Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

The board's ID policy" is the only thing the court has jurisdiction over. Period.

The court has jurisdiction over Fed District III and, by this juurisdiction, has provided precedent over the "go/no go" decisions involving Kansas, Texas, and Missouri.
We espect that Vermont's ID issue will also get rung out and settled using Doverian Precedent.

Thas a lotta Kool-Aid.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

What kinda annoys me is that Pb is just being a smart ass. He knows damn well the story about Dover and the IDers. He just wants to move -on from a dark day for his worldview of "science"

I know, that's why I'm not spending much time responding to him, he's being disingenuous. If he was actually responding in a considered and honest way I would have more time for him.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

How do you separate ID from religion?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Leadfoot Quote:
"The board's ID policy" is the only thing the court has jurisdiction over. Period."

The court has jurisdiction over Fed District III and, by this juurisdiction, has provided precedent over the "go/no go" decisions involving Kansas, Texas, and Missouri.
We espect that Vermont's ID issue will also get rung out and settled using Doverian Precedent.

Thas a lotta Kool-Aid

I was of course speaking about the court as in what the judge could rule on in that particular case (K vs Dover). Since you perceive my remarks as just being 'a smart ass' there isn't much point in going on about it.

I did notice you didn't directly respond to my observations about the judge's own words in his remarks. I'm not a legal expert but it's my assumption that remarks can't be used as precedent in other cases, only the decision and official transcript of the trial. The judge knew damn well his remarks revealed prejudice (and stupidity) so his remarks about 'activism' are not surprising at all. Not that it would be actionable since it was in his 'smart ass remarks'.

Yes, it is a lot of koolaid and the deck is obviously stacked against ID for the foreseeable future.

Imposter asked about how I separated religion (I think?) and ID. While there are theological implication to ID, (I have separated religion from theism long ago), it is not necessary to invoke God or faith in looking for signs of ID in life. I'm not sure why that is so hard to see unless the possibility of someone using it that way makes it 'poisonous' to you. That to me smacks of paranoia. Would you toss out any research that might be used that way?

FWIW, my belief in God is completely unrelated to ID but when I studied biology in depth I was blown away by the ID implications. I didn't encounter the Discovery Institute untill years later so they were not a factor in me seeing those. They do come up with some interesting food for thought though.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

FWIW, my belief in God is completely unrelated to ID but when I studied biology in depth I was blown away by the ID implications.

Interesting piece of self-deception. How possibly could my belief in a creator influence my belief that things were created?

Not having a go at you per se, but logically I don't see how even an unconscious influence could be denied.

Speaking of evading questions - if we accept that life is intelligently designed by some thing(s), how do you explain the existence of those thing(s)? Were they too, intelligently designed? By what or whom? Or did they come into existence by the unintelligent forces of evolution and cosmology?

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

I'm not a legal expert but it's my assumption that remarks can't be used as precedent in other cases, only the decision and official transcript of the trial.

All that Ive read to you by Judge Jones is taken from his 139 page decision. He gives very strong reasoning why ID IS NOT science (cf "the Lemon test" as a means of determining IDs source of authority)

He discusses each and the summary weaknesses of the experts that the defense presented.
You seem to be clutching at phrases an missing the entirety of the decision.
Thats right, you are not a lawyer (as I am not either). Therefore, the EXPERIENCE of this decisions trip through time is best evidence for each of us. IT HAS been used as precedent in the several other states where the legislatures had been considering changes to science standards and local schools were considering the USSC challenges in court. Gov Jindal was going to pose a n "test" for Louisiana but he ran out of political time and hed been given the advice that, because, arguably the most famous Creation SCience case, (Edwards v Aguillard) had been adjudicated by the US Supreme Court in the late 1980's, hed just be giving the GOP an "anti-science" status if he insisted in doing it all over (this time using ID instead of Creationism)

2 Replies

@farmerman,

a legal system is now needed to fight the evolution nonsense!

I love it!

They must getiing preety desperate.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

It's all in your perspective. Mine is from a level you choose not to go, which is your prerogative.

I'm really not interested in a detailed dissection of this and other cases, only the basic logic involved. I will take the excerpts you provided so far as representative of the overall gist. Only other thing you might have at hand that would be useful for discussion is the actual wording of the school board policy section under dispute.

Again from my perspective, here is my reading on the case and the various reactions (charges of fraud, dishonesty, etc) you and others have offered.

