Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

spendius wrote:

ros wrote-

Quote:
So you think that religion was one of the core thought processes which led to civilization? And not just our particular civilation, but civilization in general?

Not one of the core thought processes no. THE core thought process.The other civilisations failed,but often had a fair run,because they had improper theologies.

Which civilizations failed?

spendius wrote:

Quote:
Exactly how are you using cave paintings (or anything else for that matter) to support the assumption that "we would still be there without religion"?

I wasn't.I was pointing to the absence of perspective as much as anything.And I am talking about OUR religion which began around AD 1000 in Northern Europe and which has next to nothing to do with anything that went before.Anyone born in AD 1 in what we call Palestine was completely steeped in what we now call the Magian culture.We are Faustians.We are NEW and have hardly got started.We are shooting cameras at planets in 1000 years from scratch.Have you no sense of pride ros.

So you think that our culture is insatiably striving for worldly knowledge and power even at the price of spiritual values (the definition of Faustian). And you call that a religion (Faustianism I guess). And you say that if it were not for this "religion" we would still be cavemen. And you think that this is THE core thought process which led us out of barbarism.

And all this is your argument for why 280million athiests would be a bad thing?

0 Replies

ros-

Not exactly.I just think we might be going too fast for the older and more traditional voters.

I'm a bit squeamish actually.I like roller-coasters with gentle ups and downs.I can do the rest myself.

Quote:

Which civilizations failed?

Which didn't?

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

ros-

Not exactly.I just think we might be going too fast for the older and more traditional voters.

I really don't understand what you're getting as Spendi. Going to fast for what?

Are you suggesting that we should somehow alter our human nature to not be so driven to understand and explore and to use our knowledge to try to improve things?

spendius wrote:

I'm a bit squeamish actually.I like roller-coasters with gentle ups and downs.I can do the rest myself.

Well, I suppose we all miss the "good old days" and think the world moves too fast, but do we really have a choice in the matter?

spendius wrote:

Quote:
Which civilizations failed?

Which didn't?

You said that some failed because of an "improper theology". Which ones were you referring to? And how did their improper theolog lead to their demise?

0 Replies

hes doin the Manchester two step. Spendi comes in plants a fresh one on the table and then skitters away.

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

hes doin the Manchester two step. Spendi comes in plants a fresh one on the table and then skitters away.

When have I ever "skittered away".Show me one instance.And look at the number of questions I have asked which have been either side-stepped or ignored.And I don't come from Manchester either although I have been there now and again and detest the place as I do all cities.I asked a few questions just yesterday relating to the surprising use of the word "addiction" in the State of the Union which I stayed up to see,despite all the clapping and standing up and glad handing.Not a peep.

I'm beginning to think these types of things in the above quote are an ingrained habit which must be exceedingly tiresome to those who have to put up with them all the time..They are nothing but cheap smears designed to avoid issues and they mistakenly rely on the obviously presumed stupidity of the audience.

I'll ask another with more hope than expectation-

What % of the price of the 20,000,000 barrels of daily consumption of oil in the US is being set aside to pay for the future impact of that use.

And no skittering please.

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

hes doin the Manchester two step. Spendi comes in plants a fresh one on the table and then skitters away.

When have I ever "skittered away".Show me one instance.And look at the number of questions I have asked which have been either side-stepped or ignored.And I don't come from Manchester either although I have been there now and again and detest the place as I do all cities.I asked a few questions just yesterday relating to the surprising use of the word "addiction" in the State of the Union which I stayed up to see,despite all the clapping and standing up and glad handing.Not a peep.

I'm beginning to think these types of things in the above quote are an ingrained habit which must be exceedingly tiresome to those who have to put up with them all the time..They are nothing but cheap smears designed to avoid issues and they mistakenly rely on the obviously presumed stupidity of the audience.

I'll ask another with more hope than expectation-

What % of the price of the 20,000,000 barrels of daily consumption of oil in the US is being set aside to pay for the future impact of that use.

And no skittering please.

0 Replies

What I meant ros is that things need to go at a pace that older and more traditional voters can understand.Science and knowledge itself is going a bit too fast for most people,including myself,and opening up a chasm between those capable of keeping up and those not and the latter are the large majority.

I'm not suggesting we alter our progress.I'm just saying that we should take ordinary people into account because we need them to be healthy to run the progress and they can't be healthy if they feel lost or overwhelmed.

Quote:

Well, I suppose we all miss the "good old days" and think the world moves too fast, but do we really have a choice in the matter?

I think we still have choices but if we lose the bulk of the population to scientific jargon we soon won't have a choice at all.

