Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

wande-

I wasn't being sarcastic at all.I merely linked two observations.

Soylent Green ,in the movie,is reprocessed human flesh used as a valuable protein source.What possible objection to that could an SDer have.A corpse is a thing isn't it?

There's a thread about eating human flesh.

0 Replies

You might be a socialite
With a long string of pearls...

spendie
You seem settled on the presumption that morality arrives only via injection from the supernatural (who is gosh darn benevolent, too). It's an odd notion. Agape versus animal perhaps. I see no good or compelling reason to consider the notion in any sense true and rather a lot of reasons to consider it merely the skeleton of aged social control duplicities - which provided/provide those few winners in the setup with all the best perks.

0 Replies

Bernie wrote-

Quote:

spendie
You seem settled on the presumption that morality arrives only via injection from the supernatural (who is gosh darn benevolent, too).

That is incorrect.I hold no brief for the supernatural except for the social effects of a belief in such a thing the idiocy of which I consider neither here nor there.And I would contrast this with the social effects I think will automatically follow from no such belief being held by anybody.An element I am unable to get across to most threaders.I see no possibilty of morality in a pure scientific system;only rules being enforced by fear.I have explained the weakness of conditioning by pleasure somewhere recently.

It was the economic and social conditions of the past that were not very benevolent and you are acribing the horrors to a belief in the supernatural.One might just as easily have blamed cod pieces.

It takes something of a mental crisis to pass from a culture of belief to a pure SD state and while you or I may be up for that I don't think most people are.And there are no half way SD states of mind.They are mere poses which Hoffie is at pains to point out regarding intellectual poseurs.Not everyone has your refined intelligence and mental toughness.Pure SD is a fierce position and I think it has only totalitarian possibilities.
Maybe that is a natural feature of the end times.Spengler thought so and only saved himself from the charge of pessimism by positing a "second religiousness".

It is basic in human nature to fear unknown,inexplicable forces and to try to control those fears by inventing deities.And I tend to favour an agreed deity rather than thousands of wierd cults each with bands of fanatical followers.

I agree my position is elitist.I'm also in a rush.

0 Replies

The compositional disaster wrote:

I agree my position is elitist.

I've never been able to understand why people support groups which by definition would exclude them. Rather like a conservative, black Republican . . .

0 Replies

Quote:

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

It's not falsifiable, thus NOT science. Science works on a very basic idea, namely: you HAVE to be able to proof or disproof a theory. If I come up with a theory which can't be proven or disproven, it is NOT science. It's devising. E.g.: "'before' the Big Bang, giants lived in a utopia in our mother-galaxy!"

Could be, but you cannot ever proof or disproof this theory. Therefore it's not scientific, but fantasy. Just like the Intelligent Design-"theory". Science is investigating nature by observing and reasoning; fantasizing about ID is neither.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

That is incorrect.I hold no brief for the supernatural except for the social effects of a belief in such a thing the idiocy of which I consider neither here nor there.And I would contrast this with the social effects I think will automatically follow from no such belief being held by anybody.An element I am unable to get across to most threaders.I see no possibilty of morality in a pure scientific system;only rules being enforced by fear.I have explained the weakness of conditioning by pleasure somewhere recently.

I agree that no morality would, or could, exist within a scientific account of reality. What makes you think that a system of morality could not coexist with a scientific account of reality, though as a separate entity?

Atheists in general do not seem less ethical to me than do most theists, do your experiences differ?

And, if you do not buy into this ID tripe, only advocate it for what you expect to be its side effects, why do you persist with the "SD" nonsense?

spendius wrote:

It was the economic and social conditions of the past that were not very benevolent and you are ascribing the horrors to a belief in the supernatural.One might just as easily have blamed cod pieces.

The economic and social conditions of said past seem to me to be a function of widespread ignorance (not developing technology), and social subjugation, both of which would appear to be exacerbated by religion. Do you not agree?

