Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Oh c.i.

It was just by following the logic of the SDers.

0 Replies

I'm not sure I see the logic, but you know best how to interpret what you read.

0 Replies

It's easy c.i.

You can't expect those of a religious persuasion to enjoy thinking of themselves as "ludicrous" or "stupid" or a "superstitous throwback to a medieval turnip" which is what they would have to think if the SDers on here are correct and thus they would obviously get a grip of themselves and dump the whole caboodle of religiosity lock stock and barrel.It isn't a fudge isn't this stuff.It's black and white.

If the SDers are incorrect that is another matter.But I understood SDers as being in favour of eradicating religion.

If I had known they were only dipping their big toe into these waters I might have approched the matter differently.I thought they meant it.Perhaps they were only anti-religious as long as the rest of us weren't like when a hooligan breaks a bus shelter window but secretly hopes the rest of us don't get following his example.A bit like throwing your toys out of the pram which is only good fun if Mom puts them back in again and smiles understandingly.

0 Replies

SDers are not out to eradicate religion. Religionists are doing a good job all by themselves to discredit religion. A good case in point is the Dover school district board members that wanted to push ID in their science classes.

0 Replies

So they must wish to keep it in the game.

You could have fooled me.

Although what a nondescript Dover School Board has to do with that idea I can't imagine.

0 Replies

All I'm suggesting is the simple fact that religion is out to lose their credibility all by themselves.

0 Replies

If they hadn't brought it out to the forefront of education of our children, it would never have become an issue.

0 Replies

You risk confusing imitators with the real thing c.i.

0 Replies

For me, religionists are all imitators.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

You can't expect those of a religious persuasion to enjoy thinking of themselves as "ludicrous" or "stupid" or a "superstitous throwback to a medieval turnip" which is what they would have to think if the SDers on here are correct and thus they would obviously get a grip of themselves and dump the whole caboodle of religiosity lock stock and barrel.It isn't a fudge isn't this stuff.It's black and white.

Nonsense. No one need think of themselves in any way or manner predicated on the rejection of the patently absurd ID-iot silliness; all that is required is that the self-evidently preposterous notion be dustbinned. Religionists may think of themselves however they wish. How others think of them is another matter alltogether, but one should never base one's sense of self worth on the opinions of others; that is just insecurity. Of course, given the inherent insecurity embodied within acceptance of the religionist proposition itself ...

Quote:

If the SDers are incorrect that is another matter.But I understood SDers as being in favour of eradicating religion.

Some would prefer the end of religion, some would not, at least in the abstract; it can be a harmless and comforting entertainment for those given to the folly. As to who is correct, even allowing the issue might be unresolved, the overwhelming proponderance of objective evidence - as in absolutely all evidence from the academic and the forensic standpoints - is something which mitigates most inconveniently for the religionist proposition.

Quote:

If I had known they were only dipping their big toe into these waters I might have approched the matter differently.I thought they meant it.Perhaps they were only anti-religious as long as the rest of us weren't like when a hooligan breaks a bus shelter window but secretly hopes the rest of us don't get following his example.A bit like throwing your toys out of the pram which is only good fun if Mom puts them back in again and smiles understandingly.

Comes a time to leave behind the pram - however comfortable it may be.

0 Replies

Thisshould be interesting.

I'm not sure if it relates to ID, but I'm sure many comparisons could be drawn, probably on all sides.

0 Replies

Cascioli is something of a renowned kook in Italy. While the progression to litigation of his claims is amusing, I doubt anything more than amusement will come of his case. I'll admit I haven't read his book - in which he claims to lay out his charges and support them with irrefutable proof, but I have read commentaries and reviews written by historians and historiographers I have learned to respect. Those folks, theist and non-theist alike, hold little respect for Cascioli, his assertions, his proofs, or his book.

I suspect Cascioli and his fans are to anti-Christianity what ID-iots are to Christianity; embarrassing, ill-informed, imaginative, ultimately counterproductive zealots.

0 Replies

timber-

I haven't a clue what the Cascioli thing is about but your respect for the historians and historiographers is hardly proof of anything.I'm not sure one should spend one's time reading material which one already agrees with.

On the previous post I think it is a perfectly respectable position to imagine that you are correct and that IDers can thus be categorised as,and I quote,"Nonsense","patently absurd ID-iot silliness","self-evidently preposterous","dustbinned","inherent insecurity","harmless and comforting entertainment" and "folly" and that IDers would convert en masse to your view as a result of not wishing to be seen as being like you state they are.