Your last question is still the subject of heated debate.The best contribution I know to it is Spengler's Decline of the West.It would be impossible to distill that down for a post on here so maybe you might try it.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

What I meant ros is that things need to go at a pace that older and more traditional voters can understand.Science and knowledge itself is going a bit too fast for most people,including myself,and opening up a chasm between those capable of keeping up and those not and the latter are the large majority.

I'm not suggesting we alter our progress.I'm just saying that we should take ordinary people into account because we need them to be healthy to run the progress and they can't be healthy if they feel lost or overwhelmed.

Ok.

I'm not sure I disagree with the two things you wrote above, but I'm not sure what you're suggesting we do about either.

So, do you have any suggestions on how we should take ordinary people into account without altering our progress?

My suggestion for dealing with this is to educate people better, especially in science, and specifically by not undermining scientific standards with things like Intelligent Design. We also need better philosophy classes because most people don't know the difference right now.

What are your suggestions?

0 Replies

ros-

I'n not sure.But I don't think we can educate the masses along the lines you suggest.I really don't think they are either interested or capable and thus investment in trying to will be wasted.The money would be better spent on those who are interested and capable.I realise that I might be sounding elitist with that but science has arrived at a point where it seems that is inescapable.

So I think that for the others,and I'm not being in the least invidious here,should have their religious beliefs left intact as I feel they will lkely perform their functions,many of which are essential to the running of science,better.I would imagine members of religious congregations make fewer demands on welfare services and are less likely to indulge in anti-social behaviour.(But I don't know.)

I can't see the slightest danger of science being slowed down by such an arrangement except in those areas causing ethical or political concerns and it would be a foolish scientist who objected to that because he is a man and a citizen before he's a scientist and he owes his expensive training to the general population.

Thus I believe it incumbent on scientists to get on with their science and leave the rest of us to find our comforts where we can because there is no comfort in scientific principles.They are inhuman despite their usefulness assuming they will actually turn out to be useful in the longer term.

There are other important
aspects too but they are a little sensitive.

What does seem to me to be really stupid is to belittle and politicise beliefs widely held in objective reality and carrying political weight.I also find that to contain a whiff of timidity.

I will note that the legal profession has a vested interest in anti-social behaviour and general selfishness and confusion.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

ros-

I'n not sure.But I don't think we can educate the masses along the lines you suggest.I really don't think they are either interested or capable and thus investment in trying to will be wasted.The money would be better spent on those who are interested and capable.I realise that I might be sounding elitist with that but science has arrived at a point where it seems that is inescapable.

So I think that for the others,and I'm not being in the least invidious here,should have their religious beliefs left intact as I feel they will lkely perform their functions,many of which are essential to the running of science,better.I would imagine members of religious congregations make fewer demands on welfare services and are less likely to indulge in anti-social behaviour.(But I don't know.)

I can't see the slightest danger of science being slowed down by such an arrangement except in those areas causing ethical or political concerns and it would be a foolish scientist who objected to that because he is a man and a citizen before he's a scientist and he owes his expensive training to the general population.

Thus I believe it incumbent on scientists to get on with their science and leave the rest of us to find our comforts where we can because there is no comfort in scientific principles.They are inhuman despite their usefulness assuming they will actually turn out to be useful in the longer term.

There are other important
aspects too but they are a little sensitive.

What does seem to me to be really stupid is to belittle and politicise beliefs widely held in objective reality and carrying political weight.I also find that to contain a whiff of timidity.

I will note that the legal profession has a vested interest in anti-social behaviour and general selfishness and confusion.

I was in agreement with you up until the last couple of paragraphs, so I'll ignore those and enjoy our rare state of agreement on the rest.

I would also note however, that science is, and has always been, continuing on its merry way, not trying to tread on religion. It is religion (in some particular cases) which has overstepped its bounds and tried to interfere with science (pushing ID into public science classes being the primary example). Also, particular religions (fundamentalists), are *feeling* tread upon by science by virtue of what science reveals about the world, but that's not the fault of science, it's the weakness of fundamentalism. It may be inevitible that we have to live with that reality, but I don't think science should restrict itself to politically (or religiously) correct views just to assuage the fears of certain factions.

Are we still in agreement?

