Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Hang on a minute.Let me get this straight.

Somebody mentions the Discovery Institute.

I don't know what that is but it sounds pretty good.

So I Google it and get this-



Next news I'm getting told that it is not only not non-partisan or public (i.e. official) but has no interest in research,technology,science,culture,economics or foreign policy (there's a thought) but bends the whole force of its resources (?) to a project designed to turn the US back into the dark ages,which is as daft as pissing into the wind from the prow of the world record speedboat and that it can't think its way out of a theological condom which has had a pair of scissors to it.

I'm reserving judgement on the tank side of it.

Crises of confidence astound me.

"We are going all the way till the wheels fall off and buuuuurn.--Bob Dylan--Brownsville Girl.

That you cite the Googlehit you do, spendi, is strong evidence of a credulity on your part which leads me to advise you never to open any email from a Nigerian sender. As opposed to the ID-iots' own recitation of their cockamamie institute's purported mission statement, try to digest This ... an article which does fine by itself to expose the ID-iot agenda for the transparently religionist fraud it is, and chasing the links contained therein will provide one hours of edifying entertainment (presupposing, of course, one were to be susceptible to edification).

Thanks timber.

I never opened an e-mail in my life.This is all I do and ONLY under spendius.

I'll admit credulity.It has stood me in great stead.

No need for the link.I already have a fuller picture than that is likely to show.I avoid anything that confirms the take I already have.Such things bore me.Something that challenges my views is much the best.

Have you not found Cluck!Cluck! yet.ISBN 0 907080 15 4.

spedi sez
Youve been part of this thread for about at least half of the 300 plus pages and there have been numerous postings and links by wandel, ros, timber, set , and others that were specific about the Discovery Institute. I gave a few rants awhile back about their wedge project .
Now, at least a month after Judge jones decision, youve received blunt force trauma about them.
Your giving me the creeps , I must say.

In that case fm I would avoid dark lanes if I was you.

I was only having a mild ironic sideswipe at Google for allowing that description to stand in view of what you lot have been saying.I was pretending to be like the innocents who read that.

Did you think I was being serious?Sheesh!

I take every pronouncement from American sources as being "from a cockamamie institute" of some sort and,in a manner of speaking,a "wedge".

I only trust Bob Dylan now Mailer has blown town.

I have petticoats around my cynicism goodstyle.

I have no idea whats in the mind of the spendi, nor am I particularly impatient to learn.
You must admit, you are kind of creepy.

You must admit that you are quite creepy as well.

Gee-this is easy.This requires the absolute minimum of intelligence,educational experience or effort.

What I find peculiar,creepy being much too strong a word as it contains the element "causing fear", is that in these debates, and those on other threads, everytime a religion supporter spouts up they discredit religion and everytime a scientific spouts up they discredit science.It is as if they each represent a side in a football game for no other reason than they have,by some process or other,come to identify with it.

No scientist,and I must have known personally a couple of hundred,would even think of using the term "ID-iot" for the other side in a debate.One can get suspended from the House of Commons for such a thing.And that is only one of the usages to be seen on here which would result in that.

That is most peculiar by English standards in both the scientific community and in the religious.It might be construed as creepy by anyone who saw it as culture rust in its early stages.It is a mode of thinking endemic in an underclass.

And not being "impatient to learn" the REAL arguments,or some of them I ought to add,which have been pointed out on numerous occasions to no avail, is a feature which fits in well with that social situation.

One can only assume that educated Americans don't come on these threads for these very reasons.I don't recall Mailer being disrespectful to any belief system and even Hofstadter and Veblen took pains to avoid coarseness in this regard.And Dylan lost half his followers in his Christian phase.(Thank goodness).

And it seems even more peculiar when one thinks that the President and the governing party and,judging by reports I have read,over 70% of Americans are believers in "something".


Maybe daft is a better word.

I am quite impatient to learn how someone can sail through life in the good coracle Pure Objective Truth when everybody knows there is no such thing and into the face of the swollen torrent of humanity to boot.

why dont you blow it out the orifice that you usually utter your pronouncements. What I cannot understand is that , if you already understand something, why waste our time acting like a complete dullard? Is that something that only you like to do? I have to admit that youre a first. Most Brits I wok and socialize with are quite particluar about their "skills" they dont act like a Tennessee farmer trying to sell a dead horse.

You remind me a bit of the Michael Palin petshop owner extolling the resting pose of the "Norwegian Blue" . For this conversation, I shall never trust you again.

What a farrago of real orifice extrusions.

