Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Why, yes I did. It was indeed rather fun.


Certainly, glad to oblige. It is demonstrably consistent with observation, replicable, multiply independently verifiable, adequately predictive of the behavior of the thing, condition, or being at discussion, and scientifically - if with literary flair - hits the nail on the head. ID-iocy simply does not meet any requirement necessary to be considered a scientific theory, and therefore cannot be granted equality with or equivalence to any scientific theory. Period.


Nonsense - ID-iocy is a belief set, not a scientific theory. This is not semantics or hermanuetics, it is fact, a matter of definition. Science is logical study of nature through observation and assessment of nature, and while it is all about questions, it has no room for mysteries. ID-iocy is predicated upon and wholly composed of mystery as answer.


More nonsense; there is no such question to be addressed, you present a straw man. Nice allusion, though.

Steve-

I'll give you a little clue.One Miss Marples would have noted having such a keen scientific mind as she was portrayed as having had.

David Cameron beat David Davis by more than 2 to 1.

No.No.No.timber-



is asking you to explain why you enjoyed composing that fine piece of prose.You have already answered the question you did answer a number of times if in a similar manner.

What cellular electrical impulses of a pleasureable nature where tickled into action by your overblown rhetoric?

I'll study the remainder when I'm leaning 10 degrees east as I shortly will be.

Fair enough; observation and confirmation of logical order triggers my synaptic pleasure responses; logical disorder fails to do so.

No argument re overblown rhetoric; hyperbole is hyperbole. That's just logical :wink:

timber wrote-



So you don't like ladies I presume.

timber tried running another of his evasion tricks with this little beaut-



There actually is such a question to be addressed.Saying there isn't is not addressing it.Give us your view of a world without all this religious superstitious claptrap which is only embraced by stupid,silly,ludicrous ID-iots such as The President Of The United States Of America,the lovely First Lady and the Prime Minister of Great Britain,Northern Ireland and the remaining colonies and The Pope.

Spendi, you're leading a parade of straw men there, beating the drum of irrelevancy and bleating the fife of non sequitur. Who might or might not endorse or reject, in any manner, wise, form, particular, or degree any proposition is not at question; the question here at discussion concerns solely the proposition here at discussion, and that proposition remains unsubstantiated.

timber-

If you check my posts out on here you will find that I have no diffuculty in accepting that there is no evidence of any sort for ID.

However,there is a substantial argument for the use of ID in social organisation and there is a very powerful argument that a 100% scientific approach will be an unmitigated disaster.

If this thread was about nothing but proving or disproving ID in the abstract I wouldn't have the slightest interest in it.There is a thread somewhere which does that and it is a form of assertion tennis.
A waste of time in other words.

There is a court case going on as you know.I think there will likely be others and not just in the US.It is an issue of great importance.There are no black and white answers.It is very difficult for me to explain because the crux of the matter involves the degree of irrationality in a large population in which the average IQ is 100 and the potential functions of such irrationality when manipulated in varous ways.
I agree with everything you have said about ID but I think all that takes us nowhere in the process of managing a vast,unwieldy population of different economic and traditional values which I accept as givens.Reason is all very well but emotions, which by nature tend towards irrationality, are highly significant factors.Hitler was elected but even more significant than that was the fact that the only other party of note,which he narrowly defeated,was equally appealing to emotions.It seems to me naive,to say the least,to categorise these powerful forces in the manner some of you do when you are at the mercy of a mass electoral system.I actually think it is dangerous.They are facts and a scientist deals in facts as you SODs often point out.

The broad mass of the population are not interested in blood clotting in marine organisms or fossils.They are interested in happiness and if people in certain locations with certain economic exigencies,such as supplying cities with food,and with traditional social structures stemming from religious values I can easily accept whatever way they choose to order their lives to maximise it and I am prepared to defend them from superficial attacks. I can also accept that to move them away from their chosen lifestyles is a long term process which may or may not have any result which I might approve of.

I find the discussion on here very interesting and from a scientific viewpoint.At a personal level I expect you would be quite shocked at some of my conclusions in the sociological field and although I might say that your shock was irrational it wouldn't lead me to start labelling you "thick" or "stupid" or "ludicrous" because I understand the energy sources of your repulsion and the useful social functions of it which I am in favour of.

If you think that's a bit elitist what can I say?Scientists are a bit elitist don't you think.But they are very dependent on the rest of the community most of whom don't have their advantages,if such they are.

Spendius - I'm aware you dont need my advice but I found your post very accurate and appropriate refering to the analysis of the sociological context.

And I'm sure you could partake your insight on if the broad mass of the population should be left to such happy dumbness.

Spendi, I agree with Francis that your sociological post is well taken. But do not see how that perspective is clearly reflected in many of your other posts.

