Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Wow, this topic has lain torpid for, seemingly, several years and now seems to have zombied up to the plate.

Bills concern is valid in that Intelligent Design is purely a religious based worldview. That's all that hes said, from my reading, and,, As such, its not welcome to be taught AS SCIENCE in public schools science curricula. Youre entire discussion about whether there are, (or aren't) gods flitting about is foreign to the scientific method . Since any " value addition of gods" is NOT something that can either be tested or predicted. Therefore, it really has no basis in any system born of facts and evidence, that's all I think hes saying .

If you strongly believe in gods and therefore intelligent design, go for it. Just be aware that your bounds of freedom to sell your worldview end at my doorstep and the science departments of my school district (and public college or university)>
Its interesting that most most all religious based colleges and universities (with an exception of a precious few who are, for the most part, not even accredited to offer degrees in biology or geology or chemistry), teach their biology pretty much "god -free". Catholic colleges and universities sometimes pray to their chosen deities for guidance when they open their classes but keep them out of the curriculum syllabus for the duration of the semester.

For most of the major Christianity sects,Their "personal" god is transcendent of the whole base experience and evidence of science so the "Scientific" arguments of ID would get in the way of actual scientific research. After all, what would your direction of study be after writing on the blackboard that "Then a miracle happens"? Classes would be dismissed and everyone would begin shaking their beads.
Therefore, as a species loaded with innate curiosity, we need to dismiss the added assistance of gods in our sciences. That's all that Bill wants you to understand.

Bill is just calling your bluff by asking you to come up with any tracks by which your ID can be tested , predicted, or evidenced. So far, no one has been able to , so therefore , most of us don't want to waste any valuable class time on trying to validate the concept and even prove what the hell "Irreducible Complexity" even means. Im sure there are kids who, after biology class is over , go to a coffee house and expound on their own delvings into Transcendentalism, mostly because , again as a species, we need intellectual pursuits, but we also would really "Feel a lot better" suspecting that theres a Galactic "chain of command" in effect, and this Supreme organizer has been responsible for a set of rules of conduct.
Its philosophically difficult suspecting that we are the mere products of random bondings of molecules and dumb luck. I know that I spent a lot of time in my youth accepting this and therefore separating myself from the practices and tributes demanded by the choreographed and orchestrated worship of gods. If everyone were so disposed as many of us herein are, I would suspect that the entire lively hoods of priests and bishops would get called into question by a more sophisticated and scientifically astute laity.
Why we , then, would all have to quickly become much better versed in the concepts of "natural law".

You may now get back to your original debate . Just remember that this topic had a totally different basis of being. It was originally concerned whether or not a belief in ID could honestly be taught as science in a public schools. SInce the time that this thread was born,(in 2003) the US district court system(in 2005) and underpinned by a series of decisions by the US Supreme Court , had decided on this entire argument.(hint: ID had a very bad week)

ID, simply stated, IS a religious belief system and is not even remotely to be considered science. and our courts have repeatedly reminded us that it actually says so in our Constitution in the very first amendment of what we affectionately call our "Bill of Rights".
Consequently, we can discuss ths to our hearts content and Frank, you can go all out in demonstrating how superior your worldview remains. All I wish to remind you is that, should you walk into a high school biology class and try to, as a teacher, remand your worldview for further consideration as a SCIENCE subject, youll be told to knock it off.

SO, Im gonna say that youre probably ok here on A2K and you can have your fun with everyone. Im gonna go have a bagel and some Nutella

One of the hilarious aspects of the IDiots is their steadfast refusal to mention god. You can get them spluttering and dancing just by asking them who the intelligent designer is. The savvy ones just say they don't know. But they absolutely will not mention god. "I didn't say anything about god--hey Bob, did you mention god?" "Not me, Boss, i never said anything about god."

I should think not. What does it have to do with God? It is 100% practical politics in one area of the world at this particular time. What else might it be?

What Setanta steadfastly refuses to mention is the practical politics of his alternatives if he has any. We might discuss those without becoming ludicrous which is what we become when God is brought into it.

I think that the Discovery Institute has thrown off its cloak (or its lab coat) and is no longer convincing us all that they are "really a science institution" with "valid scientific findings worthy of publication in main stream journals". They really haven't come up with anything besides irreducible complexity and specified information . All of that stuff is about 15 years old and all the promised research results from their "principal scientists" has gone unwritten.

I know that they capitulated on many scientific findings but have always stated that these findings on apparent evolution were "all plans [of the Universal Intelligence "

Yet no one can add anything more concrete. Ill bet those guys are really frustrated

Why as they are successfully ripping off millions a year from the religion far right.

