Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

spendie

I don't know how you are doing on the spare cash front but you could surely move up in the world and drink a better class of beer if you were to market a clip-on lens for folks' eyes/spectacles which would bring your arguments into focus.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

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?

Clear? I'm not sure. All I suggested was that if both the philosophic grounding and the science courses were required parts of the curriculum, my particular concerns would be fullyu satisfied. I don't think that Science and the concept of a created universe are in opposition at all. However I do agree that the philosophic groundings of science and thought about our origins should be kept separate from instruction in science itself - they are different, distinct subjects and neither preempts the other.

It is simply unfortunate that this tolerant, balanced, and correct view is not held by many of the protagoniosts on either side of this issue..

There is no such thing anymore as "the Church" -- unless you have become a crypto Catholic. Religion generally, and, in particular Christianity in the United States have become multi-faceted, variable things, some admirable some not so.

I don't profess to know how either the framers or Bill Bennett thinks (or thought). By the way, both Bennett and I (and Pat Buchannan) graduated from the same Jesuit High School in Washungton DC (though I was a few years behind them) - Gonzaga, on North Capitol St, near the Capitol..

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

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.

An interesting aside, but it has little to do with possibilities concerning the origins of the universe or our existence. Moreover if thinking one way or the other could be demonstrated to have certain local effects on brain activity, what would that prove about the universe? You suggest a conscious or merely unwitting conspiracy and adopt for yourself a position far above it. What if there is no substance to your supposition and only pretense in your adopted point oif view?

0 Replies

Bernie-

Surely not.I've followed the anti-smoking campaign for a long while.The idea that it was about saving lives is strictly for the third form as far as I'm concerned.The philosophy of saving lives is ridiculous and especially from where we are.The ID/SD stuff has been going on a long while under different labels.Like social tectonic plates grinding slowly against each other.

Let's say home improvements versus Pussy Galore Casinos with an all night licence.Bacchanalia.

It's getting a bit bacchanalian around here these days and it sure didn't happen by accident.Studio 54 under Dwight D?

It's easy.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

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.

spendi, ol' buddy, I submit that not only did I answer that question but also that you acknowledged and responded (in red herring fashion) to my answer - Here ya go, et seq

0 Replies

timber-

well really I meant the nature of the cellular impulses of delight.Others might not have such a response.I only recognise it because I get a similar thing when I create what I think is a good put-down.But I am interested in what it is,and how it works and how I got it.It can't be natural because everybody would have it if it was.

And your expression of the opposite of pleasure when stimulated by disorderly logic does leave you with something to explain to the ladies to whom,in my experience,it is the normal way of thinking.A proposition I might add which my mates in the pub would have little trouble agreeing with.

0 Replies

I'm still recovering from food poisoning or a stomach flu which leaves me lacking the energy to participate here. Fortunately, Blatham has reflected my position very well. Thanks, Bernie.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

All I suggested was that if both the philosophic grounding and the science courses were required parts of the curriculum, my particular concerns would be fully satisfied. I don't think that Science and the concept of a created universe are in opposition at all. However I do agree that the philosophic groundings of science and thought about our origins should be kept separate from instruction in science itself - they are different, distinct subjects and neither preempts the other.

I might agree with such an approach, georgeob (and thanks for reviving this discussion).

It may be difficult to have required classes on philosophic groundings in U.S. secondary schools. "Social Studies" is generally a required subject in high school. One school district in Indiana has included intelligent design as a topic to be discussed in social studies.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

It may be difficult to have required classes on philosophic groundings in U.S. secondary schools. "Social Studies" is generally a required subject in high school. One school district in Indiana has included intelligent design as a topic to be discussed in social studies.

I agree, and believe that is the "stealthy" element in what is in essence an absurd dispute between equally intolerant and narrow-minded groups. The last things we need are biblical (or Hindi) renditions of the origins of the universe or life in science classes or, equivalently, the unspoken and unprovable implicit assertion that science can or will explain everything - as pillars of our educational system.

0 Replies

George wrote-

Quote:

An interesting aside, but it has little to do with possibilities concerning the origins of the universe or our existence. Moreover if thinking one way or the other could be demonstrated to have certain local effects on brain activity, what would that prove about the universe? You suggest a conscious or merely unwitting conspiracy and adopt for yourself a position far above it. What if there is no substance to your supposition and only pretense in your adopted point of view?

You wouldn't question that thinking a particular way has effects in the brain surely?

And I agree that it has nothing to do with the origins of the universe but it has something to do with our perceptions of them,or it,because there is only us to perceive it and bring it forth in language.
Different perceptions would have different levels of satisfaction (happiness) associated with them and this would vary with each perceiver and would take into account the circumstancesof their socialisation.

As an optimist I would incline towards a conscious conspiracy because an unwitting one suggests we are not in control of our destiny which is a ghastly idea to a Faustian.

