Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

parados wrote-

Quote:

Your argument suggests that a woman that uses a motor car will do so while denying that gasoline engines work and actively working to outlaw any attempt to teach automotive technology in schools.

I didn't go so far as that.I thought you said earlier that farmers understood the genetic techniques they are applying.I didn't say that they denied them and didn't work to know more about them.Like women know how to turn the key and pull down the sunshade to check their make-up in the mirror on the back,which is then the front of course, and operate the controls passably well, farmers know how to open the bags of feed and fill up the hyperdermic syringes and to have pride in their beasts.

You give me meanings I never intended.What you suggested there is pagan.

I have to leave now on urgent business but I hope to get to your second point when I return assuming I do return.

0 Replies

parados wrote-

Quote:

And those fertility religions never achieved the kind of yields that Monsanto has. There is a reason why those religions have gone by the wayside.

Of course there is.They were useless religions and contained within their theological constructions certain destructive patterns which we are betting everything on not having inherited.

The mistake you are making is to think our religion is anything to do with extinct religions which I must say is a bid odd for a Darwinian although I can see that making such a mistake provides you with an opportunity to display your historical and philosophical erudition.

0 Replies

Spendi,

So you aren't arguing that ID is science?

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

The mistake you are making is to think our religion is anything to do with extinct religions which I must say is a bid odd for a Darwinian although I can see that making such a mistake provides you with an opportunity to display your historical and philosophical erudition.

Sarcasm or malaprop? One never knows with you spendi. You always use words in strange and unusual ways.

"our religion"? Who is the we you refer to?

Hate to tell you this but many of today's religions have links to extinct religions. (You do realize that today's religion isn't restricted to the Judeo/Christian ones. ) One need only look at the reason for putting Christ's birthday in Dec to see a link between today's Christianity and extinct religions with fertility rights. Perhaps you need to stop mistaking your own arrogance for erudition.

Farmers do not merely "open a bag" or "fill a syringe". They have to know why they are doing such a thing. Breeding for a trait means you have to know HOW the trait is passed in order to get the correct offspring. Farmers are not as ill informed as you would make them out to be. Simply check out the agronomy classes in any university that provides a degree in it. Genetics is required.

0 Replies

parados wrote-

Quote:

So you aren't arguing that ID is science?

Atoms and molecules,say,are not science.It is the study of them that is science.

ID exists in energised mental states,as does anti-ID,and it has measureable effects.The study of ID is science.Studying ID's structure and functions and predicting changes in the structure having effects on the functioning of society would,I believe,be social science.

Smoking isn't science but the study of it is and from the study comes adjustments to smoking behaviour.I happen to think that the changes being made in respect of smoking are ultimately damaging but I expect to be howled down saying that.But it would be interesting to see where the money being saved by stopping smoking goes to.I suspect (a hypothesis) that there will be a shift in the direction of women's choices and if there is an advertising ban on tobacco products TV companies and newspaper groups will support such a shift as they can't make money out of tobacco but they can out of women's choices.I think it likely that such a shift will effect the dynamics of the male/female relationship possibly causing all sorts of social effects and so on and so on.

It might come down to whether social science is science at all.

Most anti-IDers on this thread are not doing such science.They have done it and decided.They long ago ceased to study it.You might have noticed that they simply refuse to consider any social effects of each side from a geographical,ethnic,historical perspective or from any other perspective.

Your second post raises a number of complex issues which I will have a think about and hopefully try to address this evening.

0 Replies

spendius,

I am not sure exactly what you are saying. However, I see nothing wrong with intelligent design being treated as social science. I do oppose the idea of intelligent design as it is used in the context of biological evolution. Natural science deals with material reality more than social science does.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

parados wrote-

Quote:
So you aren't arguing that ID is science?

Atoms and molecules,say,are not science.It is the study of them that is science.

ID exists in energised mental states,as does anti-ID,and it has measureable effects.The study of ID is science.Studying ID's structure and functions and predicting changes in the structure having effects on the functioning of society would,I believe,be social science.

Smoking isn't science but the study of it is and from the study comes adjustments to smoking behaviour.I happen to think that the changes being made in respect of smoking are ultimately damaging but I expect to be howled down saying that.But it would be interesting to see where the money being saved by stopping smoking goes to.I suspect (a hypothesis) that there will be a shift in the direction of women's choices and if there is an advertising ban on tobacco products TV companies and newspaper groups will support such a shift as they can't make money out of tobacco but they can out of women's choices.I think it likely that such a shift will effect the dynamics of the male/female relationship possibly causing all sorts of social effects and so on and so on.

It might come down to whether social science is science at all.

Most anti-IDers on this thread are not doing such science.They have done it and decided.They long ago ceased to study it.You might have noticed that they simply refuse to consider any social effects of each side from a geographical,ethnic,historical perspective or from any other perspective.

Your second post raises a number of complex issues which I will have a think about and hopefully try to address this evening.

You fail to answer the simple question. You talk around it. Study of anything can be science. That doesn't make the thing you are studying science. We both agree smoking isn't science. That doesn't suddenly make smoking science because it has social consequences. Nor does it make ID science just because it might have social consequences anymore than studying religion makes religion science. The study of people that believe or don't believe in ID might be science but it doesn't equate to ID being science. ID is philosophy.

If you want to defend IDers and their claim that evolution doesn't exist then any analogy would also require a denial in that analogy. Your argument is that you want to defend them without examining any of what they believe. A false argument at best.

0 Replies

wande wrote-

Quote:

Natural science deals with material reality more than social science does.

Yes but "mute matter" is shaped by social forces which themselves are an intelligent response to circumstances.

What,for example,causes the striking differences between a Gothic cathederal,The Parthenon,a Shinto shrine and Hagia Sophia and the arts associated with each and to what extent do these differences influence the fundamental approach to mute matter?

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

wande wrote-

Quote:
Natural science deals with material reality more than social science does.

Yes but "mute matter" is shaped by social forces which themselves are an intelligent response to circumstances.

What,for example,causes the striking differences between a Gothic cathederal,The Parthenon,a Shinto shrine and Hagia Sophia and the arts associated with each and to what extent do these differences influence the fundamental approach to mute matter?

ID is not science, just a rearguard action to try to deny scientific conclusions inconsistent with some peoples' hopes and fears.

0 Replies

parados wrote-

Quote:

If you want to defend IDers and their claim that evolution doesn't exist then any analogy would also require a denial in that analogy. Your argument is that you want to defend them without examining any of what they believe. A false argument at best.

.

I'm not bothered what they believe.It is a fact that they believe it and the consequences are what matter.It isn't as if they are a tiny esoteric cult.They are,as I understand it,a real political force to be reckoned with rather than to be insulted with contemptuous remarks and puerile assertions based on nothing but a prejudice which won't make the slightest difference to the beliefs.Such things are more likely to strengthen the beliefs.

What we've had from anti-IDers is a shouting match which is not really suitable to a Science and Mathematics forum.

I'm pushed for time here.

0 Replies

spendius,

As a "political force" the IDers have been losing consistently.

0 Replies

A private citizen in Nevada is circulating a petition to have the state constitution amended to require evolution disclaimers in science education:

Quote:

Nevada Proposal Raises Evolution Questions
(By BRENDAN RILEY, The Associated Press, March 1, 2006)

CARSON CITY, Nev. -- A proposed constitutional amendment would require Nevada teachers to instruct students that there are many questions about evolution, a method viewed by critics as an opening to teach intelligent design.

Las Vegas masonry contractor Steve Brown filed his initiative petition with the secretary of state's office, and must collect 83,184 signatures by June 20 to get the plan on the November ballot. To amend the Nevada Constitution, he'd have to win voter approval this year and again in the 2008 elections.

Brown said Tuesday that he hopes that volunteers will help him collect the signatures, but at this point has no name-gathering organization set up. A Democrat and member of a nondenominational church, he said he hoped for broad support from people who share his views.

