Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Did I mention it's possible the moon is made of orange juice?

Sounds familiar, but ..... maybe it needs repeating for some to comprehend its meaning.

If it is, it's frozen orange juice, not fresh.

You did actually hinge but we all, I assume, think it is code for making a noise while having nothing to say.

Freud might have speculated that your Mama was too understanding of you banging on a pan with a baking spoon all ******* afternoon.

No chance pressure generated by gravity would raise the temperature above freezing point?

Like the poles on this planet?

telegraph poles?

I'm disappointed you felt the need to make fun of a respected member of the European community CI

Mine was really a question. Wasn't it?

In a parenthesis in Prof. Hofstadter's chapter The Road to Life Adjustment he says--"Life-adjustment educators would do anything in the name of science except encourage children to study it."

The objective effects of such a policy shout out from this thread with a clarity and fanfare such as to be unmistakeable. The amount of talking in the name of science whilst having nothing to do with science is startling. It has been obvious to me the whole time I have been contributing here.

The Prof. says that in the 40 years from 1910 academic content in high-school curricula fell from three fourths to one fifth. Latin from 49% to 8%, languages from 84% to 22%, algebra from 57% to 27%, geometry from 31% to 13%, mathematics from 90% to 55%, science from 82% to 33%. English, history and social science became parochial during the period,

In 1893 27 subjects were taught. By 1941, 274, of which only 59 might be said to be academic.

From a scientific point of view the situation is to be expected in a population which finds itself in a land of almost boundless unexploited natural resources requiring little effort to access. Training to consume and enjoy the bounty seems the obvious way forward.

The idea that the concept of intelligent design is unscientific is very easily come by when science is not involved and only speaking in the name of science is necessary to adjust lifestyles satisfactorily to throw off the futile restrictions of an old-fashioned, out-of-date culture which has been left behind.

But the boundless resources are not boundless at all and more and more effort is required to access the dwindling stock.

Here's an example from a regular on this thresd--



Illogical, unscientific and trance speaking in the name of their opposites. Which I imagine is a lot more comforting than religion and especially when logic, common sense, and science are admirable qualities and the statement shows no sign of any of them.

Rampant consumerism is comforting to millions but it requires ignoring logic, common sense, and science.

Here's something to interest a scientific evolutionist.



It is, again, in Hofstadter. Although it is a bit difficult to tell whether Hofstadter is saying it or whether he is quoting C.A.Prosser having a fanciful flight based on him imagining what E.L. Thorndike had concluded.

Which is neither here nor there really. The statement in interesting. It doesn't matter who said it.

It suggests that loss of memory in the later years is not a problem at all because the mind is working efficiently, as evolution always does, pubic hair being a case in point, to adapt to the situation of old age and ridding itself of stuff, and there is a very great deal, which is of no further use thus allowing the mind a clearer picture of what is now required of it.

I am aware that certain mal-functions of mind may also cause loss of memory but evolution is not a process which creates large numbers of mal-functioning units. Such problems are the province of specialists.

Thus the things we can easily recall must retain a certain utility. That, for example, the Caspian Sea is watered by 120 rivers, if I remember correctly, might be the last question on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? if ever we get to be a contestant and surmount the steps to the climax. If we don't it is nothing other than brain clutter and the more there is of that stuff the more inefficient the mind becomes.

It seems to me that because we progress mentally at a slower pace than we do physically, being in denial of our decline, we are forever mal-adjusted to our actual situation. A bit like one of those one-man-band engineers who has so many tools he can't find any of them quickly.

Prodigies of memory might be in quite a bad state in relation to their ability to become comfortable in their surroundings. The three Chasers in The Chase, who usually defeat the contestants, do all look a little odd. And the choreography of their entrance partakes of the sinister.

I have a faith that such programmes don't involve any coaching before the action begins or during the very short space between spliced sections of tape where time becomes fractured depending whether you are watching the programme or making it. It's touching I know but there it is.

Wisdom is associated with old age for the obvious reason that the elderly's minds are not cluttered up with jolly robins.

So there you are my dears. Your lapses of memory are perfectly natural and normal and experts in treating the condition have a meal ticket for life if they can persuade you that it's a problem when it's actually efficient from an evolutionary point of view. As one might expect if one is a proper evolutionist.

On the evidence of history the concept of intelligent design might be said to partake of the same principles and those seeking to treat it as a problem are pissing up a gum tree.

spendi, Simply put, if you didn't have memory, you wouldn't be able to learn language. Where did you learn philosophy?

Try re-reading my post or getting your wife to do and to explain it for you.

Would you be kind enough to provide a link to some studies or references to this seemingly unfounded assertion?

You're wasting your time asking spendi to answer questions. You just have to understand that spendi says things that's created out of his own imagination without any credible support.

That's how science works.

Right tim? If references existed to support unfounded assertions there would be no point in making them.

I'll chance my arm. Which is another basic scientific principle.

If you memorize a column of the telephone directory does it enable you to memorize another column quicker?

ci. can't even remember that the correct verb after "things" is "are".. Not "is".

Didn't I offer a source for the original quotation and simply speculate on an aspect of it that Prof. Hofstadter thought fit to leave out.

It was intended to reassure our elderly viewers that their lapses of memory are perfectly rational from an evolutionary standpoint. That's worth being Abled 2 Know even if it is bullshit. All you need do to be reassured is believe it. Such a person is well adjusted to the situation he is in.

One might remember a whole host of Latin phrases from the schooldays but the reason is that they are still of use in terms of impressing others with the ability to remember Latin phrases so that a doddering old fool might be said to be not as daft as he looks. The fact that his wife ties a piece of string round his dick to remind him not to forget picking up the Viagra from the pharmacy is one possible symptom of remembering a whole host of Latin phrases.

I think we tend to remember things from books which are of use to us. It is off use to debauched sinners to remember that there in no God or punishment. One might think that the more references that are made to that idea the more debauched the sinner is likely to be. Prof. Dawkins, for example. Or Prof. Sagan. Both on their 3rd wives. It might be impolite to speculate on the events backstage on speaking tours.

Our muscular system prevents us doing a lot of silly and useless things as well. Elderly gentlemen out jogging do look a bit mal-adjusted I'm inclined to think. Literally.

I think it is a tasty hypothesis and it is founded in a faith in evolution. The onus is on others to refute it.

Even the NSA's gigantic computing powers will be programmed to enable it to forget everything that is of no use to the objective.

You wrote, .

Only proves you have no clue how science works.

However, he replied honestly to the one I asked him: