Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design

So just to be clear, these are our two options
>a physical process explains where humans came from
>a omnipotent man with a beard who transcends the fabric of the universe constructed humans

Pic related. Perfect example of a flaw that would arise in evolution, but it makes much less sense God would deliberately do it.

If you would afford me this last opinion, evolution is less of a theory and more of an inevitability

What am I looking at here?

This book will make you feel good about rejecting scientific data that conflicts with your personal beliefs. It was written by a PhD guy after all.

What am I looking at ? I'm not into biology.

>the politically incorrect "annoy progressives" meme was started by classical liberals a la Sargon of Akkad who wanted to fight back at the clearly regressive culture of anti free speech "politically correct" "liberals".
>then it was co-opted by low IQ conservatives using the movement and shoving into it white genocide
>now co-opted by even lower IQ christians who in the current year still believe a magic man created the universe

I want off the ride. Allying myself with the alt-right? Sure, no problem. But having to share a seat with a fucking mouth breathing christian? Nope, fuck you.

politics are fickle. 10 years from now it is a completely different sphere
Laws of nature are eternal.

>"buy this book!" - Ann Coulter
How do people who are both religious and racist reconcile their racial theories with intelligent design? Do they think God just made blacks less intelligent because he wanted them to be a slave race, or something?

>but I have no problem with that.
if you dont then you're not a scientist at all.

>Do they think God just made blacks less intelligent because he wanted them to be a slave race, or something?

Quite literally yes. I've also seen it claimed that black skin is actually the mark of Cain, so it's perfectly fine to use blacks, since God clearly hates Cains decedents.

Has it occurred to them that, by their logic, whites were made by God to be slaves to the Jews?

>muh Jeezus

So White Jesus's plan all along was to free whites from Jewish domination, despite being Jewish and stating himself that he came to fulfill the old testament, not break with it? Really makes the neurons fire.

Yes; there is some truth to many of these.

1. We are, in reality, missing multiple links along the ape-to-man chain. People have such a need to confirm the trend that history has been riddled with hoaxes and fake attempts to insert these links.

2. There are groups in both hard and soft sciences (including people who are famous in their respective fields) which conclude the plausibility of intelligent design. Some schools of thought actually use phenomena like natural selection and adaptation to support their assertions.

3. This one probably isn't posed specifically enough to really hold much weight. Some public schools with lesser funding use textbooks with references to some of the hoaxes referred to in (1), but most better public schools use updated textbooks.

4. This is true. For example, I can name at least one distinguished faculty member at Stanford who believes this.

5. Don't know about this one, but it seems reasonable.

>riddled
How many is that?

A man's dick and balls. In every man the left ball goes up and around another tube for no reason before attaching to the dick.

Intelligent Design has no hypothesis, therefore it's not science, dummies.

>intelligent design
>man has nipples

nice try, christian fags.

I think at least 3? The ones that I know of are the Nebraska man, Piltdown man, and the Java man. Most creationists know of these, as do most evolutionists who make a habit of arguing with creationists, and there is a varying degree of damage control able to be done on all of these. I think only the second was the only genuine fraud (as in the person who tried to present the findings was aware that they weren't genuine); the other two would perhaps more accurately be called false flags.

It's also important to note that we don't actually have a fossil record indicating divergence between chimps and hominids, and this evidence is strictly required to assert that we developed from apes. That said divergence occurred through evolutionary processes over time (as in without the assistance of some form of intelligent design or external force) is purely conjecture.

Observation: I note observable order in the universe.
Hypothesis: I suppose some intelligent agent designed the universe.

I now proceed to attempt to definitively refute or substantiate my hypothesis.

This is science, even according to the most basic definition.

>can't intelligently design a hierarchy of living things, including a subgroup which has nipples

If this is the barrier preventing you from considering intelligent design, I can only imagine how deficient you are in other creative pursuits.

How is the "missing link" an argument? There are plenty of species were there are no missing links and no frauds and can therefore serve as evidence for evolution theory (for example the horse). Evolution theory isn't only for humans, it's for all animals.

3 is hardly "riddled"

>For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it.

The missing link is an issue when it comes to the claim that humans developed from apes; we need the link to confirm a continuous chain.

I'm not, that's right ;^)

My knowledge of specific examples isn't the bottleneck of the number that exist; rather, it's a lower bound. Feel free to search for other examples, but the point still stands that the fossil record is tainted by confirmation bias.

If evolution can be proved for one species it is proven for all species.

"Riddled" is an overstatement, that's my only point. Compare this with archeology - this one is riddled with fakes.

That is demonstrably false using elementary logic. That there exists x with property P does not imply for all x P.

In this specific case, without a link from the earliest human ancestor to apes, it is possible that the earliest hominid was created by some external force separate from the evolutionary chains of all species.

If you apply it to science all our theories go out the window.

First you make an observation on a big sample and form a theory that predicts more samples. Then you say it's right until proven wrong and base everything around it since you're unable to test an infinite amount of samples.

I still don't get why would intelligent design prove the biblical God.

Which would still mean that evolutionary theory is correct. Just because humans can create glowing fishies doesn't mean evolution theory suddenly isn't correct anymore.