At worst, the parties advocating ID are guilty of believing in God and would like evolution taught objectively and not with a prejudice that infers that evolution alone explains all of life and makes belief in a God irrational. That is the 'sin' you are charging them with. Admittedly, separating out that prejudice is a tall order and the difficulty of crafting a policy that accomplishes that is enormous. It is obvious you and others do have a serious problem with that end and are projecting your emotional responses to that 'threat' with all the bluster of a bunch of zealots. In other words, it looks for all the world like you don't want your religion diluted with possible doubts about it in school but especially not in your own minds.

1 Reply

What an arrogant son of a bitch.

0 Replies

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/i-717ba61a4ef857a4f449136a682f1cc9-electricity.jpeg

0 Replies

If there is the possibility of a creator...of a god...there is the possibility of intelligent design.

There is no getting away from that.

Everything here now...all we are...may be the result of intelligent design. Evolution may be that design.

The laughable atheists (and at least one misguided agnostic) is pretending that the only real concept of intelligent design has to do with a cartoon god breathing life into a bit of clay.

The laughable atheists (nor the agnostic) cannot even acknowledge that it is possible we are all here as the result of intelligent design.

The laughable atheists want to pretend it is logical, reasonable, and scientific to rule out intelligent design...which is one of the reason they are so laughable.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

If there is the possibility of a creator....an alien intelligence for whom our universe is a big experiment...there is a possibility that design is absent.

There is no getting away from that

Everything here now....all we are...may be the result of an unexpected, unregulated process called'evolution' in an alien's test tube.

Omniscient gods and other less omniscient alien intelligences occupy equivalent status as far as the possibility of a hypothetical 'creator' is concerned. Only simpletons refuse to understand the equivalence of those ad hoc propositions.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

If there is the possibility of a creator....an alien intelligence for whom our universe is a big experiment...there is a possibility that design is absent.

There is no getting away from that

Everything here now....all we are...may be the result of an unexpected, unregulated process called'evolution' in an alien's test tube.

Omniscient gods and other less omniscient alien intelligences occupy equivalent status as far as the possibility of a hypothetical 'creator' is concerned. Only simpletons refuse to understand the equivalence of those ad hoc propositions.

I'm sorry YOU refuse to understand the equivalence of those ad hoc propositions, Fresco.

I certainly do.

In fact...when a person says there is the possibility of "X"...he is also saying there is the possibility of "not X."

Did you really think you were explaining something sublime here?

I AM TOTALLY willing to acknowledge that NO INTELLIGENT DESIGN may be in play.

But the atheists here are unwilling to acknowledge that everything we are, and where we are, MAY BE THE RESULT OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

Wake up, Fresco...this is not one of your posts of a fruit salad of words and pretend you are intelligent for doing so.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

At worst, the parties advocating ID are guilty of believing in God and would like evolution taught objectively and not with a prejudice that infers that evolution alone explains all of life and makes belief in a God irrational.

.
That is dead wrong. These guys DO believe in a god , I agree. However, they demanded that their views of a god be taught in public School SCIENCE. Now I dont know how you fail to understand that point. (I really think you do understand and youre just faking it).

Theseguys wanted their views taught, views which are sectarian. The sect being Fundamental Christianity. Lots of Christian sects believe in God AND evolution (and agree that there is no evidence out there that supports "theistic evolution"). Such sects like the Catholic Church, Lutherans, Methodists etc etc(even Mormons) believe in a transcendental god but a purely natural world.
(They go with the evidence and where it leads)

Youre basic arguments are not new, in fact theyve been spun here for over 10 years by others all of whom feel their rguments are "special" ,"scientific< and "worth considering for science curriculum"

Our country;; constitution is the law. We all have the right to believe (or not); and worship(or not) in a manner which gives us comfort BUT NOONE has a license to impress their own particular beliefs onto the rest of the country.(Which is what Creationism/ID is attempting to do).

So saying that these guys in Dover are only being slammed because they believe in a God, is about as naive a statement as you could come up with. What they were doing (and they knew damned well because they discussed lawsuits based on the US Constitution) was trying to find a fairly innocuous way in which to introduce the subject of Creationism/ID, have it challenged, lose in local or sistrict court, BUT THEN win on appeal in front of the Big Cheese Court (USSC). These guys knew what they were doing dont think they didnt. And "believing in god" was what theyd have you believe. They are dissatisfied ith the entire "Free expression and Establishment clauses" of the 1st Amendment. They actually would LOVE a state religion (so long as it was theirs.)

