Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

I agree with the dual wrongs there, georgeob1 - there is an antireligious component in the opposition to the ID-iots, and that's unfortunate - in a way.

0 Replies

Nah. George's "dual wrongs" thing merely ends up dead ending because it doesn't discriminate.

0 Replies

georgeob1

georgeob1 wrote:

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.

I disagree with your broad brush claim re secularists. I don't know any secularist who wants to exclude creator reference from public discourse. I do know secularists who prefer that creator issues in educational institutions be addressed outside of science classes. Comparative religions classes would be the appropriate place in addition to private religious schools.

BBB

0 Replies

What does "dead ending" mean? How do you wisely discriminate between ignorant secularist intolerance and ignorant religious intolerance?

0 Replies

Re: georgeob1
Georgeob1

If your statement were true, secularists would demand that A2K eliminate all discussion of religion and related topics. We seem to spend a great deal of time discussing the very issues you claim secularists are apposed to.

BBB

0 Replies

Not true at all. The public debate relates only to what is permitted by government funded organizations - of which this is not one.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Nah. George's "dual wrongs" thing merely ends up dead ending because it doesn't discriminate.

George is an equal opportunity disapprover. Shouldn't you as a liberal appreciate that?

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

What does "dead ending" mean? How do you wisely discriminate between ignorant secularist intolerance and ignorant religious intolerance?

You do it again in the way you've just framed this sentence above and the options available.

You create a dichotomy of balanced opposites. That's how you frame the problem.

Therefore, there is nothing further to discuss or differentiate.

0 Replies

georgeob1's point is to the point, and undisputable; the extremists - the fringies - of either position each discredit and damage their own central proposition. Things being as they are, the fringies get a disproportionate amount of attention. All in all, there is far less to the "Debate" than meets the eye.

0 Replies

blatham, to georgeob1 wrote:

You create a dichotomy of balanced opposites. That's how you frame the problem.

Therefore, there is nothing further to discuss or differentiate.

Very good - prolly went right by lotsa folks.

0 Replies

No. It is a habit in george's thinking and discourse. Shirts vs skins. Liberals vs conservatives. Democrats vs Republicans. Belief vs non-belief. Value of X on one side and value of X on the other side.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

blatham, to georgeob1 wrote:
You create a dichotomy of balanced opposites. That's how you frame the problem.

Therefore, there is nothing further to discuss or differentiate.

Very good - prolly went right by lotsa folks.

It seems to me to be the problem here.

0 Replies

a current "hot topic" debate is occuring here in Albuquerque where one school district is considering ID instruction. No great matter there. The matter of debate is "should it be taught in a non-science classroom? the ID proponents are demanding that it be taught in a science class because Science is a mandatory class and the other potential is a non-mandatory class. The IDers want ID "mandatory". As an aside, several members of the board of education want off-site religious instruction with busing provided by the school district and full educational credit given for these off-site religious classes.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

It seems to me to be the problem here.

Just now tipping to that notion are ya? Where the hell you been? Laughing

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

blatham wrote:
It seems to me to be the problem here.

Just now tipping to that notion are ya? Where the hell you been?

Well, actually I've been talking to george about this for a while. I've mentioned Levi Strauss's observations that we seem to structure our thinking on such a binary frame - an observation I've found very illuminating - or at least that we begin thinking about things in this manner. But very soon it limits us. Discourse such as we see on Crossfire epitomizes the problem. There's no 'solution' available other than through overwhelming the other side.

0 Replies

If my recollection is correct, Thomas once described the requirements of the German school system & curriculum which includes required introductory philosophic material -- in which the legitamacy of the question of the existence of a god or crator is acknowledged as a thing parallel and distinct from science which is simply man's organized system of thought and observation in an attempt to fully understand the universe - an attempt which may or mY not prove successful -- alongside required instruction in science.

This, or something like it would nicely solve the problem as far as I am concerned. That this self-evident option has not surfaced, or been widely discussed, is itself a remarkable thing. That it hasn't, I take as evidence that the motivation of many of the secular protagonists in this absurd debate are just as ignorant and intolerant as are those of the religious zealots for whom they profess such contempt.

This is also my answer to Blatham with respect to his suggestion that I have defined the question away.

0 Replies

Blatham

blatham wrote:

timberlandko wrote:
blatham wrote:
It seems to me to be the problem here.

Just now tipping to that notion are ya? Where the hell you been?

Well, actually I've been talking to george about this for a while. I've mentioned Levi Strauss's observations that we seem to structure our thinking on such a binary frame - an observation I've found very illuminating - or at least that we begin thinking about things in this manner. But very soon it limits us. Discourse such as we see on Crossfire epitomizes the problem. There's no 'solution' available other than through overwhelming the other side.

TV producers seem to think these waste of oxygen shows will bring them high ratings and advertising revenues. They wouldn't dare provide useful intelligent information to their audience, hormone overloaded young people, most of whom don't give a fig about government policies---unless it is the draft.

BBB

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

the ID proponents are demanding that it be taught in a science class because Science is a mandatory class and the other potential is a non-mandatory class. The IDers want ID "mandatory"...

Here we see the balanced dichotomy used as an implicit (and undiscerning) 'argument' for fairness in education. One side is mandatory so it is only fair to have the other side mandatory too. But rather obviously, one could suggest such a 'fairness' argument ought to be applied to flat earth ideas or santa claus, etc.

If you start with the notion of warring balance, and don't allow yourself to reach any other conclusion than that, you end up in eternal opposition and no discernment.

0 Replies

Quote:

If my recollection is correct, Thomas once described the requirements of the German school system & curriculum which includes required introductory philosophic material -- in which the legitamacy of the question of the existence of a god or crator is acknowledged as a thing parallel and distinct from science which is simply man's organized system of thought and observation in an attempt to fully understand the universe - an attempt which may or mY not prove successful -- alongside required instruction in science.

If by "alongside required instruction in science" you don't suggest the two are in opposition, fine. Why consider science and religion in opposition any more than english and science are in opposition or language studies and religious studies? As intellectual pursuits with their own frames of reference and 'proofs' etc, they seem to me quite distinct.

That doesn't mean that there aren't historical oppositions at work here. The framers inherently thought this way too with the wall notion (for the reasons we all recognize). And certainly the church often considers that such an opposition is in play as do those, like your framers, who held enlightenment notions related to those 'reasons' I mention above.

But this opposition seems to be political (by which I mean who is in power) in nature. Who gets to determine 'authority' or who gets to determine group values or that sort of thing. This is the way Bill Bennett thinks, for example.

Is that clear?

0 Replies

Miles Copeland once wrote-"Who gains?"

1st rule of journalism-"Follow the money".

I asked timber this the other night-

Quote:

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

He had admitted to enjoying composing one of his sentences.
He has so far failed to answer that.And it is a scientific question.

Suppose the question was applied to each side of the ID/SD debate.Could we be looking at a battle over pleasure stimulation or possibly pain reduction.And a battle in which certain commercial interests,the American way I gather,have a lot to win or a lot to lose.Pleasure (happiness) provision is a gigantic industry as I'm sure you all know.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know