Edit: Don't bother answering to the above, it will just detract from what I am interested in hearing.

spendius wrote:

It takes something of a mental crisis to pass from a culture of belief to a pure SD state and while you or I may be up for that I don't think most people are.And there are no half way SD states of mind.They are mere poses which Hoffie is at pains to point out regarding intellectual poseurs.Not everyone has your refined intelligence and mental toughness.Pure SD is a fierce position and I think it has only totalitarian possibilities.

Living in Norway, where evolution is all but universally accepted, I feel compelled to ask, when did we go trough this "mental crisis"? How about Britain?

spendius wrote:

It is basic in human nature to fear unknown,inexplicable forces and to try to control those fears by inventing deities.And I tend to favour an agreed deity rather than thousands of wierd cults each with bands of fanatical followers.

I see what you are saying, but I'm not sure that I agree. I don't really think that the lack of a religious infestation makes society less resilient to systems of idiotic memes, rather I think that applied reason would make for a better deterrent.

spendius wrote:

I agree my position is elitist.I'm also in a rush.

I have no problem with the elitist angle, but I'm still not on the same page as you regarding many of your points.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote-

Quote:

The compositional disaster wrote:

I am a willing learner so could you possibly explain the faults in the composition I offered in answer to blatham's post.The character of the composition is unrelated to the content unless I have allowed internal contradictions to appear.

0 Replies

A little gift, related to the earlier 'winged' post...

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/usr/articles_pictures/Intellectuals_Blackburn.gif

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Bernie wrote-

Quote:
spendie
You seem settled on the presumption that morality arrives only via injection from the supernatural (who is gosh darn benevolent, too).

That is incorrect.I hold no brief for the supernatural except for the social effects of a belief in such a thing the idiocy of which I consider neither here nor there.And I would contrast this with the social effects I think will automatically follow from no such belief being held by anybody.An element I am unable to get across to most threaders.I see no possibilty of morality in a pure scientific system;only rules being enforced by fear.I have explained the weakness of conditioning by pleasure somewhere recently.

It was the economic and social conditions of the past that were not very benevolent and you are acribing the horrors to a belief in the supernatural.One might just as easily have blamed cod pieces.

It takes something of a mental crisis to pass from a culture of belief to a pure SD state and while you or I may be up for that I don't think most people are.And there are no half way SD states of mind.They are mere poses which Hoffie is at pains to point out regarding intellectual poseurs.Not everyone has your refined intelligence and mental toughness.Pure SD is a fierce position and I think it has only totalitarian possibilities.
Maybe that is a natural feature of the end times.Spengler thought so and only saved himself from the charge of pessimism by positing a "second religiousness".

It is basic in human nature to fear unknown,inexplicable forces and to try to control those fears by inventing deities.And I tend to favour an agreed deity rather than thousands of wierd cults each with bands of fanatical followers.

I agree my position is elitist.I'm also in a rush.

spendie

I'm sorry. You likely made this clarification earlier but I haven't been following the thread comments with any consistency for several months.

I have to zip away now, but I'll come back later and speak to your argument. It's a compelling rationale, but I think I cannot join you in most of it.

0 Replies

Einherjar wrote-

Quote:

What makes you think that a system of morality could not coexist with a scientific account of reality, though as a separate entity?

I think it can.I think it does in fact.But it must be an uneasy alliance.That is shown by restrictions on certain types of research.But absolute positions can't co-exist.That is what voters settle in the end.The Dover Board was elected.If the Board voted for the three paragraphs that was the end of it for me.Now they have been thrown out we'll have to wait and see.If anybody comes to court challenging the new board's decisions,whatever they are,I would see them as troublemakers possibly with a secret agenda.

Quote:

Atheists in general do not seem less ethical to me than do most theists, do your experiences differ?

This subject never rises above the parapet here but I would say that aetheists probably contain a religious cultural baggage.Which is to suggest they are confused about the logic of aetheism.You might be confusing a posture of aetheism with aetheism itself as Hofstadter suggests a confusion with a posture of intellectualism with actual intellectualism.

Quote:

And, if you do not buy into this ID tripe, only advocate it for what you expect to be its side effects, why do you persist with the "SD" nonsense?

I'm sorry.I'm not sure what this means.

