Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

But you can't bring yourself to actually write it down and publish it in A2K?

I made a typo. Sorry. I meant--

Chattering Classes, Dover and district Hotels, Restaurants, Equal Opportunity Prostitutes, Bar owners, Barbers, Out of Town Lawyers, Dry Cleaning emporia, Car Hire firms etc etc+10/ Taxpayers --10.

Which side you are on depends on whether you a budget scoffer or a budget producer. Or should be if you have had even a half-baked education.

I strongly suspect that most A2Kers are budget scoffing machines. Or, to put it more discreetly, on the demand side of the aisle rather than the supply side. An Achilles Heel when budget scoffing has no limits once it goes critical. i.e. can outvote the rest. Like in an avalanche.

Can't bring myself to actually write what down? Publish what?

Was it not that the moon might be made of orange juice?

Why not dog ****? hinge is so, so bourgeoise. He picks out orange juice from all the other things the moon might be made of.

You can tell he hasn't read Rabelais.

That it's possible the moon is made of orange juice.

First you pose an untesteable and unfalsifiable statement of the existence of something that requires a position of faith (something you yourself deny).n Then that first statement is proposed as " proof of existence" of a second, similarly unfalsifiable, dependent statement.
Your attempt at an argument kind of comes from the same root as "diseases are caused by evil spirits"

1 We all know that evil spirits exist

2. Therefore diseases are caused by evil spirits

Did I recall that you said you had a brother who is or was a priest? This sounds like an argument that would satisfy first generation immigrants raised in a voodoo tradition.

The thread you've "captured' was one where several had attempted to apply the "rules" of what is or is not science.

You've kind of mucked that up and Im just calling you out on that.

Even though this isn't a public school class
try to "Knock it off"

I just call it "argumentum ad nauseum." It's neither here nor there. That's "if"....that he wants others to answer for him.

I have not posed anything of the sort. I made a statement...and I have not suggested anything be taught in any classrooms.

My statement is: IF there is the possibility of a GOD...then there is the possibility of intelligent design.

If you can refute that statement...do so.

I really haven't asked anyone to answer anything for me. I made a statement...and if anyone wants to refute the statement...they can.

Well, ya got me Frank. I am unable to refute (or support) nonsensical statements like that. Its totally untestable and its unfalsifiable. Congratulations you've attained the rarely attainable "Double Whammy of Twaddle"

Exactly what I'm saying about the orange juiciness of the moon. Come on Frank put it in writing on A2K....

It is possible the moon is made of orange juice.

The point was put to the thread by me in its first days of existence. It was put this way... That it is impossible to prove that there is a God and it is impossible to prove that there isn't. A scientific law.

Therefore, mankind being what it is, a competition arises between various types of rhetoric in which the most successful is deemed right. In such a competition anything is considered "fair".

History shouts that the "no god" rhetoric did not make the play-offs and the competition resolved itself into the nature of the god/s. And is still going on. The nature of the god/s being an important factor in how the society conducted itself and the methods of organisation resulting were pitted against other notions and the true nature of the god/s declared to be that of the winner. Whether the god/s was male or female or an equal opportunities arrangement was the first major difference to be settled.

Obviously geographical conditions were also a major factor. Well-watered fertile plains, deserts, ice, vegetation, mountains, etc, etc, and adaptations were adopted of the nature of the god/s which were tested in the range of conditions the earth provides.

The most extreme example I know of is the periodic waxing and waning of Isis worship in Ancient Rome(and people don't worship what they don't believe in). The Roman toleration of all sorts of religious opinions and practices was severely tested by the Isis cult. The details are too sordid for A2K. Suffice to say that when the Isis Temple was open and well patronised things became insupportable and it was proscribed. Pressure was exerted, probably in pillow talk, to reopen it and after a few alternations on the scientific principle of "suck it and see" it was proscribed permanently. In Rome I mean. It certainly isn't dead as you will possibly be aware if you watch Fox News.

The Babylonians solved the problem by having Marduk, "the solar hero" defeat Tiamat, the "irrational power of the primordial age and of the creative unconscious" as Erich Neumann called her, and consign her to the underworld for six months after which she was released to rule until Marduk was needed again. A supposedly annual event.

Earlier than that we were getting nowhere. It really was nasty, short and brutish. It was 2 million years of matriarchy as the cave paintings demonstrate to anybody who can understand graffiti. A veil was drawn over it in the Bible. In my opinion justly so. I have no arguments to say it was unjust.

Obviously that is but a minuscule glimpse into this complex field of human operations. There have been many thousands of gods and religions. Somebody, who I assume had time weighing heavily on his hands, has counted over 30,000 gods in the Pagan world alone which, as you possibly know, resulted in exhaustion, confusion and defeat although, like recurrences of rare genetic freaks, is not eliminated and can be assumed to be ready to spring back into life if not strictly controlled.

Our playful superstitions, such as avoiding taking a foxglove into a house or on board a ship, are examples of the survivals out of the historical pseudomorphosis. Whether fm would make a bee line for the docks if he saw an albatross perched on his motorised radar dish I don't know.

It is an eminently practical affair concerning the economic and military arrangements, insofar as those might be differentiated, and the winner's god/s are seen as facts.

Once god/s become established they give rise to a power structure and that structure becomes another important factor. I see that as the main problem in the middle east and elsewhere. The educated, urban young want to adopt our God and the old guard is resisting in defence of the power structure they enjoy.

It is a moot point whether the power structures derive from god/s or god/s derive from power structures.

Considering you are a skint high handicap golfer living in a nondescript pad in New Jersey, one of millions like it, your having a firm view on these matters is quite ludicrous although very good fun. Your repetitive mantra is a recipe for doing nothing. Confucius dealt with it when he said that he who sits in middle of road gets run over by traffic going in both directions.

As not a single one of the above very vague considerations apply in the world of other organisms there seems no reason that I can see to prepare the coming generations with what are most likely to be incoherent presentations of the Darwinist persuasion, with added unscientific asides, as a method of introducing them to their roles in society. That persuasion is as easy to understand as is the card game Snap although research into its beneficial applications might be worthwhile in the hands of a few experts who can be guaranteed to mystify the process in the time honoured manner of all weavers of the winds in the pursuit of power and influence despite not a single one of them daring to apply its principles in their personal lives and becoming highly indignant if they meet anybody who does.

And there is the lingerie problem to consider as well.

The original purpose of this thread , and I hope something that the progenitors of the "gods no gods" bullshit would understand" was to enlighten the discussion about whether any science could be wrung out of the Intelligent Dsign "Wedge strategy" and the foundation statements of the Ahmanson club(the Discovry Institute). While the stuff spendi promotes may be interesting and the stuff that Frank promotes is entertaining, it is all pointless to this original discussion.
Frank and Spendi feel they have the right to deviate from the original topic and to blindly disprove the entire point of "religion is not the point of ID" by actually MAKING their arguments prove that ID IS and always was a religious POV. I then, too have a right to scold them and remind them that they've helped the argument immensely.
SO, in a sense, I must be grateful to both spendi and frank, who, in their blindness, have clearly shown us that Intelligent Design cannot be taught as science in a public school in the US.

Spendi, you can return to your self congratulatory BS , and Frank, you can continue being the master of the nonsensical argument.

Here's your statement from the previous page.


You want others to prove your double negative; it can't be done. Argumentum ad nauseum. You can't see how foolish you look by demanding others to prove what you yourself can't prove.

Not sure of why you consider my statement to be nonsensical, Farmerman, but I suspect it is because you cannot refute it.

IF there is the possibility of a GOD...there is the possibility of intelligent design.

Nothing nonsensical about that.

Thank you for discussing this with me.

I HAVE NOT ASKED ANYONE TO PROVE ANYTHING TO ME.

I am saying that if there is the possibility of a GOD...there is the possibility of intelligent design.

The only logical way to assert there is no possibility of intelligent design...is to first assert there is no possibility of a GOD.

If you see anything wrong with my reasoning...bring it out.

There is no "double negative" involved here.

As Farmerman has pointed out, the topic here is whether or not so-called "intelligent design theory" is science or religion. If one is going to babble on about god, then clearly it must be religion. However, if anyone attempts to assert that it's science, they assume a burden of proof. No proof, no cigar.

Once more for the million times ID is not a scientific theory and does not belong in a science classroom.

mmmmmmnumnumn!!



That's the first post on this thread. It says nothing about Intelligent Design "Wedge strategy" and the foundation statements of the Ahmanson club(the Discovry Institute). The key words are in lower case denoting an idea.

There is nothing pointless in any of my posts regarding wande's questions. . Not even the Footballer's Wives posts. The difficulty is in the subtlety of my argument and the gumpiness of your comprehension. I have deviated from the topic not a jot except for some joshing side banter from time to time.

It is you who have deviated in going from "intelligent design" to "Intelligent Design" by which you mean a thing with a proper name.

Unless the ID movement, a business operation as I explained in the simplest terms, with no response, is following my line of reasoning it has not an ounce of science to its name. If it is then it can claim scientific credibility. I support its aim of putting scientific materialism back in its box. It is presumably using the wrong measures because it feels it cannot explain the correct ones for various understandable reasons associated with the tender sensibilities of the fair ones.

I consulted 6 different academic tomes in composing the post you are rabbiting about. I don't think it contained any assertions. I hope not. Your post is splattered with them. As usual.

It is a funny old thread for "experts" when posts are labelled "self congratulatory BS " in lieu of answering them. Especially a science thread.

I see you have some up thumbs from like-minded gumps. I hope they are well greased.

Do you or don't you accept contributors to this discussion refusing to expose themselves to the position of the main man on the other side of the table?

If I was caught doing such a jejune thing I would be mortified. They are an embarrassment to A2K.