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

No. you absolutely do NOT understand the significance of that equivalence of 'types of creator' because atheists specifically take into account the lack of design apparent in our experience of the world in their rejection of ' 'an intelligent God'. The 'evidence' points to the conclusion that 'god concept' is useless at a material level and by recognizing the ad hoc -ary underpinning the equivalence of the ideas of 'intelligent creators' in general, creation per se is rejected as an anthropomorphic psychological palliative.

You have been operating all these years on the basis of the myth of a level playing field for arguments regarding 'belief' and 'disbelief'. That level field is 'a creation' Wink

of your own mind serving to rationalize your past religious leanings.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

No. you absolutely do NOT understand the significance of that equivalence of 'types of creator' because atheists specifically take into account the lack of design apparent in our experience of the world in their rejection of ' 'an intelligent God'. The 'evidence' points to the conclusion that 'god concept' is useless at a material level and by recognizing the ad hoc -ary underpinning the equivalence of the ideas of 'intelligent creators' in general, creation per se is rejected as an anthropomorphic psychological palliative.

You have been operating all these years on the basis of the myth of a level playing field for arguments regarding 'belief' and 'disbelief'. That level field is 'a creation' of your own mind serving to rationalize your past religious leanings.

You are off the edge, Fresco...and cannot deal with rational conversations. You want to impose that pscho-babble and try to bluff your way through discussions.

IF there is the possibility of a creator...of a god...there is the possibility of intelligent design. (If there is, the "intelligent design" obviously took the form of what we are discovering in evolution theory.)

That is something you, and the atheists here, pretend is of no consequence...BUT IT IS EXTREMELY important to this issue at hand.

Yes...it is possible there is no creator or god.

And, even if there is a creator or god...it is possible the creator or god left development up to natural forces (which it may or may not have put into play).

But it is apparent to anyone with an open mind that the thing happening here in this thread...is that a bunch of atheists are insisting there is no possibility that intelligent design is an ingredient of the REALITY...and the ONLY way that can be...is if they are arguing (in their usual sneaky, backdoor way) that there is no possibility of a god or of a creator.

Oh...by the way. Be careful your suggestions that I am creating whatever it is you think I am creating out of my own mind...does not get bleached by the sun. Store it in a safe place.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

They actually would LOVE a state religion (so long as it was theirs.)

I'm waiting to see the actual school board policy before I accept that as the case but as I've said before, I think you are conflating my position with that of the school board and that is not the case since I do not know what it says yet and would still like to see it. I, for one, will not let any court decide the issue for myself. Assuming it is not written in jargon, any rational person should be able to discern the meaning. Some time ago I did read a school board proposal (from TX ?) that was being contested. It was as benign and 'God free' as anything language could convey. The only way I could see it as tied to religion is in the minds of the objectors.

It's like the nonsense about the 'debate' over the second amendment. Only someone with an agenda could fail to see it's simple meaning. Almost surprisingly, the SCOTUS got that one right but holy crap, why was a supreme court case needed for something so obvious?

But back to my main objection to your position is that the subject of ID itself (not the Dover court case issue) is inseparable from religion. Until you are prepared to say that:

A. There is no possibility that there is any design in the universe

then LOGICALLY you have no grounds to categorically dismiss ID until you do.

So if you want me to STFU, just state that plainly and I'll drop the issue with you et al and pursue it with those less 'locked in' to their religions.

5 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Objective evidence comes to mind.
"There is no possibility that there is any design in the universe" from any god or superpower. It's all NATURE and EVOLUTION.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot...

...if anyone tells you that there is no possibility that there is any design in the universe from any god or superpower...that person simply does not know what he is talking about.

There is absolutely no way to determine if there is design from a god, superpower, or designer.

The notion that it is all nature and evolution (without the involvement of a god or creator)...is just a blind guess by atheists who have no sense of logic, reason...or, and most especially, SCIENCE.

I disagree with you on many things...you know that. But the atheistic arguments in this thread are an abomination to reason, logic and science.

I applaud your willingness to stand up to them.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

"There is no possibility that there is any design in the universe" from any god or superpower. It's all NATURE and EVOLUTION.

Farmer said you really do know your way around but so far you have shown me nothing other than that you are a master of assertion.

But I accept your statement above and will trouble you no more unless you specifically ask me for it.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know