81
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 04:47 pm
@farmerman,
That's what I thought, no quote from Tour, just more non- sequiturs..

And who the hell is preacher Dan and why did you bring him up? ****, never mind, I answered that above.

If you consider James Tour a 'polished monkey', you need to take that up with the Nobel committee.
I know, why would I take their word over yours?

Far as I can tell, what you've been doing here is polishing your monkey.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 06:03 pm
@Leadfoot,
obviously you didnt read much of your own clip there Einstein.


nd youve been choking your chicken
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 06:08 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
obviously you didnt read much of your own clip there Einstein.

One more time: What's the quote from Tour that you have a problem with?

BTW, ros posted the clip on Tour, not me. But I liked it.

farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 06:15 pm
@Leadfoot,
Im gonna drive you nutz because, while there are over 20 sermons (each over 30 minutes) and over 70 refs listed of a non-recorded nature. I merely did a search and was led to several target sources both print and vocal (My ref to "REv Dan").
? I suggest you use your own skills and stop bothering me.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 06:36 pm
@farmerman,
Why should I chase another farmer non-sequitur? He is unrelated to my post on James Tour. As is everything else you've posted.

This VR headset is mak'n me feel like I been on a boat too. I gotta go sleep now.
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 06:44 pm
@Leadfoot,
yeh, its best before your senility keeps kickin in. We just had some discussions about this guy a few months ago. His "ex libris" Bullhit positions seem to have slipped your old mind eh?

Oh well, maybe with some rest .

Im sorry ifn I "linked " stuff from other discussions where it was discovered that decorated scientists can be all opinionated and often FOS like anyone else.

Night.
0 Replies
 
kk4mds
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 May, 2017 06:18 pm
@wandeljw,
Whether or not the universe was intelligently designed has nothing to do with science. Science deals with the what, not the who. Whether or not a scientist believes in G-d of other supreme being or not does not change the science. This is evidenced, for example, by Georges Lemaître, a Catholic priest, being the first to posit the universe originating from a single point, or the "hypothesis of the primeval atom".
layman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 25 May, 2017 06:25 pm
@kk4mds,
kk4mds wrote:

Whether or not the universe was intelligently designed has nothing to do with science. Science deals with the what, not the who.


ID theory isn't about the "who," either. ID theorists don't try to explain that. They simply theorize that empirical observation forces one to conclude that some "intelligence" is at play, and that not everything is simply a "random accident."

They would claim that the 'primeval atom" you speak of, if it existed, must have had some inherent intelligence in it at the outset. "Intelligence" cannot simply appear, magically, out of nothing more than inanimate matter, they claim.
0 Replies
 
coluber2001
 
  2  
Reply Thu 25 May, 2017 06:41 pm
Intelligent design is simply an attempt to prop up anachronistic religions that have not evolved with science. A thousand religions in the past have gone extinct because their myths, interpreted as facts, couldn't keep up with science. The new contemporary religion with its myths consonant with science has yet to form.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 May, 2017 07:44 am
@coluber2001,
Quote:
Intelligent design is simply an attempt to prop up anachronistic religions that have not evolved with science.

I'm afraid that is not the way it is. In terms of both life and cosmology, science has had to 'evolve' into the view of Genesis.

We can quibble about what 6 or 7 days means, but the story predated what you erroneously call 'evolved science' by quite a few years. Not that Genesis is a text about science, but where it touches on cosmology, it got it right.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 May, 2017 08:04 am
The amount of horseshit posted here by the proponents of right-wing religious propaganda is nothing but a tissue of shameless lies--and Leady leads the pack in that effort.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 May, 2017 10:23 am
@Leadfoot,
Heh.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 May, 2017 04:05 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
The amount of horseshit posted here by the proponents of right-wing religious propaganda is nothing but a tissue of shameless lies--and Leady leads the pack in that effort.

The king of ad hom has spoken.
If you can't argue the point, go personally attack the other guy. Pathetic..

