of the baby’s development. > > Up to eight in 10 pregnant women suffer with nausea and vomiting during the first three months and in the past many doctors assumed it was simply due to hormonal changes. > > But experts are increasingly suspecting that diet may also be a trigger. > > Six years ago a team from Cornell University in the USA said women who get nausea and sickness during pregnancy are shielding their child at the most vulnerable time in its development. > > They pointed to the fact women who get morning sickness are less likely to miscarry than those who do not. > > Now a new study by a team at the University of Liverpool has provided further evidence to support this theory. > > The researchers pulled together 56 studies on morning sickness from 21 countries. > > They looked at the typical diet in each country to see if food could play a part in the problem. The team then focused their analysis on studies from Europe and North America. > > They found a significant link between morning sickness and a diet with relatively high proportions of sugars, sweeteners and oilcrops used for frying food. > > Women who had lots of meat and stimulants, such as alcohol or caffeine, were also more likely to get morning sickness. > > In addition the research showed a woman’s chances of having morning sickness fell if her diet contained a higher proportion of cereals and pulses. > > The study, published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B, did not reveal exactly how much of certain foods a pregnant woman would need to eat to raise her risk of morning sickness. > > But the research team concluded that overall nausea and vomiting in pregnancy was significantly linked to a higher intake of sugars or sweeteners, stimulants, vegetables, meat, milk and eggs. > > The researchers led by Dr Craig Roberts said the findings may support the idea that morning sickness is part of the body’s natural way of protecting the developing baby from foods that could in some way be harmful to it. > > Dr Roberts said: "While there may be no particular harm in eating, say, meat, now that we have refrigeration and best before dates, our bodies may be preprogrammed by evolution to avoid these particular foodstuffs in the first trimester. ---
**Author:** ![Blaster\_Master](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cab0a1/32.png) [@Blaster\_Master](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blaster_Master)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quiz-in-honor-of-darwins-200-anniversary-and-why-many-republicans-would-not-take-it/485557/53 "2009-02-13T15:11:43Z")
> [@Algorithm](#): > > If I was designing a car, and omnipotent, you can bet it would be the best damn car that could ever exist. Think about it, let’s say you are God, and you notice a problem with your car’s design. Snap your fingers and fix the problem before sending it off to the production line. > > Honda’s engineers don’t operate under omnipotence - among other things, they have resource restrictions, limitations in scientific knowledge, budget restrictions, and finite time. God would have none of those problems. False analogy. I may be mistaken, but AFAIK, ID does not require omnipotence. Yes, the Christian God is generally believed by most Christians to be omnipotent, but ID itself does not assume that. > [@](#): > > Making it so those foods don’t harm the baby, either by having the mother’s body filter out harmful substances or making the baby not sensitive to them in the first place. I’d like to think any god would, in the infinite time they have, come up with at least as good solutions as I can come up with in 20 seconds. So your solution here has necessarily taken into account all possible repercussions and consequences? Beside the fact that it’s already been stated that absolute perfection isn’t an implication of ID, even if it were your logic doesn’t follow. There could be complicating things like filtering out substances would require additional mechanisms that would otherwise not be needed and the purpose can be served just fine by existing ones. Perhaps there’s other reasons why they affect the baby so the baby can’t just be made immune but, quite frankly, I don’t know enough about pregnancy to speak competently on that subject. So… let’s try an analogy. A perfect knight is unkillable, so we give him plate armor. Simple solution, right? Not really, because it has drawbacks like weight, limited motion and agility, limited line of sight. But if you remove the armor to gain those advantages, he obviously becomes very vulnerable. The ideal solution depends upon how much you value the various criteria; any solution is inherently imperfect because not all of the criteria are optimized, but the final solution can end up doing a pretty good job at most of them. That’s exactly the sorts of trade-offs that are going on in ID, except there’s billions of these sorts of trade-offs and they interact in very complicated ways. Beyond that, we don’t know what criteria a potential intelligent designer may have valued when designing except through inference by what we actually see. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quiz-in-honor-of-darwins-200-anniversary-and-why-many-republicans-would-not-take-it/485557/54 "2009-02-13T15:18:29Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Incorrect. Many advocates of intelligent design believe in a omnipotent god, and a benevolent god at that. Those two things put together would seem to imply that the human body should have no flaws; that it does so is, at the very least, a relevant point to make. Has any proponent of intelligent design every said specifically and directly “the human body has no flaws” or words to that effect? Certainly the ones that I’ve read and listened to have said no such thing. The outline of intelligent design is that all life forms evolved from a common origin, but that the designers exhibited direct influence at certain times in the process. Advocates of intelligent design generally acknowledge that natural selection has taken place and accounts for some features of living things. Hence none of the items on the quiz are in any way opposed to intelligent design. The quiz is mental masturbation and nothing more. Opponents of intelligent design will impress no one if they only make up weak arguments for the purpose of shooting them down. They should, instead, confront the arguments that real people are actually making. ---
