97
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
Francis
 
  1  
Sat 10 Dec, 2005 01:34 pm
here:

Salma Hayek
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 10 Dec, 2005 02:38 pm
Sheesh!

Those are nearly tits.Peepers.There's better than that in the pub on weekends and they judder and wobble and cause stiff necks and all sorts of other complications too numerous to be listed in a short post such as this is intended to be.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Sat 10 Dec, 2005 11:09 pm
Here is Lucy:

 http://www.lucypinder.info/assets/images/LucyLottery_Main02.jpg :wink:
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Sat 10 Dec, 2005 11:10 pm
Rats..

http://www.lucypinder.info/assets/images/LucyLottery_Main02.jpg
0 Replies
 
username
 
  1  
Sat 10 Dec, 2005 11:40 pm
OK, now that's intelligent design.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Sun 11 Dec, 2005 02:11 am
And God created woman:-

http://www.michelle-marsh.com/acatalog/smpic20.jpg
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Sun 11 Dec, 2005 02:44 am
Yeah ... and student loans educated plastic surgeons - those babes ain't the product of evolution, they're engineering projects :wink:

But thank God for Page Three - stuff like that deserves its moment in The Sun Mr. Green
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Sun 11 Dec, 2005 05:49 am
From serious tits to serious politics in one quick jiggle...

In Cobb Country, Georgia, more on the ID thing.

Quote:
MARIETTA, Ga. -- The evolution controversy in this comfortable Atlanta suburb began with one boy's fascination with dinosaurs.

"He was really into 'Jurassic Park,' " his mother recalled. The trouble was, "we kept reading over and over that 'millions and millions of years ago, dinosaurs roamed the earth,' " Marjorie Rogers continued. "And that's where I said, 'Hmm -- wait a second.' "

"I question. It's part of my culture," says Jeffrey Selman, a parent who sued to remove the stickers from textbooks. (By Todd Mcqueen -- Marietta Daily Journal Via Associated Press)
Like others who adhere to a literal reading of the Book of Genesis, Rogers, a lawyer, believes that Earth is several thousand years old, while most scientists, basing their estimates on the radioactive decay of rock samples, say the planet is billions of years old....

When Cobb County turned to selecting new biology textbooks in late 2001, that widespread unease developed into parent anger that spurred the school board to action.

"I question. It's part of my culture," says Jeffrey Selman, a parent who sued to remove the stickers from textbooks. (By Todd Mcqueen -- Marietta Daily Journal Via Associated Press)
Sparked by her son's interest in dinosaurs, Rogers read several books casting doubt on evolution science, including "Icons of Evolution" by Jonathan Wells and "Darwin on Trial" by Phillip E. Johnson. Once she saw the textbooks under consideration, she was appalled.

"Humans are fundamentally not exceptional because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species," she read from one during an interview.

"That offends me," she said. "That has no business being in a science textbook. That's religion."


She points to another passage, in "Biology: Concepts & Connections," that she says is irreverent. The passage suggests that had human knees and spines been "designed" for our bipedal posture, rather than borrowed from four-legged ancestors, they probably would "be less subject to sprains, spasms and other common injuries."

Finding fault with the design of humans exasperates her.

"That's slamming God," she said.
link

The two passages in red point up two deeply dangerous political notions:

- that there ought to be no scientific issue (or public discourse) which has as a consequence "offence" in a believer's mind and...

- any scientific finding or public discourse which holds/forwards some other notion than what a particular interpretation of the christian Bible suggests to a believer's mind constitutes some unacceptable infraction termed 'slamming God'.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sun 11 Dec, 2005 12:05 pm
Quote:
- that there ought to be no scientific issue (or public discourse) which has as a consequence "offence" in a believer's mind and...


That's stretching things a bit.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Sun 11 Dec, 2005 12:22 pm
spendius wrote:
Quote:
- that there ought to be no scientific issue (or public discourse) which has as a consequence "offence" in a believer's mind and...


That's stretching things a bit.

Your comment serves well to validate bernie's point, spendi - as does, even more conclusively, what I expect will be your dispute that it does so.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 11 Dec, 2005 12:27 pm
I think it was Terry that said that women's pelvic were designed wrong and punishes innocent women and babies to pain and death. If god is the perfect designer of our biology, that wouldn't be happening. If god is love, why punish unborn babies?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sun 11 Dec, 2005 01:47 pm
timber-

I was taking a lower case "believer" to mean any believer in anything and not in the narrow religious sense.

It is a tradition in posh mixed dinner parties for the ladies to withdraw to the drawing room when the coffee and cigars are brought in.The reason for this is that there are issues which would cause offence to those ladies and which need to be aired.If the ladies were to remain the conversation would be inhibited.It is un-neccessary to undermine the beliefs of those ladies and it would often be counter-productive to do so.

I took believers to include such things and quite a few others as well.I'm not even sure I would agree with the proposition if it was applied to the narrower use of believers.