I agree with Francis and JLN. A well thought out thesis of society, and how religion/traditional value impacts our daily lives is a force based on emotion that the rest of society must accept as a given. Intellectual debates about ID and creation usually goes nowhere.

On the first of the above two responses I would say that "happy dumbness" is very popular in England.We sometimes refer to it as "goofing off".
At the last two elections here the goofers (abstainers) had the largest share of the votes and in the US I gather they are of the order of 50%.Such attitudes signal a general contentment with life and are prepared to leave the running of things to those daft enough to want to do it.You can probably gather from that that I don't vote.We tend to find the power hungry vastly amusing for a seemingly infinite number of reasons.Much the most popular TV programmes here are those of utter pointlessness and stupidity and which seek to explore the outer limits of crassness and banality.

On the second post I should say that the use of the word "clearly" gives me ample scope to justify refraining from commenting.I will say though that the post of mine referred to was heavily larded with euphemistic phraseology and represents a limited version of my ideas on this subject suitable for an afternoon tea party at the vicarage at which the Bishop and his nieces are present.

The problem seems to be associated with the fact that very few posters are capable of imagining themselves as ordinary Joes of which,as has been said by better writers than myself,there is one born every minute.

I would be interested in having any of my posts pointed out to me which are inconsistent with 1711863 if only to allow me to exercise my capacity to wriggle out of tight corners which I am quite good at or so I have been told on rather too many occasions for complete comfort.

Even my submissions on the Acronym game are attempts,not always successful,to convey a similar mind-set.It is the human beings engaged in faction fighting whether in sport or these types of things which I find fascinating.I agree,as do those whose company I seek,that this represents a jaundiced view of life but there it is.Being accused of being "sad" rolls us on the floor in helpless fits of giggling at the sheer pomposity of it when it invariably comes from someone who once a day goes to.....(That enough of that spendi.Ed.)

And you should see some of our casually censored forums.

Sorry c.i.I hadn't seen your post when I replied just then.

What has any question of social zeitgeist have to do with the topic of this discussion, which is, as headlined, "Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion"?

I submit that any attempt to bring emotion and social "norms" into the discussion is part-and-parcel the ethically and intellectually bankrupt methodology the ID-iots have employed to fabricate the impression the absurdity of their pet notion merits the title of "Controversy". By definition, Creationism/ID-iocy is not science; its foundational premise entails a closed loop of dogma as opposed to a linear progression of open-ended discovery.

Yeah-we know all that.But won't it come down to voting in the end and as there's no way of resolving the dispute emotions will have the casting vote.Swayed by other forces naturally.A hearts and minds job.

And if the forces of sweetness and light win the vote they will say that to bring emotion and social norms in to the discussion is NOT "ethically and intellectually bankrupt methodology" at all but a simple common sense approach and if they wish to continue that sentence I could write it for them.

spendius,

Aren't you using social and cultural arguments merely to justify some grudge you have against parents who challenge school policy?

(I apologize in advance if this question is "out of line".)

"Hearts and Minds" will sway neither Science nor The Supremes, which in the end is what it will come down to if it gets that far. I doubt it will reach the highest bench; the case law mitigating against any lower court decision favorable to the proposition is overwhelming. I really feel the Christian Community overall is damage by this absurdity and it inevitable outcome, far from enhancing the prospect of their cause, and that of the overall Christian proposition, the Creationists/ID-iots demean, belittle, and embarass themselves and their religion. These intellectual luddites do grievous harm to their proposition and its foundational theses, not good.


But then, perhaps that's all for the best, and as it is meant to be.

timber-

Exactly-that is perhaps all for the best.One never knows.The forces play and onward we march.The DOW getting it's wind back.

wande-you asked that before and I readily confessed that I can't stand the sight of parents.The very idea that Father Wiseman would have tolerated a bunch of half-wits telling him how to educate us would have been an unmitigated disaster.He would have had them conducted off the premises.Possibly at the gallop.

Just reviewed the last few pages of this thread after a long intermission. Very interesting dialogue. I don't share the evident contempt of Spendius and Timber for the understanding (or lack thereof) of the ignorant believing mass of people. Very often the self-proclaimed savants are masters of only the details, and not of the central meaning of what they confidently profess to completely explain. Certainly the mass of people have, as Spendius points out, repeatedly exhibited their taste and, perhaps need, for a superhuman explanation for the meaning of it all
-- i. e. god. It is much easier to dismiss all this as the unseemly need of lesser people than it is to grapple with the question itself.

I see the ciurrent political dispute -- which I will readily agree is being fought over on absurd ground -- as a conflict between secularists who, in the very defensible name of science wish to exclude any reference to a creator from not only scientific education, but also public discourse - and education - altogether, and believers who react to this exclusion by demanding a corruption of the teaching of science. Both are equally wrong, intolerant, and deserving of contempt.