I certainly don't feel in any degree "far above" anything.I'm humbled by these majestic processes.
There is no pretense here.

I merely stick up for a side whose pursuit of happiness has been greeted by a torrent of vile abuse.And I'm on the side of the kids who will soon be emptying your bedpans and keeping the lights on.They won't all be nuclear physicists.Those capable of that will grow out of ID as quick as they did out of Father Christmas.

And on that festive note I will start my journey towards the essential bodily fluid replenishment centre.

PS I hear the CS Lewis movie is starting a similar fuss.Well-you can't compare the effects of 3 paragraphs of arid prose to a big-time movie.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

The last things we need are biblical (or Hindi) renditions of the origins of the universe or life in science classes or, equivalently, the unspoken and unprovable implicit assertion that science can or will explain everything - as pillars of our educational system.

Indeed it is but the "third way" is a very narrow lane. It requires skilfull drivers.

0 Replies

It has the drivers we have got and if they are not the best there are it is our fault.It is government by the people after all.They are certainly better than anybody else's so far.They have even forseen my desire for beer at this time of night and have arranged a warm,reasonably hospitable emporium where I can satisfy it.That's pretty good.

The Iraqi's could be getting that in 30 years,say, if they would only get it into their thick skulls which is the winning team.Who cares how much Haliburton make?They can only sleep in one bed at once.

0 Replies

Francis wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
The last things we need are biblical (or Hindi) renditions of the origins of the universe or life in science classes or, equivalently, the unspoken and unprovable implicit assertion that science can or will explain everything - as pillars of our educational system.

Indeed it is but the "third way" is a very narrow lane. It requires skilfull drivers.

I agree. I also concede that on this point we don't have them. However I find little relative merit in either of the intolerant alternatives on this issue. The required credulity blindness and intolerance in one is merely less obvious than the other. There appears to be a strange application of Gresham's law of coinage operating here in the public debate -- close-minded irrational position-taking on both sides drives out rational discourse.

0 Replies

So now we have the opinion that rational discourse is an option, I question that.

0 Replies

How rational of you, Dys.

0 Replies

I find everything to agree within your last 2 statements georgeob and some ideas where the schools should place such "liberal art" prep. I recall my Catholic school training wherein almost everything had a place for real discussion. The only thing that was not tolerated by the Jezzies was not rising to the challenge.
even though my personal beliefs are vastly non-religious today, Im forever grateful to have had open art appreciation, apologetica, latin, and english literature (separate freom language) and this was at the intermediate levels. I was so far ahead of the kids in public shools when we moved that I became a trouble maker and a disruptive element in classes. ie , I was no longer challenged and the public school system was merely loaded with admin types and no scholars.
Hell, when I was in elementary school, we had a few Jesuit teachers and Christian Brothers who had their PhDs in a real subject, not in education. I dont think thats the case any more.

0 Replies

George-

I think we have good drivers.I'll accept they could be better and we are working on it.Driving the ship of state is not as easy as it looks.Backing an aircraft carrier into Mombassa bay stylishly is a piece of piss by the side of it.

0 Replies

I take it that your family was not a seafaring one spendius?

Any Azzole can be president, you have to have lots of "training" and "experience" to Captain a jetplane ferry.

0 Replies

farmerman, Your last post reminded me of the accomplishment of Ernest Shackleton and his men on their expedition of crossing the South Pole. The following is taken from Wikipedia. As you said, "any azzole can be president..."

1914-1916 Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition
Main article: Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition

The Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition set out from London on August 1, 1914 with the goal of crossing the Antarctic from a location near Vahsel Bay on the south side of the Weddell Sea, reach the South Pole and then continue to Ross Island on the opposite side of the continent. The expedition's goal had to be abandoned when the ship, Endurance, was beset by sea ice short of its goal of Vahsel Bay. It was later crushed by the pack ice. The ship's crew and the expedition personnel endured an epic journey by sledge across the Weddell Sea pack and then boat to Elephant Island. Upon arrival at Elephant Island off the Antarctic Peninsula, they rebuilt one of their small boats and Shackleton with five others set sail for South Georgia to seek help. This remarkable journey in a 6.7 meter boat (the James Caird) through the Drake Passage to South Georgia in the late Antarctic Fall (April and May) is perhaps without rival. They landed on the southern coast of South Georgia and then crossed the spine of the island in an equally remarkable 36-hour journey. The 22 men who remained on Elephant Island were rescued by the Chilean ship Yelcho after three other failed attempts on August 30, 1916 (22 months after departing from South Georgia). Everyone from Endurance survived.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

... you have to have lots of "training" and "experience" to Captain a jetplane ferry.

Sometimes even that ain't quite enough to avoid embarrassment, as discovered by the late Adm. (Ret) Robert J Kelly, who had the misfortune to be Captain of the USS Enterprise the late April, 1983 morning she was run aground in San Francisco Bay, off Alameda, by her harbor pilot. Freeing the beast was quite a job.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know