The statement seemed to me to have within it the seeds of social disruption and I'm not in favour of that unless circumstances actually require it.I don't see the point of scaremongering just for the sake of it.That's sadism.

But I can agree that certain positions may have provoked Bernie to say it and may even have intended to do so in order to polarise the debate into two extreme camps as happened in 1933.Each side getting more and more offensive.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Sun 11 Dec, 2005 04:07 pm
spendie

Did you have French ancestors of the powdered wig sort? You do seem very keen on maintaining a social order for the sake of maintaining a social order. Even minus the guillotine, that's a favored notion of the wigged set.

The lady said:
Quote:
"Humans are fundamentally not exceptional because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species," she read from one during an interview.

"That offends me," she said. "That has no business being in a science textbook. That's religion."


First, of course it isn't religion at all, she's just making the rhetorically and psychologically necessary move of claiming X equals Y - both are theories or both are faith.

But to your protest...I've accurately described the 'logic' of her argument - that because she is a believer, she therefore possesses some right or priviledge to bar speech or ideas which 'offend' her belief.

It doesn't help her argument at all if you wish to restrict the sphere of applicability to religious belief and there's no apparent logical reason for such a restriction. But as a practical matter, such a restriction wouldn't hold. For a clear example, she herself has just described science as a belief of a similar or identical sort to her biblical faith.

But more importantly, religious notions deserve no special status. The church has a rich history of claiming precisely such a special status but the claim is precisely of the "I am the boss because I say I am the boss" variety. Fukk em.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sun 11 Dec, 2005 04:24 pm
Bernie-

I have to go out but isn't the reason for censorship that it bars speech and ideas which offend certain consensual beliefs which may well be held by IDers and SDers.Are you arguing against censorship or only against it when there's no apparent reason etc.

I'll return.
0 Replies
 
LionTamerX
 
  1  
Sun 11 Dec, 2005 04:29 pm
spendius wrote:
Bernie-
I'll return.


Several pounds lighter and several pints wiser, no doubt.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Sun 11 Dec, 2005 04:30 pm
"I have to go out" Smile Smile

as in pub closes shortly

sorry Spendius you are quite entitled to take Flaubert down the boozer
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Sun 11 Dec, 2005 05:33 pm
Quote:
Fed. Court Hears Cobb Stickers Case

ATLANTA (AP)- The federal appeals court in Atlanta will hear arguments this week on whether stickers proclaiming evolution is "a theory, not a fact" violated the First Amendment.

Under orders from a federal judge, school staffers and students scraped the stickers last spring off almost 35,000 Cobb County schoolbooks. Now a ruling from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which will hear the case Thursday, could fuel arguments from supporters and opponents of intelligent design around the country.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sun 11 Dec, 2005 06:21 pm
How resistant to being scraped off were the stickers
on the Cobb County schoolbooks.Were any interesting lessons disrupted.35,000 is quite a lot if the stickers were as resistant to be scraped off as anybody knows who has attempted to scrape **** off a wooly blanket knows is how stuck they would have made them had they been charged with the task of sticking them.It must have saved the teachers a great deal of lesson preparation and the sticker suppliers wouldn't be bothered what happened to their stickers once they'd been paid for.

Will another court order them to be re-stuck and with better glue.Could education finally resolve itself into scraping stickers off and sticking them on again.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sun 11 Dec, 2005 06:46 pm
Bernie wrote-

Quote:
Did you have French ancestors of the powdered wig sort? You do seem very keen on maintaining a social order for the sake of maintaining a social order. Even minus the guillotine, that's a favored notion of the wigged set.


I am quite keen on maintaining the social order since you mention it.I can't imagine any alterations which would improve it.If I could I would let the authorities know as I'm pretty sure they would be happy to hear about it.Preventing women waving wads of notes under salespersons's faces in order to receive the amount of flattery they think is their due seems quite a good idea on the face of it but I'm not sure I would endorse it as an election pledge.

I'm afraid I am unable to untangle the lady's ideas which is not that much of a surprise to me.I consider it to be an aspect of the status quo as well which though it make make life more fascinating it has to be admitted that it makes it more difficult.

Maybe the basic problem is that they won't let you be boss.Were they to engage is such a risky strategy I do believe you would be singing from the hymn sheet you are attempting to belittle.

Have you seen that movie yet?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Sun 11 Dec, 2005 08:32 pm
[quote="blatham']"Humans are fundamentally not exceptional because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species," she read from one during an interview.

"That offends me," she said. "That has no business being in a science textbook. That's religion." [/quote]
[/quote]

In the first place if the "Humans are fumdamentally not exceptional....' bit was included in some high school text book, I would excise it on scientific grounds alone. Our overwhelming dominance of the earth gives the lie to this assertion even from a narrow biological perspective. Moreover the inclusion of this notion, phrased as it is, in a section presumably explaining the common evolutionary origin of all species, goes well beyond what is required to make that point, suggesting an additional motive for indoctrination on the part of the author. The lady from Coibb county (a prosperous suburban area North of Atlanta) may well be on tpo something.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 07/17/2025 at 03:07:46