"I just want them to start telling the truth about evolution," Brown said. "Evolution has occurred, but parts of it are flat-out unproven theories. They're not telling students that in school."

Brown, who has three school-age children, said he's been interested in evolution for years. He added that if people take time to read his proposal "how can this not pass?"

The petition says students must be informed before the end of the 10th grade that "although most scientists agree that Darwin's theory of evolution is well supported, a small minority of scientists do not agree."

The plan says several "areas of disagreement" would have to be covered by teachers, including the view by some scientists that "it is mathematically impossible for the first cell to have evolved by itself."
Students also would have to be told some scientists argue "that nowhere in the fossil record is there an indisputable skeleton of a transitional species, or a 'missing link,'" the proposal says.

Also, the proposal says students "must be informed that the origin of sex, or sex drive, is one of biology's mysteries" and that some scientists contend that sexual reproduction "would require an unbelievable series of chance events that would have had to occur in the evolutionary theory."

Brown commented on his plan following a decision Monday by the Utah House to scuttle a bill that would have required public school students to be told that evolution isn't empirically proven.

0 Replies

wande-

The game seems to me to be in its early stages.One judge and a bill in Utah whih your post about it more than hinted at technical tactical reasons for its defeat hardly constitutes a big lead.

I'm not saying you're wrong but I don't see IDers losing where they are strong in any sort of long run.
You can't talk about the consequence of an ID victory which has been done and refuse to talk about the consequences of an ID defeat.

I think there will be a fudge and the legal set will be the main beneficiary and voters the losers.As ever.

There are arguments against evolution you know.If Judge Jones didn't hear them that doesn't mean they won't be heard at some stage.

ID has money backing doesn't it?

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

I'm not saying you're wrong but I don't see IDers losing where they are strong in any sort of long run.

They are not strong in the long run. They are only strong in quick tightly focused sneak attacks before the behemoth of common sense can roll on over and squash them.

0 Replies

Porn on prime time TV then eh ros?

Any arguments against that?

And it's only the pretty bit.

0 Replies

http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/9199/bunny9hj.jpg

0 Replies

A while back I made a glancing reference to Malthus and one of the more fractious anti IDers jumped up and down to say that Malthus has been discredited.

When Darwin was faced with the idea that all he had done was change a name,i.e. Creator to evolution because he couldn't offer an explanation of how the first life-form transformed itself into the different types from the virus to the elephant and he became what Koestler calls "blocked".He attempted to get round this with a study of "artificial selection" in the methods we use to perfect animals for our use.He became blocked again because man is the intelligent agent in this type of evolution and his studies showed nothing of how nature does it.He wrestled with that for a year and then,purely by accident,he read Malthus and had a eureka flash of insight and saw the "natural selector".

As Darwin himself put it-

"This is the doctrine of Malthus,applied to the whole animal and vegetable kingdom.( (sexism eh?) ).As many more individuals of each species are born than can possibly survive;and as consequently there is a frequently recurring struggle for existence,it follows that any being,if it vary ever so slightly in a manner profitable to itself,under the complex and sometimes varying conditions of life,will have a better chance of surviving,and thus be naturally selected." ((last 2 words italicised))

Of course by "naturally selected" he meant to include all aspects of copulation.

The real key to Darwin is Malthus and the anti-IDer concerned obviously had no knowledge of that simple and well known fact and thus can have no real knowledge of Darwin or of evolutionary theory even though he was bold enough to assert that I had demonstrated that I had none.

Do you really wish to have your children's education influenced by such people.

The only motive I can think of for his evolutionism is that he believes it makes him sound good which well it might in a kindergarten.

0 Replies

wande-

I take the repetition of the bunny to be symbolic of a white flag.

What's the atheist,evolutionist's position on porn on prime time TV?If you wish to open the door for us all I think you have a duty to tell us what is on the other side.As religious influence has declined porn has arrived in the shops and on cable.If RI vanishes do you really think porn is going to stop just where you think it is under some control.

