Quoting Duke University's [url=http://www.chronicle.duke.edu/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/01/27/43da0b30d259f][u][i][b]Chronical[/b][/i][/u][/url], wandlejw wrote: ... there is virtually no scientific content in their theories.
"So far, design theorists remain simply critics of the reigning theory," Larson said. "They claim that gaps in [Darwin's] theory are best filled by design."
And thats the whole of the ID-iot proposition, the beginning and the end of it, and the plain, simple, clearcut, insuperable obstacle faced by the ID-iots, an obstacle they themselves have built, an obstacle which they have placed in their own path, and an obstacle which they assiduously maintain. The devotion and fervor of the ID-iots as they pursue their unachieveable goal is in the end hugely amusing. They've constructed the box in which they've trapped themselves.
That is true timber as long as you define IDers in the manner that allows you to impeach them the way you do.
The Cultural IDers,who look to the social effects of belief and unbelief and the potential benefits and drawbacks of both positions,you have failed to address at all.You have either ignored arguments from that quarter or sought to pass them over onto the last page and hence history.
That won't wash timber.Not to a sophisticated readership it won't anyway.
We are human beings seeking to organise ourselves to our advantage.Scientific principles are tools in that project.And nothing more.
If the global warming catastrophe predicted last night by our Government's senior scientific adviser (billions dead) is true and it is also true that policy is pursued for the greatest good of the greatest number then surely it follows that science would advise that every American consumer ought to be exterminated.
I don't define 'em, spendi, they define themselves, and I don't impeach them, they impeach themselves.
And you impeach yourself, in that you defend the ID-iots tactics while eschewing their proposition. Anyone has the right to hold and espoiuse any position, however none have the right to impose an exclusionary agenda, religionist or otherwise, on others. I have no problem with those who hold faith in an imaginary freind to be the answer to all their questions, but I cannot countenance any attempt on the part of same to inhibit anyone else's choice of questions or search for answers.
And just in case you missed it, I most emphatically do not accept that valid ethico-moral foundation entails religionist philosophy; in fact I see the hypocracy inherent within the religionist proposition to itself be immoral and unethical. "Do as I say, not as I do", and all that ... no matter how vigorously they protest the burden, religionists are faced with the fact that no cause in history has shed more blood, wrought more devastation, imposed more human suffering, than some one or another interpretation of "Gods Will" - therein lie the source of intolerance, the font of bigotry, and the repository of ignorance.
spendiQuote: The Cultural IDers,who look to the social effects of belief and unbelief and the potential benefits and drawbacks of both positions,you have failed to address at all.
I believe that would be because you have just created this "school of thought". I cannot recall that there is even such a position. Here we have much historical evidence .When you just go about creating concepts please be good enough to use quotes.
Heres a little something from R Dembskis own web page, read the conclusionary sentenceQuote:The Intelligent Design movement begins with the work of Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, Michael Denton, Dean Kenyon, and Phillip Johnson. Without employing the Bible as a scientific text, these scholars critiqued Darwinism on scientific and philosophical grounds. On scientific grounds they found Darwinism an inadequate framework for biology. On philosophical grounds they found Darwinism hopelessly entangled with naturalism, the view that nature is self-sufficient and thus without need of God or any guiding intelligence. More recently, scholars like Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, Paul Nelson, Jonathan Wells, and myself have taken the next step, proposing a positive research program wherein intelligent causes become the key for understanding the diversity and complexity of life.
As we know , this is all self serving disengenuous bullshit for Dembski, speaking to another crowd would say
"The purpose of Intelligent Design is to defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral and cultural legacies and to replace materialistic explanations with theistic nderstandings that nature and human beings are each created by God"
Its all about the biology dear spendi. They havent tread upon any cultural waters yet until they displace one big one.
timber wrote-
Quote:And you impeach yourself, in that you defend the ID-iots tactics while eschewing their proposition.
That is a well known position.
I eschew going to war in Iraq.I think it is a cover for the mistakes made in middle-eastern politics between 1945-about now.I'm an Edenite.But now we are there I support any and every tactic our elected representitives see fit to apply short of torture to achieve whatever outcome is achieved.Thus including news bending.
I'm not in the slightest interested in being right.I am interested in success and I think IDers have a role to play in that especially in some areas of the country.Some of the soldiers are IDers.
Quote: Anyone has the right to hold and espouse any position,
That's simply naife (with a gentle Proustian waft of a scented glove on a limp hand.)
Bollocks might be neater.
To what extent do you think "God's will" has played any part in the wars of significance in the 20th century.Unless of course God's will is market penetration and resource grabbing with some fence construction on the side.
Quote:I believe that would be because you have just created this "school of thought". I cannot recall that there is even such a position. Here we have much historical evidence .When you just go about creating concepts please be good enough to use quotes.
I'm sorry fm.I didn't think it would confuse anybody.