It's of no interest to this debate whether you trust me or whether you don't.It is the post you ought to address yourself to.Who cares what I remind you of.And "most Brits" is--how many?And I daresay few people on here know what a Tennessee farmer selling a dead horse looks like or even care.

If I'm wasting your time,and have you seen the viewing figures,why allow me to do so?

That has addressed your post ,so how about you addressing mine.If you don't know how to conduct a debate by now how do we know you know how to run education in a range of localities never mind how the world began.

spendius says
Lotta words with very little content. Youre still creeping me out here spendi. I feel like Im arguing with some street person.

You are.I'm a street person or I'm nothing.

Address the post in question instead of inventing these face saving assertions which only work as face savers iconoclastically.

what, the hell are you talking about?

Basically fm,about how to conduct a modern,civilised debate on a subject which has been exercising the best minds for very many years without people jumping in with a definitive answer and designating all who disagree with them into emotionally charged negative categories using ignorant derogatory assertions of absolutely no value and which rely for whatever credibility they can muster on underestimating the intelligence of other A2Kers.

Once that gets cleared up we might be able to make a start on discussing the possible role,or not, of the Intelligent Design position in our future planning scenarios.

Until it is cleared up you have a shouting match and not a useful debate.And I can hold my end up in shouting matches if I have to.

Given that the science of the issue escapes you entirely, that you know absolutely nothing of the basic workings of local politics in the United States, that you are equally cluess as to the greater implications in the contemporary political climate of the United States, and that you are given to rambling, irrelevant discursii with no particular relation to the topic, why would anyone be so foolish as to want to debate with you?

Actually Spendius has made an interesting point with respect to the role that belief in a deity may have in the historical development of our culture and civilization, and as well, the unknown effects of eliminating or materialy reducing it. I doubt that he or anyone would advance this as an argument for or proof of the existence of God or of a creator. Rather he advanced it as a cautionary note in the debate over education. It is also likely that he has exaggerated the point a bit, just to amuse himself.

Perhaps the point is little more than Dostoyevski's argument in the Tale of the Grand Inquisitor that he put in the mouth of his character Ivan Karamazov in the novel of that name. However, even so, it merits serious consideration, or at least something more than the thoughtless, largely ignorant responses I have seen on this thread.

When it comes to snotty condescension about what may or may be thoughtless or ignorant, no one can dispute the palm with you, George.

Spendius' claims about the alleged function in religion were based upon a narrow and "Abrahamic-centric" view of history, which only relies upon a contention of the importance of organized religion in society which is not warranted by the historical record. Religion only ever rose to the level of significance in social and political events to the extent that it was the prime motivating factor in warfare and other forms of political strife--which explains why it became so important in the years leading up to the Protestant Reformation. Thereafter, warfare quickly ignored confessional lines, as political reality asserted itself once more.

It is not to be wondered at, though, that you come charging in with that apologia--the most you've ever offered in this thread is sour grapes about the reality of the situation. That's far better than Spendius, however, who has never shown any evidence of understanding any type of reality, let alone that which concerns itself with "intelligent design" and how school districts and the federal court system in this country function. But i can see that you two were made for each other, so i will discretely withdraw, so as not to intrude upon your love-making.

set, is your sig line a true and honest copy?

Georgeob-good try.Prior to your contribution, Spendi has, by rather circuitous means , pretty much admitted that hes totally ignorant of the basic issue herein. The bends in the road that invoke everything from Madame De Bovary to Bob Dylan are, IMHO, spendis attempts to further put a field of mist over the proceedings.
"Ivan the K"?, have you been waiting a week or so to stick that one in? couldnt you try harder and be even more pompous? MAybe we should give awrds out for various categories of posts, like

"The John Ratzenburger award for irrelevant insertions"


"The Oscar Wilde award for pretentious prose"

"The Gileadiite award for showy shibboleths'

oh ****, now Im startin to sound like you.
Anyway, Ive always felt that the purpose of these forums was more to communicate , not preen our tails.
Spendius, when he doesnt understand jack, will retreat into a closet of irrelevant references. His writing style is as if hes taken one deep breath and is expelling random words. However, when he is comfortable with having a private put on at others expense ( remember that his entire positions have been admittedly drawn from "not reading anything about ID") then hes just crying for some help. Youve missed those pages apparently

Yeah, Hey-Zeus, that's an actual quote . . . the source is a new member who shows all the signs of being an ultramontane catholic of the Hutton Gibson type--you know, Second Vatican Council was a plot by the Jews, etc. . . .