Quote:

The economic and social conditions of said past seem to me to be a function of widespread ignorance (not developing technology), and social subjugation, both of which would appear to be exacerbated by religion. Do you not agree?

Yes,I do agree.But that doesn't mean that a religious view necessarily exacerbates the situation now.We do have a fair degree of widespread ignorance now and also no small quantity of subjugation.

Quote:

Living in Norway, where evolution is all but universally accepted, I feel compelled to ask, when did we go through this "mental crisis"? How about Britain?

I was meaning individually.Some call it a spiritual crisis.I have seen people torn apart by it.I'm not sure I would wish to apply the idea collectively.I'm afraid I know little about Norway apart from a vague sense that it is one of the few countries I could be tempted to visit but I would guess that people think of themselves as being evolutionists only whilst thinking of evolution as an idea.When thinking of love or marriage or funerals or births I feel they may react differently from what would be expected of a flat out evolutionist.But I don't know.
In science love is a mere chemical response without any possible meaning.One would love a woman as one would love a steak or a warm fire.

Quote:

I see what you are saying, but I'm not sure that I agree. I don't really think that the lack of a religious infestation makes society less resilient to systems of idiotic memes, rather I think that applied reason would make for a better deterrent.

Yes,possibly,but using only fear of punishment and in the end mass terror induced discipline until such time,maybe,that chemical or surgical control becomes more efficient.And who's applied reason would you apply?

Phew!

Good luck.(Hey spendi-luck!!!!That's IDing all the way to the stars.)

0 Replies

Quote:

The Dover Board was elected.If the Board voted for the three paragraphs that was the end of it for me.Now they have been thrown out we'll have to wait and see.If anybody comes to court challenging the new board's decisions,whatever they are,I would see them as troublemakers possibly with a secret agenda.

spendius,

The Dover Board members acted against the wishes of the science teachers at that school. The elected board members have no expertise in science. The teachers and parents were justified in opposing these board members. The newly elected board members have already stated that they will rely on the advice of the science teachers before making any science curriculum changes.

0 Replies

wande-

Then what is the Board for then?Isn't it in existence for the precise reason to prevent unelected professionals from making administrative decisions without any reference to electors.Under the terms you describe who is responsible to the voters (taxpayers) for expenses run up by science teachers?If it is not the teachers then we have a classic case of power without responsibility.

0 Replies

spendi. You dont get it. A school board is there to interpret the state ed board curricular guidelines and meet them. The school board also is an applied admin (admin in the sense of "do we have 3 bids to buy enough pencils")

School boards are particular go betweens between the public and the operation of the school. They are constantly challenged by the citizenry. Here we have had an example of "Sweep the bums out"
Now, Im not so naive to think that all the votes cast against the ID favoring board were merely for the reasons of intellectual honesty and upholding the constitution. Ill wager a toony that most people were just "sticker shocked" by the cost that the recent trial will plop into the taxpayers lapsr. AND, if the other side wins, the Dover district is responsible for ALL costs of the trial. However, if the same board were to be retained, then theres no guarantee that the case wouldnt be appealed. "Follow the money"

SPENDIUS THEN SAID

'Under the terms you describe who is responsible to the voters (taxpayers) for expenses run up by science teachers?If it is not the teachers then we have a classic case of power without responsibility'

What expenses are you expecting?? The addition of the ID statement, added a new series of textbooks, time for these cockamamie "workshops" that were presented by the Discovery Institute AND , dont forget the whole casethat was brought up by a "Certified class" under the rules of our court system.
Just because we elect a schoolboard once, and then they divert from their oaths by trying to push their own personal agendas (ID), you think they should be blindly followed until the next election?
Maybe thats the way the UK operates but thats why we kicked you guys out of the "Colonies" centuries ago. Questioning authority is an art in USA. It usually starts small and then gathers momentum as others see the light.

0 Replies

farmerman,

The state of Kansas will have a new election for state board of education members in 2006. Do you think the Kansas election will have a result similar to the Dover election?

