Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

How does it move us in that direction? Because religion is forced to change to meet a changing world view is hardly a move toward eradication or even a movement in trench warfare. There is no war other then the one demanded by minority of the religious fanatics who want everyone to live in their fantasy world and the response to those fanatics. Most of the religious don't share the view of those fanatics. Science has no war with religion.


Real world knowledge is science at its most basic. A reality that is able to be tested even by the non believers and the same result occurs every time. Religion will never approach that reality because it is personal belief. There is nothing wrong with a belief system but don't confuse it with testable theories in science.

Religion has always been schismatic. That is what a belief system requires. Because there is no proofs that can be given to non believers or different believers, it all comes down to the individual and that always leads to schism.

parados wrote-



I presume you mean that real world knowledge you are comfortable with.Have you considered real world knowledge that you are not comfortable with?

One needn't have schism.The Pope is the answer to schism.I know troublemakers won't have it but what can I do about that.

Quote, "I presume you mean that real world knowledge you are comfortable with."

Define "real world?"

That's what I am asking c.i.

c.i. wrote



Do you really think that what you like and what you don't like has anything to do with an intellectual discussion or with organising the future or with anything at all outside of yourself.Your statement doesn't derive from a culture it derives from an agglomeration of isolated individuals cut off in its urban peopleheaps of contactless sociability from the springs of life and Destiny.Ibsen woman in trousers one might say.

Similarly with



I would imagine that there is a much greater chance of the research being limited by Mr Bush on the basis of advice he received from a range of experts who had studied the possible benefits and dangers as they are perceived now in relation to other social institutions.

timber wrote-



I'm sorry timber but that whole post is bluster.I only feel the need to point that out because there may be people reading it who might think it means anything which is definitely not the case.

spendi wrote:
Do you really think that what you like and what you don't like has anything to do with an intellectual discussion or with organising the future or with anything at all outside of yourself.

Ofcoarse it does, because how we feel about different aspect of our lives are regulated by governments that ignore the separation of church and state. If those of religion do not use "intellecdtual discussion" to determine how they will vote of "marriage of gays and lesbians" or "stem cell research" or "ID as science in our schools," who would otherwise give a shet.

If you are trying to convince me that "intellectual" masterbation was not used by so-called scientists to win their ID as science rhetoric in Dover, you haven't any idea how these idiots impinge on our equal rights that should guarantee the separation of church and state.

spendi, you're perfectly welcome to assign the quality of "bluster" to anything with which you take exception. I submit there is no legitimate science within the ID-iot proposition, that it is the apotheosis of science, and I submit no forensically valid, intellectually honest case may be made for the proposition. I submit that any proponent or defender of the proposition must argue from a position deserving of no respect or consideration; the proposition has no intrinsic merit. That it may be dearly held and highly regarded by some is irrelevant in that the proposition itself proceeds from the fallacty of petio principii. It is an absurdity, all proceeding from it, all endorsement of it, is absurdity. Absurdity receives the respect it merits.

I submit that while you may or may not accept or endorse any of the foregoing, you cannot refute any of it. Dispute it, certainly, refute it, most certainly not.

c.i.wrote-



Those who have a vocation outside of materialism.
Or simply feel a duty towards a responsibility they have been entrusted with.
Care for the future is the bedrock ideology of the Faustian culture and the keystone of our strength.
Have you never "liked" something and then discovered you didn't when the implications appeared.

spendi, We are talking "specifics," if that has any meaning for you.

Your attempts to sidetrack this discussion into "have you ever liked..." doesn't address my previous post.

You don't really believe that do you?

You think there's a greater chance that Bush made his decisoin based on scientific advice than a self determined moral (or political) agenda.

I realize that this is a subject of pure conjecture since neither of us know Bush personally, but it seems pretty clear to me that input from the majority of the scientific community is not a dominant factor in most of Bush's choices in many cases.

