Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

ros-

I'm sorry I am incoherent to you.I do try to make my posts as simple as I can.I oversimpify if anything.
I read around this subject quite a bit.More than I would like really.It isn't an area of expertise of mine at all but I've been fascinated with religions for a good while now.Darwin was a bit of a lad in his time.He mixed with all three classes of society but he is principally middle-class as were his supporters and as,I think,his followers aspire to be.
I am a little cynical I'm afraid but I only got that way from reading about what really goes on.It isn't my fault.

Darwin mixed with the working class through joining pigeon racing clubs in East London.Pigeon racers are very keen on anything to do with breeding faster birds especially through mating but also with feed and drugs.If there were no drug testing in sport the whole lot would be popped out of their eyeballs from fleas to camels.I've never heard of elephant racing but it wouldn't surprise me.

But my main interest is literature and I would say that IDers can out write,out think and out flash anti-IDers every day of the week.The only explanation for Dover is that the IDers never played anything above the six of clubs possibly biding their time for when the serious money gets onto the table.

I can imagine an anti-IDer challenging in court for anyone to show him any evidence that a rain dance had caused it to rain.As you did over fertility rituals.To get a cheap laugh maybe.
But unbeknownst to him the rain dance wasn't intended to cause it to rain.Only a very silly person could think such a very silly thing.Rain dances have much more commonsensical functions than trying to influence the weather.Orgies say.Wild dancing,intoxication,drums pounding,moon up high.
You know the sort of thing.It's been in the movies.
The shaman knows it's just about to rain you see.He's not as daft as the anti-IDer who only knows how to underestimate everybody.The knowlege is passed from shaman to shaman in wierd and often painful initiation ceremonies.Some sign from the forest.A species of bird possibly going silent or suddenly bursting into song.Some sign.Somebody told me that very few animals were killed in the tsunami.They knew it was coming and had vanished like seagulls coming inland.I can't vouch for it though.
If a shaman didn't call the dance on the right night he could be in for a messy lynching.
And his authority is based on the rest of the tribe believing its the dance when it's his wisdom.We have no record of shawomen presumably,following Darwin here,tribes like that became extinct long ago.And his authority is a unifying principle and the tribe is stronger when unified,all other things being equal,than when it believes the weather forecaster who is more often than not a comic.

And the anti-IDer has played his Ace and the IDer has only played a six.

But that's just a bit of light-hearted banter to give wande's thread a touch of class so I hope it's easy enough to follow.

0 Replies

I only have one comment, "Boy are you arrogant."

In one fell swoop you've just declared Huxley, Verne, Asimov, and Twain (etal) literary hacks.

Rap c∫ Confused

/

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

ros-

I'm sorry I am incoherent to you.I do try to make my posts as simple as I can.I oversimpify if anything...

... blah blah blah...

...But that's just a bit of light-hearted banter to give wande's thread a touch of class so I hope it's easy enough to follow.

For some reason, I'm reminded of a bunny with a pancake on its head.

0 Replies

The real problem is the IDer bid 7 spades while the scientists have AKQJ of spades and all the other aces as well. It matters not what the IDer plays, he isn't going to make his bid because he doesn't understand the game.

0 Replies

prestochango wrote:

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.

The contention "there are two forms of evolution" is incorrect, stemming from profound ignorance of science and an arrogant, luddite, exclusionary, theocratic mindset. To assert there are "two forms of evolution" is to endorse and perpetrate a lie. There is but evolution, period.

Quote:

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.

Regardless one's theophilosophic preference, a scientific theory is the best available set of descriptors, predictors, and explanations pertaining to the issue at question. Another of the ID-iot crowd's lies is to imply that as evolution is a "theory" it is but a guess. Nothing, apart perhaps from the religionist proposition from which such ignorance proceeds, could be further from the truth; a scientific theory equates to a "guess" in the same manner a budget based on a guaranteed wage equates to a budget based on winning a longshot bet.

Quote:

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.