But don't doubt there being such a position.That would be a mistake I think.
fm wrote-
Quote:Its all about the biology dear spendi.
I know that.I'd give you some if the mods would allow or if I wasn't sensitive to the delicate natures of some of our viewers.
spendi, I can't think of a conflict of the past century which did not involve one side, the other, or both in some way justifying their actions in the name of their perceived "higher power".
I do agree the ID-iots have a role to play, and I see them playing it well. They are their own Nemesis.
And as for Middle Eastern mistakes, lets look back a bit further - to Disraeli and Balfour, for example. To a very real degree, the conflicts of the Western Hemisphere over the past century have stemmed from the failure of the 19th Century powers to adequately and responsibly deal with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire - which itself at core was a theocratic construct.
timber-
I'm a "where do we go from here" man.I wasn't laying out any blame.There's so many possibilities for that I would consider myself out of the loop and over the horizon of reality if I pursued a hobby horse in that discipline.(Unless I got a publishing contract I mean.)
I used the ME thing simply to point out that one can eschew a position and yet support its tactics.I didn't intend a digression and especially not one of such a complex and contentious a nature as the fall out from the Ottoman Empire.It fell out.
One might eschew the position that women should be right little ravers when within the marital domicile but willingly welcome it on most other occasions.
Not that I'm suggesting you personally would do that.
I just saw an item on BBC Four filmed in the Oxford Museum.We were shown a large statue of Mr Darwin and the room where,to the astonishment of the 700 gathered,Origin of Species was launched on the public.
A little tale was told about the events afterwards accompanying the eats and drinks.The dear wife of one of the clergymen said to her husband something like-"If it is true my dear that we are descended from monkeys don't you think it would be wise to keep quiet about it?"
Now there goes a Cultural IDer of the first rank.
They don't make them like that anymore.
spendius wrote:Are my eyes deceiving me or is this thread heading for a 1000 views in 24 hours?
You seem to be enthralled with the number of people looking at this thread (some of which may actually read *your* posts). Serial killers sometimes share a similar need for attention.
Rubbish.
I was simply drawing people's attention to a fact which had become obvious. It is that there are people reading this thread who are not the poster being replied to and their numbers have been increasing of late probably due to the wide interest in this subject.
I was also offering a compliment to wande for presiding over the best debate I've seen
Jumping to self-serving conclusions as a regular habit is a very counter-productive way of life in the general course of events never mind on here.One can easily underachieve doing that.
Nicholas Flaubert
Robert Zimmerman
The lower middle classes
ID ers
Its all swirling out of control. Right that it down the pub bye
spendius wrote:Jumping to self-serving conclusions as a regular habit is a very counter-productive way of life in the general course of events never mind on here.One can easily underachieve doing that.
Well, I didn't
really think you were a serial killer, but if you're gonna get all defensive about it...
I'm not getting defensive ros.There you go again.Had I wished to get defensive I could have er er er-well-let's just say used a series of words you might never have come across before.
I just used the opportunity to present what I consider to be an important aid in going through life;namely not to be presumtive.Nobody needs to take any notice if they don't wish to.It has worked well for me.I learned it early in life.
spendius wrote:I'm not getting defensive ros.There you go again.Had I wished to get defensive I could have er er er-well-let's just say used a series of words you might never have come across before.
I just used the opportunity to present what I consider to be an important aid in going through life;namely not to be presumtive.Nobody needs to take any notice if they don't wish to.It has worked well for me.I learned it early in life.
I'll skip trying to be funny from now on. Sheesh.
Oh-don't do that ros.I like it when you're funny.
(Serial killers and Funny do not go together.It's the same with disabilities and plagues and stuff.)
spendius wrote:Quote:What will 280 million atheists look like?
A healthy happy population ros wrote
Hahahehesmirksmirkchucklechucklehehehehehe got to go to hospital to stop ribs aching.
Why?
spendius wrote:Quote:Because lots of people don't know what they are talking about.
English understatement eh?
Just the sad state of things.
spendius wrote:Quote:Things get more and more reducible every day.
We know that ros but-
This debate is in the furthest reaches of the asymptote.
What do you mean?
spendius wrote:Quote:
Why do those things need to be in conflict?
A statement from a source not quite up to speed on what scientists are up to and I'm miles behind these days.Shows a similar complacency as the one about 280 million atheists.
Give it a rest Spendi. We all know you think you're miles ahead of everyone and we're all just poor scientific wanna-be's in your shadow. But you have yet to demonstrate even a shred of backing for your chaotic ramblings, and that lack of substance speaks louder than your words.
spendius wrote:PS.I'm not keen on my starting threads.I'm tempermentally more of a reactor than an initiator.
Those are called Gadfly's
A sensible person,in my opinion,finds what are known as "sick" jokes sick.
Such things suggest that the perpetrators of them can find nothing to laugh at other than the tragedies of life.
I don't have a difficulty of that nature.