(and that was as nicely as I could say all that)

c.i. wrote-



Specifics (incidents) have no meaning in intellectual discussion.I thought your previous post incoherent from such a point of view.Many different types of government regulate citizens lives often in extreme ways.The position in your previous post is located in comfort and security.Many intellectuals have lost their lives knowing the risks to fight the fight that the "what I like-ers" have shirked.I am saying that the "what I like" brigade have no valid input into complex decision making and I welcome pulling the wool over their eyes when necessary.

If you believe Bush makes his decision on enforcing his beliefs on the rest of America is not based in his religion, you understand very little.

ros wrote-



Yes,as long as you emphasise "greater chance".I don't rule out a religious objection but I think it unlikely.I don't know much about stem cell research but I know some scientists have spoken of potential dangers and I would guess there will be a delay,at least,while these dangers are studied.
I don't think Mr Bush would make a religiously motivated decision against overwhelming scientific advice.I imagine Mr Bush knows as little about the subject as I do.

You needn't be "nice" on my account ros.I can take it.

I wasn't being nice on your account Spendi, I was being nice to the president given that I haven't met the man and only have media sources and second hand information to drive my opinion.

None the less, I strongly feel, from a great number of sources from which I gather informaiton, that President Bush made his Stem Cell decision primarily on moral, religious and political basis, rather than on conventional collective scientific advice.

And yes, that's just my opinion.

timber wrote-



I didn't take exception timber.It's just that I can recognise bluster when I see it.The post referred to didn't mean anything.

I'm saying that there is a science of government which I think takes precedence over rooting around in labs or in fossil fields.That is the question which has not been addressed nor other questions deriving from it.Hence the baby and the bathwater.
Your sights are set too low.

Is it not obvious to you that I think ID has no validity.I actually think that it is self defeating and is a direct cause of the aspects of modern life that it gets most excited about.Religion has been picked off by being divided and it seems to me to be so divided and thus weak because business principles have been applied to it.That stems I think from the real Church not moving fast enough in the pioneering days but I would be interested in other plausible explanations for the multiplicity of cults you seem to be saddled with.It's a growing problem here too.

Here's the last part of Bush's speech on stem cell research.

The United States has a long and proud record of leading the world toward advances in science and medicine that improve human life. And the United States has a long and proud record of upholding the highest standards of ethics as we expand the limits of science and knowledge. Research on embryonic stem cells raises profound ethical questions, because extracting the stem cell destroys the embryo, and thus destroys its potential for life. Like a snowflake, each of these embryos is unique, with the unique genetic potential of an individual human being.

As I thought through this issue, I kept returning to two fundamental questions: First, are these frozen embryos human life, and therefore, something precious to be protected? And second, if they're going to be destroyed anyway, shouldn't they be used for a greater good, for research that has the potential to save and improve other lives?

I've asked those questions and others of scientists, scholars, bioethicists, religious leaders, doctors, researchers, members of Congress, my Cabinet, and my friends. I have read heartfelt letters from many Americans. I have given this issue a great deal of thought, prayer and considerable reflection. And I have found widespread disagreement.

On the first issue, are these embryos human life -- well, one researcher told me he believes this five-day-old cluster of cells is not an embryo, not yet an individual, but a pre-embryo. He argued that it has the potential for life, but it is not a life because it cannot develop on its own.

An ethicist dismissed that as a callous attempt at rationalization. Make no mistake, he told me, that cluster of cells is the same way you and I, and all the rest of us, started our lives. One goes with a heavy heart if we use these, he said, because we are dealing with the seeds of the next generation.

And to the other crucial question, if these are going to be destroyed anyway, why not use them for good purpose -- I also found different answers. Many argue these embryos are byproducts of a process that helps create life, and we should allow couples to donate them to science so they can be used for good purpose instead of wasting their potential. Others will argue there's no such thing as excess life, and the fact that a living being is going to die does not justify experimenting on it or exploiting it as a natural resource.

At its core, this issue forces us to confront fundamental questions about the beginnings of life and the ends of science. It lies at a difficult moral intersection, juxtaposing the need to protect life in all its phases with the prospect of saving and improving life in all its stages.