A benefit-conferring adaptation is to be expected to convey to its possessors advantage in terms of survivability and reproductive success, thus broadening the population of individuals possessing that adaptation. A regressive or harmful adaptation is to be expected to have precisely the opposite effect. In these instances, what is to be expected in fact is what is observed. What works prospers, what doesn't work vanishes.

Quote:

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?

Regardless what you or anyone else may believe or prefer, the evidence at hand leads to no logically valid conclusion other than that naturalistic process is the operator. Any assertion to the contrary amounts at best to an uneducated guess, and in practice typically involves blatant proselytizing. Only through ignorance may it be contemplated there be a differentiation between "macroevolution" and "microevolution".

Quote:

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?

Absolutely not, and any such concept or assertion itself betrays ignorance at best, if not oughtright duplicity. Again, that which works prospers, that which does not work vanishes. That is how, and precisely why, evolution works.

Quote:

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)

More ignorance yet - despite ID-iot denial, if not conscious lies, to the contrary, the fossil record clearly indicates continual morphologic developmental progression and differentiation, and the notion there must or even might be some "missing link" is absurd and prepsterous on its face, as, consequently, is any argument or objection thusly based.

Quote:

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.

What this statement evidences is an absence of knowledge and understandng of science, exacerbated by an overlay of religionist superstition.

Quote:

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.

This statement further betrays both ignorance and misunderstaning of science, as well as superstitious religionist agenda. There is no evidence for anything other than naturalistic eveloution, no evidence which contraindicates the scientific theory of evolution, no evidence whatsoever of any alternate proposition, while there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of the validity of any religionist proposition, a proposition for which there exists mass contraindicative evidence. No "flaws" afflict the theory of evolution; that some one or another particular may be inadequately understood or remain undiscoverd does not constitute a "flaw", it constitutes, and effects, impetus for ongoing research, discovery, and refinement.

Quote:

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.

Doesn't matter at all who is happy or unhappy about anything when it comes to science and logic (which at root are the same) - all that matters is the evidence available and the logical assessment of what that evidence portends. Science begins and ends with objective observation and assessment, religion begins and ends with subjective assumption and preference. Science is about knowing, regardless of comfort. Religion is about comfort, regardles any other consideration.

Quote:

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?)

Again, mood and preference are immaterial. Infinity and eternity at root are philosophic abstracts, human constructs, just as is the supernatural, and as such have no bearing on nor place in science.

Quote:

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

I may only assume the oxymoronic irony entailed by this statement not only is unintentional but is entirely unrecognizable by its perpetrator.

Quote:

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

In that no viable, forensically valid, academically honest argument may be made for any religionist proposition, ID-iocy specifically and most signally included, those who attempt to present any argument on behalf of any such proposition most certainly waste time. Those who counter such psuedo-arguments, exosing them for the absurdities they are, serve the interest of knowledge over superstition. The only arrogance operative in the issue of ID-iocy vs science is in the assertion ID-iocy constitutes anything other than an afoundational, illogical, ignorant religionist absurdity which self-proclaims there to be an issue. Only in the hide-bound minds of its religionist proponents might there even exist the notion ever there could be any such issue. Whether or not there might be some creator is not a matter of scientific interest or inquiry. Science has nothing whatsoever to do with theology, and by definition cannot - the two are entirely separate, distinct, and unrelated. Science is objective, logical deduction based on honest discovery and continuing observation, religion, including most particularly ID-iocy, is subjective, emotional preference based on fear, ignorance, and superstition.

Granting due allowance for your self-proclaimed attainment of age and knowledge, one might hope you will not forever remain mired in ignorance and superstition. That said, hope and expectation are things entirely different.

0 Replies

timber wrote-

Quote:

No "flaws" afflict the theory of evolution;

Well- Darwin,and some of his supporters,were worried that widespread acceptance of his theory would result in a "degraded" society.

This suggests that evolutionists are more interested in "being scientifically correct",a self-esteem problem,than in the well being of society.

If there comes about a widespread acceptance of evolution and a similar rejection of religionist positions and society does become degraded the religionists will say that evolutionism was subversive and potentially treasonable.

