>>>This is **not** because of any new scientific research
>>>being conducted by the proponents of Intelligent Deisgn.
>>
>>It is new interpretation of data...
>
>Unfortunately, the claim that Intelligent Design is a "new
>interpretation of data" just more of advertising being used
>by the Discovery Institute to peddle a 200 year-old, quite
>religious, God-of-the-Gaps theology as brand new science.

Then it must be good 'advertising' I would say if it is working...

> Although it might be effective advertising, it is still untrue
> and bankrupt science. The cigarette companies were excellent
> at convincing people that cigarettes were safe to smoke.

Well, IMHO your 'smoke' analogy is lame at best!
Also, if they are being successful to attract the fiat money, then they
are not 'bannkrupt' at all...

I suggest that you should try to choose or find a better word to try to better
reflect you losing cause...

> However, that neither made their claims true nor made the
> cigarettes safe to smoke.

Neither do your claims...

> If wirelessguru1 wants a good laugh, he might want to look
> at [www.re-discovery.org]. :-) :-) :-)

Thanks, but I have much, much better laugh debating with the followers of scientism...

Unless, of course, they don't want to debate which is only an admission of lose. So, it seems to me that you will lose this argument one way or the others and the "evidence" is now starting to show the exact results that I am suggesting...

>>>Rather the success of Intelligent Design is the result
>>>of a well-funded, on the scale of over a million dollars,
>>>anti-evolution public relations and political lobbying
>>>efforts by various pro-ID organizations, including the
>>>Discovery Institute.
>>
>>Well, then like I said to Barnard, it seems like
>>"natural selection" is favoring them or their genes.
>>The "evidence" shows that they are "successful"
>>getting the fiat money...
>
>The fact that a specific idea attracts money has nothing to do with
>it being scientific or not.

Of course, but it is an integral part of 'natural selection' and
therefore, since they are wining their genes will succeed. That's my point...

> A person need only look at the huge
>amount of money donated to churchs for missionary work to see that
>"natural selection" quite often favors projects involving religious
>agendas in terms of getting "the fiat money".

Great, now you are seeing my point. You either got to learn how to go with flow
or learn how to successfully change it...

> At his best, "natural selection" as defined by wirelessguru1, favored
> Jimmy Swaggert far better than the average biologist.

Well, at this rate it seems that the traditional biologist is going to become an extinct species, so to speak...

Of course a 'biologist' is not a different species, so the argument is mute. But, religion has been around for much, much longer than science and it has survived...

Look, I am just calling a spade a spade and not making up stuff like you are...

> Just because wirelessguru's so-called "natural selection" favored Jimmy Swaggert
> in terms of attracting money failed to prove that either him or his beliefs
> were scientific in any way

I am sorry, but I am winning the argument! The evidence is on my side. You can't try to desperately deny it but religion has survived much, much, much longer than science...

In addition, the fact that 'intelligent design' is gaining more and more support is just more clear evidence to support my position and making yours a failure...

> A revealing way of how the Discovery Institute" and other supporters
> of Intelligent Design practice their idea of "science" is noted in
> "Catholic Church Appears to Step Backward on Evolution Leading
> Cardinal Redefines Church's View on Evolution in the July 9, 2005
> New York Times at [lettrist.blogspot.com].

A clear evidence of social degeneration which is another significant aspect of my theory. Mine, mine, all the evidence is again on my side of the argument...

DE evolutionist continue to lose ground at every single challenge that they encounter. No wonder you sound so desperate...

> Where "the institute" refers to the "Discovery Institute", this New
> York Times article stated:
>
>"Mark Ryland, a vice president of the institute,
>said in an interview that he had urged the cardinal
>to write the essay. Both Mr. Ryland and Cardinal
>Schönborn said that an essay in May in The Times
>about the compatibility of religion and evolutionary
>theory by Lawrence M. Krauss, a physicist at Case
>Western Reserve University in Cleveland, suggested
>to them that it was time to clarify the church's
>position on evolution.

I guess that the Cardinal carries much bigger influence. Good genes...

> The cardinal's essay was submitted to The Times by
> a Virginia public relations firm, Creative Response
> Concepts, which also represents the Discovery
> Institute."
>
> Also, there is "The Discovery Institute and Public Relations at
> [www.pandasthumb.org]. It stated about the Discovery Institute:
>
> "In fact, it turns out that over the past year
> they had enough money to hire a very high-profile
> public relations firm, Creative Response Concepts
> (CRC), to spread their message."

Good, it seems like they are putting their money where their mouth is...

> This article noted that other clients for Creative Response Concepts
> included “Contract for America”, Parents Television Council, Regnery
> Publishing (the firm that published Phillip Johnson’s book, Darwin On
> Trial), the high-profile client of the 2004 USA presidential campaign,
> “Swift Boat Vets for Truth“, and AT&T.

Awsome, thanks for sharing the information. I did not know that...

> Apparently neither wirelessguru1 nor the Discovery Institute do not
> understand the difference between media campaigns and public relations
> stunts, even if they are successful, and real science.

WOW!!! Are you saying that your group of scientist have never tried to raise capital!

> The right advertising campaign can be successful at promoting an idea
> regardless of whether it is science or junk. The "natural selection",
> which wirelessguru1 talks about proved nothing about Intelligent Design
> being real science.

but it at least proved that it has been very successful gaining public support and, therefore, being potentially 'naturally selected'!

In addition, it ALSO seems that your ability to continue to define what 'real' science is all about is also losing ground. See, in natural reality, the stronger force always wins...

Now that's natural selection at work...

> All it proved is that some people are willing to
> spend lots and lots of money to promote a religious agenda. Besides,
> if there was any real science proving the validity of Intelligent
> Design, the Discovery Institute would not need to pay a company
> involved in political smears, such as the “Swift Boat Vets for Truth“
> campaign, lots and lots of money in order to convince people that
> Intelligent Design is scientific.

Well, then maybe someone should teach you a 'real' lesson in capitalism...

Paul, the "facts" remain that your side continues to lose on this argument
and the evidence is proving it...

In addition, as History clearly suggests, it is the winer that then writes the
History. Now, I sincerely and honestly hope that you don't also need a lesson
in History.

Based on your posts, I am "certain" that you know your History very well, so,
once again, I am ONLY calling a spade a spade and all Historical evidence is
once again only in my side of the argument...

How is this for a response?

+-wirelessguru1