My point was that you need to face up to the idea that they might all be converted by your wisdom which you have derived from academic and forensic sources and from historians and historiographers you respect. Surely that is your aim because if it isn't then the hooligan and pram comparisons are valid.That you are railing against something with emotive and insulting words which you don't actually wish to see altered because if it was you would have to find something else to rail against or cease railing altogether.

An IDer can seek to convert SDers because he has no intention of inhibiting "useful" science,he is supported by a majority of the population and has the successful history of Western culture under some form of ID to rest his case on.

I agree that the old Dover School Board did push the boat out un-necessarily and seem to have done their own position some damage as well as causing their own children to lose some focus on their education.But they may say that politicising the issue so strongly,which the other side have also been complicit to,has motives we may not understand.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

timber-

I haven't a clue what the Cascioli thing is about but your respect for the historians and historiographers is hardly proof of anything.I'm not sure one should spend one's time reading material which one already agrees with.

One need not agree with an author or point of view to respect same.

Quote:

On the previous post I think it is a perfectly respectable position to imagine that you are correct and that IDers can thus be categorised as,and I quote,"Nonsense","patently absurd ID-iot silliness","self-evidently preposterous","dustbinned","inherent insecurity","harmless and comforting entertainment" and "folly" and that IDers would convert en masse to your view as a result of not wishing to be seen as being like you state they are.

That you might think such reasonable in no way alters what was said; the ID-iot notion merits the ridicule in and of itself. Its proponents may or may not merit similar regard, in any respect other than devotion to the trope.

Quote:

My point was that you need to face up to the idea that they might all be converted by your wisdom which you have derived from academic and forensic sources and from historians and historiographers you respect.

Nothing there to face up to at all; there always will be a contentedly willing, gullible, self-righteously arrogant flock ready to follow ignorance wherever a priesthood leads them with it. As to religionists and sources, academic, forensic, or otherwise, each individually earns, merits, and is accorded the respect it is due through its own presents.

Quote:

Surely that is your aim because if it isn't then the hooligan and pram comparisons are valid.

Sorry, but I see that assessment to be non sequitur - dunno howthuhell you got there. (And quit calling me Shirley :wink: )

Quote:

That you are railing against something with emotive and insulting words which you don't actually wish to see altered because if it was you would have to find something else to rail against or cease railing altogether.

Took some doing to parse that bit of Joycian flow, but I think I managed. I must disagree with what I perceive to be your conclusion; I do wish to see the end of religious meddling in scientific and socio-political affairs clearly inappropriate to the focus and intent brought by the subject religionists. I do not expect such meddling ever to cease, as not logic and reason but emotion and proselytizing are the cornerstones of the religionist proposition, and as mentioned before, there always will be a flock ready to follow a priesthood wherever ignorance may lead.

Quote:

An IDer can seek to convert SDers because he has no intention of inhibiting "useful" science,he is supported by a majority of the population and has the successful history of Western culture under some form of ID to rest his case on.

Another parsing puzzler, but I think I got there. I submit the contention that ID-iots have "no intention to inhibit 'useful' science" is on its face patently absurd - chiefly in the premise that there might be, and/or that they or anyone else might be detiminative of what might constitute, "useful science"; science is neither useful nor otherwise in and of itself, it is science. The object or result of some one or another application of science may or may not be of use or to be desired or condoned in some one or another particular or particulars, however if the "science" behind that application be science per the actual definition of science it is science, that and nothing more nor less, any agenda-driven effort to redefine science in such manner as to conform to the ideals and preferences of that agenda's proponents notwithstanding. Attitudes and opinions of science have no more bearing on the validity of science than do attitudes and opinions have bearing on water. Science either is valid or it is not science.

Quote:

I agree that the old Dover School Board did push the boat out un-necessarily and seem to have done their own position some damage as well as causing their own children to lose some focus on their education.But they may say that politicising the issue so strongly,which the other side have also been complicit to,has motives we may not understand.

Now, there is something here to which I agree; the ID-iots have hurt themselves through their Dover escapade, and their focus on the absurdity of attempting to politically foist their ridiculous proposition as science has distracted from education. That the "other side" was "complicit" grossly mischaracterizes the actuality, however; one resisting a rapist is not complicit in any regard pertaining to the intended rape.

0 Replies

timber wrote-

Quote:

One need not agree with an author or point of view to respect same.

I can't agree with that.I try to be scientific so I don't have points of view.

Quote:

That you might think such reasonable in no way alters what was said; the ID-iot notion merits the ridicule in and of itself. Its proponents may or may not merit similar regard, in any respect other than devotion to the trope.

Same there.Anybody who spouts ridiculous ideas is ridiculous.

Quote:

there always will be a contentedly willing, gullible, self-righteously arrogant flock

and there will always be somebody to repair the bus shelter or replace the toys.