As the discoveries of modern science create tremendous hope, they also lay vast ethical mine fields. As the genius of science extends the horizons of what we can do, we increasingly confront complex questions about what we should do. We have arrived at that brave new world that seemed so distant in 1932, when Aldous Huxley wrote about human beings created in test tubes in what he called a "hatchery."

In recent weeks, we learned that scientists have created human embryos in test tubes solely to experiment on them. This is deeply troubling, and a warning sign that should prompt all of us to think through these issues very carefully.

Embryonic stem cell research is at the leading edge of a series of moral hazards. The initial stem cell researcher was at first reluctant to begin his research, fearing it might be used for human cloning. Scientists have already cloned a sheep. Researchers are telling us the next step could be to clone human beings to create individual designer stem cells, essentially to grow another you, to be available in case you need another heart or lung or liver.

I strongly oppose human cloning, as do most Americans. We recoil at the idea of growing human beings for spare body parts, or creating life for our convenience. And while we must devote enormous energy to conquering disease, it is equally important that we pay attention to the moral concerns raised by the new frontier of human embryo stem cell research. Even the most noble ends do not justify any means.

My position on these issues is shaped by deeply held beliefs. I'm a strong supporter of science and technology, and believe they have the potential for incredible good -- to improve lives, to save life, to conquer disease. Research offers hope that millions of our loved ones may be cured of a disease and rid of their suffering. I have friends whose children suffer from juvenile diabetes. Nancy Reagan has written me about President Reagan's struggle with Alzheimer's. My own family has confronted the tragedy of childhood leukemia. And, like all Americans, I have great hope for cures.

I also believe human life is a sacred gift from our Creator. I worry about a culture that devalues life, and believe as your President I have an important obligation to foster and encourage respect for life in America and throughout the world. And while we're all hopeful about the potential of this research, no one can be certain that the science will live up to the hope it has generated.

Eight years ago, scientists believed fetal tissue research offered great hope for cures and treatments -- yet, the progress to date has not lived up to its initial expectations. Embryonic stem cell research offers both great promise and great peril. So I have decided we must proceed with great care.

As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist. They were created from embryos that have already been destroyed, and they have the ability to regenerate themselves indefinitely, creating ongoing opportunities for research. I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines, where the life and death decision has already been made.

Leading scientists tell me research on these 60 lines has great promise that could lead to breakthrough therapies and cures. This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research without crossing a fundamental moral line, by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life.

I also believe that great scientific progress can be made through aggressive federal funding of research on umbilical cord placenta, adult and animal stem cells which do not involve the same moral dilemma. This year, your government will spend $250 million on this important research.

I will also name a President's council to monitor stem cell research, to recommend appropriate guidelines and regulations, and to consider all of the medical and ethical ramifications of biomedical innovation. This council will consist of leading scientists, doctors, ethicists, lawyers, theologians and others, and will be chaired by Dr. Leon Kass, a leading biomedical ethicist from the University of Chicago.

This council will keep us apprised of new developments and give our nation a forum to continue to discuss and evaluate these important issues. As we go forward, I hope we will always be guided by both intellect and heart, by both our capabilities and our conscience.

I have made this decision with great care, and I pray it is the right one.
Thank you for listening. Good night, and God bless America.

c.i. wrote-



That's another assertion c.i.

I think Mr Bush's religious principles,such as they are,may have some influence but with a paper flow from gigantic bureaucracies arriving on his desk coming from your elite I can't see him ignoring it on such a basis.

A religiously motivated emphasis may be valid when other advice is contradictory.It buys time.

spendi, Here's another inconsistency in Bush. He values "potential" birth, but he is also responsible for the killing of over 30,000 innocent Iraqis by an invasion of Iraq based on bad intelligence - or ignoring the warnings of those that knew better - at a time when UN inspectors were looking for WMDs.

He said "last resort." You still believe that?