0 Replies

Okay fm.I know I'm dumb.There's no need to keep harping on about it.But don't try it on me that its your wonderful brains or your wonderful constitution.It's finding an empty rich continent to play with that did it and plenty of room to play in.And two big wide oceans and a narrow isthmus and a polar ice cap for protection.Everybody knows that.All you had to do was breed and that's not difficult is it.Oh-I nearly forgot-and European know how which we did from scratch.

Right.Now.Have the voters voted to tell the judge that they should lose the case and to put it down to experience that they voted a number of wallies in last time.How much does the money come to.Just a guesstimate will do.

BTW.I always follow the money.Cardinal rule.That's one down from The Pope.

0 Replies

fm-

Have you got a soft emotional empathy with teachers using the word in its widest possible implications.

Sders don't have soft spots you know.Absolutely not.Unless they are only pretending in front of a mirror.

0 Replies

Please, just this once, Ive still not cauight on what the hell an SDer is? you seem to have a penchant for neologisms that only you (and noone else can understand) Some places call that a problem and a cry for help.

Yeh, in this case I have a "soft spot" for teachers because they had NOTHING to do with the entire ID fiasco. They, having given their input at facuty workshops< for the most part, refused to teach the silly concept . The board passed it but only a few teachers followed because the Teachers Union is stronger than the NRA in Pennsylvania (It is the second largest Pa lobby after the Homebuilders Association) NRA is third cause Pa is never in doubt, it probably has among the most licensed hunters per capita of any of the states.

I believe the entire trial cost will be in the 2 to 5 million dollar range. (Including all time accounting for pro-bono by the ACLU, and "volunteers"). Most witnesses were compensated. And the judge in a mobile circuit makes about 97K a year (theyre retired judges) so he cost about 40K for the 22 weeks on the case, plus expenses and clerks and hisown "Daubert" scientists

0 Replies

Quote:

It was the economic and social conditions of the past that were not very benevolent and you are acribing the horrors to a belief in the supernatural.One might just as easily have blamed cod pieces.

Let's start here. I do not belong to that club which takes as a given that the big bad things in the past occured as a consequence of religious faith and that if faith were removed from human thought then all would be peaceful. On the other hand, I would very happily replace Augustine, Savonarola, Urban II and Jerry Falwell with an equal number of cod pieces.

Human groups (families, societies, nations, etc) organize themselves in various ways but a commonly held "worldview" is always part of what ties them together and defines them. Notions of right/wrong, good/bad, sacred/profane are part of the social universe each child is born into regardless if that is an animist preliterate tribe or a Mafia family or a hippy commune. Moral notions are an absolutely unavoidable part of human social existence. It may also be the case that notions of the supernatural are an unavoidable consequence of human psychology (though I doubt it, in any strong sense at least) but the two phenomena are not the same. "God" and moral notions don't have to march together. That they commonly do ought not to surprise. God and national notions often march together as well.

Quote:

I see no possibilty of morality in a pure scientific system;only rules being enforced by fear.

I see no possibility of a "pure scientific system" and cannot even imagine such a thing. We are stuck with moral consciousness as human creatures. So whether "rules enforced by fear" describes some social situation can't be attributed to what you attribute it to, but to something other. And we certainly do know that the phrase appropriately describes much in judeo-christian history.

If science and faith stand inevitably in opposition (I don't think that is so, except as regards certain understandings of what 'faith' is or means) then they do. Tough luck for perfect equanimity. Just one more conflict in the matters of human existence.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

If science and faith stand inevitably in opposition (I don't think that is so, except as regards certain understandings of what 'faith' is or means) then they do. Tough luck for perfect equanimity. Just one more conflict in the matters of human existence.

Why would science stand in opposition to faith any more than mathematics would stand in opposition to faith?

Science is just a methodology which leads to certain conclusions. So is math.

If someone has a moral objection to the fact that five plus three equals eight, we wouldn't say that math stood in opposition to faith would we? But if someone draws an unconfortable moral conclusion from the fact that the Earth is billions of years old instead of thousands of years, then we start hearing that science stands in opposition to faith. Why is that?

0 Replies

I think the problem occurs when people want to have faith in something that is logically contradicted!

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know