Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Will somebody please translate this into English, please?

well, Im not one of Sir Richards biggest fans. He has, as this bit of "Trailer" indicates often been caught doing exactly as wand has cautioned science against, the imposition of values on the work.

That's not exactly the point, c.i. - the point is that an "All Perfect" entity would have neither need nor want to create anything, perfect, imperfect, or otherwise; "perfection", particularly unambiguously as would be entailed by "All Perfect", entails a completeness, leaving nothing to be wanted, needed, or created.

Now that doesn't mean there is not or may not be an all-perfect entity - it just renders creation a concept incompatible with any such entity.

well, Im not one of Sir Richards biggest fans. He has, as this bit of "Trailer" indicates often been caught doing exactly as wand has cautioned science against, the imposition of valyues on the work.
Dawkins has often been called a big loudmouthfor using his position of authority(as a philosopher of science ) to try to convince people of the validity of these beliefs using a bogus scientific approach.

I prefer science that is "value-free". I admire science for its objectivity. Scientists who use science to promote any dogma (religious or political) undermine their own credibility. Using science to promote atheism detracts from the contributions Dawkins has made to our understanding of natural science.

wande wrote-

Quote:

I prefer science that is "value-free". I admire science for its objectivity. Scientists who use science to promote any dogma (religious or political) undermine their own credibility. Using science to promote atheism detracts from the contributions Dawkins has made to our understanding of natural science.

A scientist can't predict the future.Just like the very high degree of probabilty that God doesn't exist according to some there is also only a very high degree of probability that the future will exist so the scientist has a belief that setting his experiments up will have some purpose (setting aside a philosophical discussion of 'purpose',if I may),in a future he believes there's a very high probability of happening.

But suppose it just went POOOOFpht!!.Just like that.
God said-"Sod this for a game of coconuts" and just unthought matter and energy and anything else we might not know about yet..Or if it just happened anyway due to a particular alignment in the universe of a very low probability of occuring.(While we're here I mean-and who gives an on the winger after that?).
Scientists beliefs are a load of teleological nonsensical tautologies all piled up on the belief in a future, which I've heard savages didn't believe when it was thundering and lightning, which leaves us-well I don't know where it leaves us actually-and I came on this Ask an Expert thing to find answers to these sorts of questions rather than being instructed on how money flows through a sort of Peyton Place in Pa.Interesting though that is assuming no POOOOFTpht!!s in the next microsecond.

You all have a rather flattering idea of what idiocy really entails.You're a bit bourgeois on idiocy I feel.

Scientists can't predict the future. They just assume that there will be a future.

But what if there is no future. What if God just stops everything a millisecond from now.

Scientists don't know sh*t. They are like the savages of ages past, cowering before the lightning and thunder they don't understand.

So what did I just say? Even I don't know. I came here seeking answers from experts (A2K) and all I found were bourgeois idiots.

I find my own ramblings interesting so I'm hoping the world doesn't end in the next millisecond.

Oh-I nearly forgot-the rambling associations are what separate interesting from boring.They provide colour and novelty and opportunities for wit.Proust will teach you that.

at last, a competent translator. My eyeballs usually wax over after the first non critical random free association.

If creative writing and poetic expression were sports I could wipe the floor with you lot with the left hand side of my brain ,one hand in my pants pocket, balancing on the tip of a snooker cue with my forefinger and singing On Ilkley Moor 'baat 'at.

I'll have you know that I was presented at 14 with the complete works of Thomas Hardy by an Archbishop for my English.I did,however,only read the first half of The Trumpet Major as I found it far too bourgeois for my refined tastes.

spendius wrote:

I'll have you know that I was presented at 14 with the complete works of Thomas Hardy by an Archbishop for my English.I did,however,only read the first half of The Trumpet Major as I found it far too bourgeois for my refined tastes.

(Wait a second while I look up bourgeois AGAIN. Sheesh.)

What a coincidence, an Archbishop I once met, admitted to me that he had given the complete works of Thomas Hardy to a pompous 14 year old as a joke.