Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

ros-

Yep-That's right.You can use comparisons too.
Could you really not follow my simple post?

Let's face it,a thick book wouldn't do the subject justice so I tried to distill the impression of such a book into a revealing glimpse.Something like what a literary critic would do in reviewing a book.The main idea is to spark an interest.

To oversimplify one might say that Judge Jones had the interests of the legal establishment in mind when he wrote his judgement.That might even be unconscious due to his spending his whole life within the confines of that establishment.We would call it cynical if it was conscious.

Stendhal taught me the first separation.The one between those who make the budget and those who consume it.The latter had the upper hand before the revolution in France.In our cabinets there is a polarisation between spending ministers and getting ministers.Richard Crossman's Dairies explains it quite well but it is three thick books.Our country can be roughly divided geographically in the same way.The North supplies and the South consumes but that doesn't mean that the South doesn't supply anything.Of course it does.It's a question of emphasis.Infant mortality rates are a good measure.Last time I looked the North were 2 deaths per thousand higher than the South.It's the same with average age at death and many other factors.Number of wine bars or number of servants.
Snow salespersons try to claim it's the weather.This is why political allegiance falls into geographical patterns.

But I am human and so are you.As we have set the precedent of tossing out easy to do insults I might say that I am a mature human and you are still wet behind the ears which is a state I would like to return to.

When people with little knowledge of the system have votes it becomes necessary for politicians to tell lies.If they didn't the thing would go up in smoke.You get the government you deserve.

It's a big subject young man and exceedingly interesting.One day I'll tell you what I really think about ID/SD but only when you have a sturdy piece of leather to bite on.

It seems to me that your basic problem ros is that you like to think you know what is going on without the bother of doing much work on it.That everything you need to know to pass judgement on these major issues can be got from a quick read of a newspaper or from watching soundbites on the news.Despite the fact that such an approach is very common it remains a self-serving illusion.An ideology.

Spendi, you are the master of pathetically confused prose. And apparently I'm not alone in my interpretation. None the less I find them entertaining, in an insane asylum sort of way.

It's also fun to watch you stab in the dark at my age and background. Nice try old boy.

I find myself in the same boat as ros there spendi. Most of the time your posts arent worth scanning , let alone trying to decipher. I think, that you think you are being profound when, at the other end of the line its all sort of a pile of unlinked goo.

Do you ever actually read your own posts and then ask yourself "what have I just said?"

ros-

Is there something wrong with trying to enthuse people to get their arse into gear.Every sport's coach does that.He usually fails of course but the final team is what he is after.And complacency is his biggest enemy.

I don't think you have any idea how complacent some of this stuff looks from here.

Gee-some of them think they are qualified to comment on my posts after a bored scan through at 200 mph.That's serious complacency and,as is usual,derives from underestimation of others,a very grave fault at anytime, which basically derives from arrogance.Such dire characteristics won't just apply in my case.It will be a habit of thought with no room for humility.

New Thread Coming Soon: "Spendi Theory: Sense or Nonsense?"

wande-

I presume I oughtn't to contribute to that.I will read it with interest though.

The dust is growing thicker at the Cafe.

Stream of consciousness writing often is engaging, even when a bit Joycian. One thing that must be observed, however, is that it works much better if the practitioner actually is conscious at the time of writing.

timber-

Mr Joyce,an admirable man indeed,was exceedingly conscious not only of every word he wrote but of the nuances attaching to them and the place he allotted them in his rhythmic scheme.I never tire of engaging my mind with his prose which is itself a new departure in word use and which has not yet,and probably won't ever,be equalled.

spendi, Asylums of full of "those." LOL

I wouldn't know about that as I have no experience of them.

wande quoted-



Which major arguments.The phrase does not neccessarily include ALL major arguments.

It is easy to see that Mr Hanna is an SDer.

spendi, One must assume from the length of this trial that all the i's were dotted and the t's crossed. If the IDers failed that, it's their own problem. I'[m sure they have presented everything they could muster to try to win their case. Even the key witnesses for the IDers could not present the necessary evidence to prove their point.

ID accepts as much of valid science as it can to appear reasonable. It confesses to a 4.5 Billion year old earth: It accepts natural selection for the most part, it agrees that DNA is a record repository of the changes that have occured to root species.

ID departs from the remainder of science so as to to try be unique and, with its manufactured principles, to be valid science. (All this with no real work of its own)

ID proponents, in their unguarded moments, all profess a deep religious foundation for explanations of life, in fact, most of the leaders of the ID movement had their roots in the Institute for Scientific Creationism. Those that dont (like Fred Hoyle,) believe in implanted nucleation from outer space.

ID also professes its "beliefs" with a great deal of certainty, a degree to which no honest scientist could support.

ID does all this without a single scrap of evidence other than a non proven late-coming philosophical concept of "irreducible complexity' The most of which has been dismissed by the scientific world and even most theologists.

The proponents of ID in Dover were a bunch of coniving scalawags who, all along, "while posing as fiscal conservatives" really wanted to slip their noses under the curricular tent without causing too big a stir (according to the judges opinion). Heres where they fugged up most grievously. They didnt count on people organizing "against" ID as science.

c.i.

Why did Mr Hanna use "that" rather than "the"?He a pro wordsmith isn't he?

What's up with "the major arguments from ID have been contradicted repeatedly"?

Of course I would have disputed that as you might guess but it isn't the point here.

A section in the 139 page decision in the Dover case does specify how the major arguments from ID have been contradicted.

(You can also read this entire thread from the beginning and see the major arguments from ID contradicted repeatedly.)

I can't speak for Mr Hanna, but farmerman pretty much explains the difficulties for IDers.

wande wrote-



The social function argument-the way forward one-has not been contradicted at all.In fact it has been shied away from as if it was a big mad hairy monster hunting for you in the dark.It is the argument I have been presenting from the first post and it has not even been attempted to discuss it let alone deal with it.And it's the only argument that matters.

Judge Jones has pushed the boat out for science and thus a relaxation of moral values because science can't prove the validity of those just like IDers can't prove God.Thus more crime,social breakdown etc and a big boost for the legal profession and no doubt others.

Of course I'm cracked.I know that.Scientists have been insisting for ages.

Good "Doonesbury" cartoon this month covering this topic. Anybody see it?