"Right-wing religious" - what a laugh..
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 May, 2017 04:15 pm
@wandeljw,
The best possible argument for ID is the Ancestors simulation hypothesis when it comes to the majority of possible Universes. But even there, when it comes to ultimate reality, to the core of Ontology ID is mute. The normal Religious version is just plain silly!
0 Replies
 
coluber2001
 
  2  
Reply Sat 27 May, 2017 06:36 pm
Intelligent design is not science and can barely qualify as religion, if at all. What it mostly is a shame, a shame that parents would stunt their children's spiritual and educational growth just to reinforce their own security and defense mechanism.

What parents do to themselves is their own business, but what they do to their children is the business of the future.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 May, 2017 07:01 pm
@coluber2001,
Quote:
Intelligent design is not science..


That's easy (and quite common) to say, but I've seen some persuasive arguments made (by the famous, life-long atheist philosopher of science, Thomas Nagel, for instance) to the contrary.

I can't recite his arguments from memory, but, as I recall, the gist is something like this:

The "line of demarcation" between science and, say, pseudo-science, has long been a notoriously problematic one to draw. Nagel says those who claim ID theory is not science overlook the fact that the very same "problems" they are objecting to are also present in what they pronounce to be "real science.'
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 27 May, 2017 07:23 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:

Quote:
Intelligent design is not science..


That's easy (and quite common) to say, but I've seen some persuasive arguments made (by the famous, life-long atheist philosopher of science, Thomas Nagel, for instance) to the contrary.


Here's a link to Nagel's 19 page essay, entitled "Public Education and Intelligent Design," on the topic, if anyone's interested:

http://philosophy.fas.nyu.edu/docs/IO/1172/papa_132.pdf

Here's an excerpt from the introduction:

Quote:
The political urge to defend science education against the threats of religious orthodoxy, understandable though it is, has resulted in a counterorthodoxy, supported by bad arguments, and a tendency to overstate the legitimate scientific claims of evolutionary theory.

Skeptics about the theory are seen as so dangerous, and so disreputably motivated, that they must be denied any shred of legitimate interest. Most importantly, the campaign of the scientific establishment to rule out intelligent design as beyond discussion because it is not science results in the avoidance of significant questions about the relation between evolutionary theory and religious belief, questions that must be faced in order to understand the theory and evaluate the scientific evidence for it
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Sat 27 May, 2017 07:56 pm
@layman,
That could just as easily been written for "The Onion".
The fact that Behe still spouts his evidence -free assertions is an example of how easy it is to buy into this stuff. Sounding scientific is a lot easier than working at it.
As Miller said IN KITZMILLER v DOVER
"Evolution is taking what youve already got and building on it to do something entirely different"
Quote:
Judge Jones is careful to say, “We express no opinion on the ultimate
veracity of ID as a supernatural explanation.”18 This is not the position of
most evolutionary scientists, however. They believe that there are no
supernatural explanations, and that trying to show that they are incompatible
with the evidence is a waste of time If someone had the slightest idea of how to even test or evidence the above, then perhaps there could be some value to these 19 pages no?



layman
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 27 May, 2017 09:38 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
That could just as easily been written for "The Onion." If someone had the slightest idea of how to even test or evidence the above, then perhaps there could be some value to these 19 pages no?


Have you read those 19 pages, Farmer? Even one page? One paragraph? I'm sure you haven't.

If you wanted to, and were willing to familiarize yourself with points he makes about the nature of science, you could perhaps be in a position to discuss the relevant issues, rather than just denounce serious academic issues as belonging in "the Onion."

Your extreme bigotry is showing, yet again, I'm afraid.
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Sat 27 May, 2017 10:28 pm
@layman,
I read the whole thing, you are just easily impressed with that kinda little dribbling . TEaching that science shouldnt only be concerned with the method and its basis in evidence. Your mention of Niles ELdredge was done in a fashion that tried to make it sound like he was endorsing the thesis. He wasnt, the author of the paper was trying his own brand of "quote mining"
Maybe its the likka you should lay offa.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2017 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 09/19/2017 at 12:46:37