Don't be so daft.This is a dynamic system.Nothing freezes.

Why do you think Huxley introduced the idea in Brave New World that screwing the same floozie two nights running was improper.He didn't go so far as illegal but one could easily see that he might have done writing today.

The Duchess of York has been reported as threatening to go see Hefner when she couldn't get her own way.

0 Replies

ok evolution in it's entirety i believed to be flawed. Now there are two forms of evolution one i believe is true beyond all doubt and the other is retarded.

Microevolution- Short term evolution "adaptation" if you please acquired through survival of the fittest (which now mostly applies to the animal world since the development of currency)

Macroevolution- Long term evolution, single celled organism "evolved" into a human and millions of other species of plants and animals.

Okay so the christians that have a problem have it with the latter of the evolutions. Whether we (i'll say we as i do live in the bible belt lol) disbelieve evolution because of a brainwashing preacher, the believe that god created man or (as i do) that evolution is a lame excuse at an alternative to god we believe that evolution should be stressed as a theory in school.

Long term evolution basically says that life was created through natural process and organisms spawned from a single celled organism. Long term evolution depends non harmful mutations so the evolving organisms may survive to carry on their trait.

Ok so im not going to ruin the fact that it is extremely hard to have a non harmful mutation i'll let you find those figures for yourself and i'd be impressed if a non christian enthusiast would post that figure to show no objectivity. But let's say that a few organisms have a non harmful mutation and they somehow find other organisms with the same sort of mutation and they evolve together..... but what when did Asexual organisms decide to by heterosexual? (that always boggles my mind) and evolve through that into mammals, reptiles and birds etc.

So for macroevolution which is being taught in most schools we teenagers and children (i'm 16 so i know i just had biology) are being taught that through natural selection organisms evolve into more complex beings.

Now what i see is wrong with this is that we can't even create life and we are intellegiant beings. We can duplicate life (some of the most intellegiant people in the world can) but we still can't "create" life yet we're supposed to believe natural process can?

Evolution also implies that time orders and organizes things but really isn't that saying that a tornado flying through a junkyard will create an airplane?

Ok so if macroevolution has all of this evolving for millions of years then we'd have billions if not trillions of specimans who are halfway one organism and half another. so we'd have reptiles without wings and without scales.... ya that'd work well..... lol (evolutionists are starting to claim that reptiles turned into birds)

Ok so that makes no sense to me either that there are hardly any lifeforms that are mid way into another organism and though there are a few that look like they are morphing there are not near as many as there should be.

Ok im done with this evolution recap, sounds like an excuse. There is some viable evidence for macroevolution but to teach it in schools with no other avenue of a beggining to me is wrong. I have no problem with teaching evolution as a theory but we MUST point out it's flaws as well.

And then teaching creationism in school is kind of funny to me. Cause really most creationism is anti evolution so i think if we just add the faults of evolution to the teaching agenda then everyone will be a lot happier.

There are some creationism arguments like how the big bang had to start from somewhere IE- god for the universe isn't eternal so it had to have a beggining. (btw all of these arguements that god had to start somewhere, the supernatural created the natural, the supernatural had no begining. There you happy?)

I've come across some amazing athiest's who know an incredible amount and have been supported by ignorant christians. My thought on them is i'd rather be ignorant and right then arrogant and wrong But anywho i have been unable to beat some athiests but they've also been far more intellectual then I and much older. Yet after any and every arguement i've never denounced christianity and have only prayed for knowledge.

Anywho only viable arguements should be mentioned as the rest waste time.

Sources:
www.carm.org
"I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Athiest"

and uhh i feel really bad but there is more i just can't remember them lol

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

wande-

I take the repetition of the bunny to be symbolic of a white flag.

How 'bout taking it to mean this: "We have no idea what your'e talking about".

And after reading your other two "explanation" posts.... I still don't have any idea what you're talking about.

I will avoid posting the cute bunny again since that only seems to confuse you (even though I never tire of seeing it).

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know