0 Replies

Quote:

Devolving Ohio
(Ohio University Post, February 2, 2006)
In the wake of full-blown battles about the validity of intelligent design and its entrance into public school curriculums, Ohio's Board of Education revisited its "Critical Analysis of Evolution" lesson plan, which walks a fine line between teaching evolutionary theory and making reference to creationism, or the more politically correct ID. After a close 9-8 vote on Jan. 10, Ohio's Board of Education decided to keep the lesson plan on the books.
Although the "Critical Analysis" plan is marginally better than that of ID - it is not mandatory (schools have two other evolutionary theory options), and it is not as specific in its wording as ID - Ohio's lesson plan still should not be taught in the confines of a science classroom. Whether it's ID or "Critical Analysis," the truth of the matter is that neither approach has the necessary scientific evidence needed to warrant being taught in a public school. Leave the preaching in the pulpit and the facts in science curricula - where they rightfully belong.
Proponents of ID often will cite gaps in evolutionary theory as a justification for teaching the politically correct form of creationism. They will argue it is in the best interest for students to consider all possible schools of thought before making an informed decision. And they will go to great lengths to point out that evolution is just a "theory" and not a fact. Basically, they will make excuses to defend ID, which has no testable hypothesis, no concrete data and ultimately, no place in schools.
Evolution has withstood decades of scientific testing and belongs in public school classrooms. ID is just another attempt to introduce religion into science. It is perfectly acceptable for parents to teach their children about God and creationism, but such a practice should be regulated to their home, a private school, place of worship or a park on a sunny day - anywhere but science classrooms in a public school.
By whatever name one wishes to call it - Creationism, intelligent design or "Critical Analysis of Evolution" - religion has no place in the realm of science. And that should hold true for Kansas, Delaware, Ohio and any other state.

0 Replies

If Critical Analysis is to be a component, then fine - but first, teach the kids what Critical Analysis is, how it works, and how to do it. Near as I can figure, that would be the end of ID-iocy.

0 Replies

ros-

More or less so long as your "in some particular cases" is stressed.

But public science classes only contain a small number of potential scientists and those will easily throw off the religious sensibilities as they make their way up the scientific hierarchy.In that refined world-yes-of course-empiricism is the rule but the rest need other things.

It is a very complex problem and it cannot be dealt with in slanging matches.Such things seem to me profoundly unscientific.

It is often said that the happiest people are the ones who know least.I heard a version of that last night in the pub.There are many things that ordinary people don't want to know and I know a few things that I never speak about unless I'm with people who I'm sure can deal with it.

And we are better off with a happy population.

I'm surprised you distance yourself from my last two paras and particularly the last one which is well known.Foucault was strong on it and widened it to include the whole system of social control.

I once saw an X-ray movie of the swallowing reflex engaged in shifting a partially masticated mouthful of chicken vindaloo into the stomach and it put me right off restaurants and I would imagine it might leave some people more sensitive than myself at risk from becoming anorexic and yet it was a scientifically observed fact.If I was a biology teacher I would not show that to a class of 16 year old girls but if one of them later became the throat surgeon she would have to see it.

0 Replies

wande-

What do you recommend if a really bright kid gets taught at home or in a church or off a TV programme that evolution theory is not only full of holes but is wrong and starts to argue with the science teachers about it in the classroom.

How do you prevent these things in the classroom when they are widespread in the society which the classroom serves and which pays for its existence.

0 Replies

spendi,

i would tell the kid to stay away from any career in natural science or in medicine

(i actually said that to my own daughter who hated learning about evolution in school)

0 Replies

The fine line that they walk in Ohio is going to be tested in court. There is a fracas that I got wind of in the Newark school district(?) As I understand its another possible "set up" like the SCopes trial. Dont know much more but Ill talk it up ,I have a coal board meeting in Pittsburgh next week and some of the members from other Appalachian states have a closer network.

And just the other night Bush asked for huge increases in math and science teachers to teach advanced placement science. He assumes that most teachers are undereducated in their core subjects. This has been a personal crusade on my part here in Pa. Our teachers are degreed baby sitters and most have little knowledge of their subjects . They are instead an infusion of " pedagogy" to hell with the subject.
To have this president ask for these new positions is a big step forward with his "end time" theology. Hes asking for a critical mass of teachers with education and smarts to talk down the little Evangelical Napoleans of the local school boards

0 Replies

wande-

I didn't really mean that.What I meant was how do you prevent the importation of certain beliefs into science lessons if any of the students bring it up and argue about it and they are,it seems to me,more likely to do that now these sides have become more partisan.If you expel the student the polarisation will increase,if you shut him up you shut up discussion and if you leave him then ID is in the biology class in a much more powerful form than it was with the 3 paragraphs.

0 Replies

Thats why we need better educated science teachers to explain the differences with authority and not hide from the technical discussions that ensue

0 Replies

Farmerman
Farmerman, a digression - sorry. You mentioned your coal mine meeting, which reminded me that I heard today that West Virginia's governor has ordered a safety shutdown of all coal mines in the state. Two more miners died this week in accidents.

BBB

0 Replies

fm-

We always need "better educated science teachers".

But if you pay peanuts you get monkeys.According to Hofstadter Americans have traditionally granted the teaching profession a lower status and pay packet than alternative fields for those able in academic subjects.

You will automatically get better teachers if you pay them properly.

I like this enough to remind you of it-

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.

Was the lady wise or a fool?

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know