**Author:** ![Blaster\_Master](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cab0a1/32.png) [@Blaster\_Master](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blaster_Master)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quiz-in-honor-of-darwins-200-anniversary-and-why-many-republicans-would-not-take-it/485557/55 "2009-02-13T15:21:00Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > No, it’s a front, there are very few IDers who aren’t also Creationists. ID was devised just to sidestep the issue that religious ideas should not be taught in a science class. While it is true that there are few IDers who do not also believe that God did it. The point I’m trying to make is that ID does not necessitate the Christian God or, for that matter, any god. It simply asserts that there are some things that could not have arisen through the process of evolution alone and, thus, must have been designed by an intelligence. I also don’t think that assigning a malicious motive to ID is productive and using it to discredit ID is a logical fallacy (ad hominem, I beleive). The truth value of ID is independent of the intentions of those who proposed it. > [@](#): > > I think your understanding of the division is a little off too. _Answers in Genesis_ (the main Creationist website) definitely teaches that natural selection is a fact; they need it so that a small number of original “kinds” can become the millions of species we see today. > In fact, they need natural selection to work incredibly quickly and then to dramatically slow down for the modern age. > But hey, no problem: _everything_ was on super fast-forward during the Flood. :rolleyes: I’m not arguing the AiG perspective because from what I have read there they generally propose what is commonly called a Young Earth Creationism approach. What they say or believe doesn’t seem relevant to the discussion at hand to me. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quiz-in-honor-of-darwins-200-anniversary-and-why-many-republicans-would-not-take-it/485557/56 "2009-02-13T15:25:11Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > Are there any ID proponents who are _not_ Christian? Yes. One example is Fred Hoyle, one of the first prominent proponents of ID. He was an atheist while young. He became an astrophysicist and worked on models of the formation of stars and the nuclear reactions inside stars that produce the heavier elements. His eventually concluded that the laws of physics were fine-tuned to permit the formation of stars and the production of the correct mix of elements for the formation of life. Later he studied questions related to evolution and the origin of life and concluded that an intelligent designer must have been at work there as well. Hoyle became a deist, but never had any interest in Christianity to my knowledge. Another example is Anthony Flew, a philosophy professor from Oxford University who was an outspoken atheist for most of his life. He recently became a deist. ---
**Author:** ![Discordia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Discordia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Discordia)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quiz-in-honor-of-darwins-200-anniversary-and-why-many-republicans-would-not-take-it/485557/57 "2009-02-13T15:38:33Z")
Firstly, Flew is senile. Secondly, Hoyle was not a proponent of ID. Third, Hoyle’s arguments were _terrible_. ETA: Nevermind, seems he thought it was designed on another planet then got here via comet. What a nutter. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quiz-in-honor-of-darwins-200-anniversary-and-why-many-republicans-would-not-take-it/485557/58 "2009-02-13T15:43:39Z")
> [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > While it is true that there are few IDers who do not also believe that God did it. The point I’m trying to make is that ID does not necessitate the Christian God or, for that matter, any god. It simply asserts that there are some things that could not have arisen through the process of evolution alone and, thus, must have been designed by an intelligence. Time then to dispose of the old chestnut of “Which God or Goddess?” to use then the modern equivalent: Which or what intelligence? > [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > I also don’t think that assigning a malicious motive to ID is productive and using it to discredit ID is a logical fallacy (ad hominem, I beleive). The truth value of ID is independent of the intentions of those who proposed it. I agree, what good evidence is there then for ID? > [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > I’m not arguing the AiG perspective because from what I have read there they generally propose what is commonly called a Young Earth Creationism approach. What they say or believe doesn’t seem relevant to the discussion at hand to me. There was a huge thread discussing the evidence in favor of ID, not impressive at all. Even the courts in the US have rendered decisions where they agree that ID has no right to be in a science class. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quiz-in-honor-of-darwins-200-anniversary-and-why-many-republicans-would-not-take-it/485557/59 "2009-02-13T15:49:52Z")
> [@Discordia](#): > > Firstly, Flew is senile. Secondly, Hoyle was not a proponent of ID. Third, Hoyle’s arguments were _terrible_. > > ETA: Nevermind, seems he thought it was designed on another planet then got here via comet. What a nutter. I would dislike to defend him, there is a good chance that he was a nutter, but regarding that last item: > **[Panspermia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia)** > > Panspermia (from Ancient Greek πᾶν (pan) 'all' and σπέρμα (sperma) 'seed') is the hypothesis that life exists throughout the universe, distributed by cosmic dust, meteoroids, asteroids, comets, and planetoids, as well as by spacecraft carrying unintended contamination by microorganisms, known as directed panspermia. The theory argues that life did not originate on Earth, but instead evolved somewhere else and seeded life as we know it. > Panspermia comes in many forms, such as radiopanspermia, l... > [@](#): > > Until a large portion of the galaxy is surveyed for signs of life or contact is made with hypothetical extraterrestrial civilizations, the panspermia hypothesis in its fullest meaning will remain difficult to test. There is, however, circumstantial evidence for exogenesis In any case, IMHO the evidence is still in favor of life originating on earth. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quiz-in-honor-of-darwins-200-anniversary-and-why-many-republicans-would-not-take-it/485557/60 "2009-02-13T16:33:26Z")
> [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > The point I’m trying to make is that ID does not necessitate the Christian God or, for that matter, any god. True enough. ID is technically separate from Christianity and Creationism. It’s just that when you said ID is a very different thing from YEC, I thought that was a little misleading. The ID crowd will never contradict the YEC crowd; because they’re usually the same people, and their whole motive is to use ID as a wedge to open the door for creationism. ID is just a whole bunch of Creationism-supporting ad-hockery. > [@](#): > > I’m not arguing the AiG perspective because from what I have read there they generally propose what is commonly called a Young Earth Creationism approach. What they say or believe doesn’t seem relevant to the discussion at hand to me. I know, YEC is off-topic. But you said that YECs don’t believe in natural selection; I was simply correcting that and elaborating on why, in fact, many do. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quiz-in-honor-of-darwins-200-anniversary-and-why-many-republicans-would-not-take-it/485557.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quiz-in-honor-of-darwins-200-anniversary-and-why-many-republicans-would-not-take-it/485557.md?page=4)