Must better then needing to do something useful to earn a living at unless you consider giving talking points to the religion fundamentalists a useful exercise.

Im just assuming that, since the Discovery Institute is largely funded by single family, the "Institute" is safe from an awakening laity for a generation or two.

However, I really believe that these guys who work therein are strongly convinced of their worldviews. I don't think they see themselves as "ripping off" their constituency.
Even Im not that cynical.

I am however.........

So am I.

fm, great post, one that rights a badly listing ship.

I have quit discussing religion with Frank; it's a complete waste of time. His world view is based on "I know what I'm talking about," while at the same time he tells everybody "he can only guess." These simple contradictions are difficult, if not impossible, to rationalize in anybody who thinks like Frank. Like I said, it's a waste of time.

Good post, farmerman, but it'll go way above the head of Frank.

But I also don't see it as a rip off. The funding is an investment. It's a pyramid.

I think the basic business insight was that Americans will not buy into atheism and will be looking for a religion which allows them to imagine that they are not atheists whilst also not necessarily having to adhere to the moral strictures of the Catholic Church, particularly the ones pertaining to rumpy-pumpy, the rest being already civil law, more or less. The origins of another sect, a successful one, lie between Henry VIII's bedsheets. Even Simple Simon knew that. Luther married a nun as soon as the Pope was declared null and void. No doubt a very chaste and pretty one: the aptly named Katharina von Bora.

A very attractive notion really. That's why it has been so popular throughout history. Heresy after tiresome heresy all with a sexual core.

What matters is being able to sell it in competition with other like-minded institutions and wannabees. Such as the Satanists or the Voodoo Triangle.

Success allows that the First In, the Beatified, become the occupiers of the High Command after having pondered alternatives to popes, cardinals, arch-bishops, bishops, priests and the rag,tag and bobtail of the residue. (The Faithful).

As a business plan no true American can possibly disapprove. And, like all true science, suck it and see will be the instrument by which it is measured. There are a few American "religions" established in England.

As the word "religion" originates from the idea of unity the very fact that these "religions" compete with each other on the borderlines of the social niches they principally cater to, or pander to, where the seductive Satanic songs of Softness are sung, it is impossible to consider them religions at all. By unity I mean an agreed consensus among all sections of society.

The logic of this is that those who seek to undermine this new sprouting in the west of the USA are driving all those who need not to be atheists back into the welcoming folds of the only true Church which knows how to pull off such a stupendous feat as the Discovery Institute is attempting and which does not aim at any niches in the market place. Or hasn't been doing until recently.

Mailer taught me to be suspicious of every good idea which begins in the USA.

Mailer taught me to be suspicious of every good idea which begins in the USA.

Thanks for a good early morning chortle, spendi. Of course atheism and Darwin are not necessarily American in origin.

The Discovery Institute is the subject ed. An upstart "religion" seeking to make its way in the world. Futuristic. It's very title is futuristic.

It is probably the recession which has taken the wind out of its sails. And it has made its name very well known. I don't suppose any educated American has never heard of it. Before Dover there were probably a large number who hadn't.

These things don't move at the pace that welding a bumper on does.

The ideas of the institute are not exclusive to America. Maybe the infrastructure.

AN ENTIRE "MOVEMENT" WAS DISASSEMBLED A BIT WHEN "CREATIONISTS" became "DESIGN PROPONENTS" but the word in the book was left as "CDESIGN PROPONENTSISTS"

This article from Wikipedia on "Mistakes in "Of Pandas and PEople"



If any ONE piece of testimony became the "smoking gun" against Inetlligent Design as a "SCIENCE" in the Kitzmiller v Dover case. It was this. It was also a source of much laughing in court.
Ill bet someobody at the Discovery Institute got yelled at. I wonder hether that's why Michael Behe isn't on their board anymore

They're overlooking the whole concept of evolutionary theory.

New forms of bacteria are created almost every second; it's called evolution, not creationism.

You are very determined to miss the point fm.

How on earth are these American "religions" so firmly identified with the class structure if they are not business propositions.

If you are going to blather on about the unscientific claims of business propositions you have a large task in front of you.

You're out to get Religion for certain reasons. The DI is a particularly soft target, a sitting duck, and you think in potting it you have potted Religion and you haven't laid a finger on it.

You might as well try to push Mt Rushmore over.

The DI will stand or fall on its market penetration.

If there was no laughing at the comparison of the flagella to a foot pump then the court had a very strange sense of humour. That's belly laugh ****. Other sorts of laughter are easily faked.

Your whole composition is a fake; it says absolutely nothing.

That says nothing.

spendi writes from grub street. He tries, he just misses the beachballs and tries his hand at swatting the knuckleballs.