Quote:

As to religionists and sources, academic, forensic, or otherwise, each individually earns, merits, and is accorded the respect it is due through its own presents.

Is that not circular?Who says it earns the respect except those who find what is presented satisfying?

Quote:

but I see that assessment to be non sequitur

You disqualified that idea with the flock of sheep.

Quote:

emotion

Are emotions real or not then?Spock thought not.
If they are real then they are of interest to science.

Quote:

I submit the contention that ID-iots have "no intention to inhibit 'useful' science" is on its face patently absurd

Science progressed under what might loosely be called ID and,indeed,prospered.Darwin himself was intending to be a parson.

Quote:

science is neither useful nor otherwise in and of itself, it is science.

Perfect.Fully agree.But it is an ideal that can't be reached in a social system as my unanswered example about longevity was intended to show.Show me science today which fits the definition we agree on (with Veblen) and is disinterested and simply a play of curiosity.(Apart from on here I mean).

Quote:

Science either is valid or it is not science.

That's a wierd piece of logic.

Your last para defeats me.The opponents of the Board were in no way in a similar position to a rape victim.

I'm sorry timber-I'm in a rush here.

0 Replies

The current issue of "LA Weekly" has an article on Senator John McCain whom they call "every liberal's favorite conservative". However, the article criticizes him for taking a politically opportunistic stance on the teaching of intelligent design:

Quote:

0 Replies

Board Rescinds 'Intelligent Design' Policy
Updated: 05:42 AM EST
Board Rescinds 'Intelligent Design' Policy
By MARTHA RAFFAELE, AP

DOVER, Pa. (Jan. 4) - The Dover school board on Tuesday rescinded its policy of presenting "intelligent design" as an alternative to evolution in high school biology classes, two weeks after a federal judge found the concept was religious and not scientific.

There was no discussion by the eight members of the Dover Area School Board before the voice vote Tuesday night. The board's secretary said that all eight board members voted unanimously; there is one vacancy on the school board.

The policy, approved in October 2004, required that a statement be read to students about "intelligent design" before ninth-grade lessons on evolution. The statement said Darwin's theory is "not a fact" and has inexplicable "gaps." It referred students to an "intelligent-design" book.

On Dec. 20, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III sided with eight families who argued that "intelligent design," which attributes the existence of complex organisms to an unidentified intelligent cause, is biblical creationism in disguise.

The school board said it was trying to improve science education by exposing students to alternatives. But the judge said the board's real purpose was "to promote religion in the public school classroom," and said intelligent design could not be taught as an alternative to evolution in biology classes.

Jennifer Miller, a Dover biology teacher who was among about 100 people who attended the meeting, said she was relieved that the policy was officially off the books.

"I will feel comfortable again teaching what I'd always felt comfortable teaching, so that will be nice," she said.

School board members declined to comment after the vote.

Jeff Brown, who voted against the policy in 2004 and resigned in protest after it passed, said the court battle could have been avoided.

"I tried ... to warn the board that we were facing a disaster..."
-Jeff Brown

"I tried ... to warn the board that we were facing a disaster and obviously I was not persuasive enough," he said.

Most of the school board incumbents who had defended the policy were ousted in the November election, replaced by candidates who pledged to eliminate it.

The policy and federal lawsuit added fuel to a national debate over "intelligent design."

After the vote, new school board president Bernadette Reinking only said, "This is it," indicating that the vote was final and the case was closed.

Dover resident Keith DiGiovanni criticized the Thomas More Law Center, the Michigan-based group that represented the school district and describes its mission as defending the religious freedom of Christians.

DiGiovanni said the group used the school board - and the resulting controversy split the community. He also expressed concerns about legal fees that the district has incurred in the case.

"It would be poetic justice for the current board to send the legal costs in this matter to the Thomas More Law Center," he said.

0 Replies

It would be amusing, and not at all surprising, should the adjudged proximately culpable, soon-to-be-former boardmembers find themselves and their champions, the Thomas More Law Center and The Discovery Institute, find themselves subject to litigation on the part of the current board in the matter of cost recovery pursuant to satisfaction of the judicial order for same.

0 Replies

Timber

timberlandko wrote:

It would be amusing, and not at all surprising, should the adjudged proximately culpable, soon-to-be-former boardmembers find themselves and their champions, the Thomas More Law Center and The Discovery Institute, find themselves subject to litigation on the part of the current board in the matter of cost recovery pursuant to satisfaction of the judicial order for same.

Wouldn't that be lovely?

BBB

0 Replies

Who will pay the costs if the old Board get the invoice and haven't any money?

In that reasonably likely event do the lawyers get paid and where from?

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know