This is why evolutionists refuse to speculate on the institutions in a society of atheists which they have been repeatedly challenged to do.The only answer offered so far is a stream of ungenerous and uncivilised insults which provides a clue as to what those institutions would exhibit accentuated by coercive power.

Thus-

Quote:

religion, including most particularly ID-iocy, is subjective, emotional preference based on fear, ignorance, and superstition.

Is not neccesarily true.The basis could be,and many think it is,the well being of society.Then the quoted statement becomes unscientific and the result of an emotional preference causing some evidence to be ignored and only the evidence which supports the statement being offered and even that is based on the assumption that people believe what they say they do.

Setting out a dinner table is based on an emotional preference for courtesy and decorum over eating with the fingers out of a communal dish which is scientifically more efficient and is probably partially based on a fear of dirty fingers combined with a felt need to show off one's wealth and good breeding.

Ladies fashions,so noticeably absent in Mao's China,are a similar case in point.

Now that religion has declined to the extent it has it is not uncommon to see fat,slobby women getting their mastication kit round a large burger as they walk in the streets gossiping as they chew and wiping their fingers on their baggy denims when they've done.

0 Replies

You by your comment confirm my argument spendi ... public opinion, minority or majority, is immaterial and irrelevant to science and to knowledge in general. No matter, there always will be luddites, assuring you and those of your ken fellowship and camaraderie in the pubs and boits through the foreseeable future. Fewer than might be hoped aspire, let alone manage, to extricate themselves from the Great Unwashed, though sufficient do succeed to enable humankind's ongoing progress in the search for knowledge and understanding. Kick and scream all you wish; the future is coming, irrespective of your preference.

0 Replies

rap rapped-

Quote:

I only have one comment, "Boy are you arrogant."

In one fell swoop you've just declared Huxley, Verne, Asimov, and Twain (etal) literary hacks.

Either-
1-You don't know what "arrogant" means or
2-You've misjudged my post or
3-You have singled out my post from the midst of a plethora of some of the most arrogant writing I have ever seen for reasons of your own.

Which Huxley?Verne is pretty hopeless,Asimov a self-publicising,teleologising pop-scientist and the less said about Twain the better.The latter three are unreadable to an averagely refined English literary taste.

0 Replies

timber wrote-

Quote:

Kick and scream all you wish; the future is coming, irrespective of your preference.

We all know that the future is coming but if it is an atheist future I think you will find yourself revolted by it when you see it.And you must suspect that otherwise you would describe it for us as I have asked you to attempt.I could easily describe it in the most glowing terms if I wished to do.

Last week our Police announced that they would no longer investigate or prosecute shoplifters.They have told the shops to shift for themselves so one might presume a more militant shop security staff.
Obviously property is theft to atheists and once no longer protected by moral values only coercive force remains to do the job.

"Kick and scream"???Me???spendi?????Roll on the rolling orgy is more to my taste.

Perhaps timber you are not aware of what the value-free movers and shakers are up to these days.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

We all know that the future is coming but if it is an atheist future I think you will find yourself revolted by it when you see it.

I doubt it.

spendius wrote:

Obviously property is theft to atheists and once no longer protected by moral values only coercive force remains to do the job.

Athiests are just as Moral as any other group.

0 Replies

ros wrote-

Quote:

spendius wrote:
We all know that the future is coming but if it is an atheist future I think you will find yourself revolted by it when you see it.

I doubt it.

Not good enough ros.We need some reasonable certainty when designing the future.We are not choosing a tie.Your remark speaks of little regard for future generations.I don't doubt what I said.An atheist future will be repulsive.I suppose it's easy to vote for it though when it's just an abstract concept in your mind clung onto for personal reasons.

Quote:

Athiests are just as Moral as any other group.

Oh yeah.You maybe but not the movers and shakers.I would provide a few gentle,coy allusions if I thought the mods would allow.

0 Replies

Press Release from Hamilton College, New York:

Quote:

Brown University Professor, Author Ken Miller Lectures on Evolution, Intelligent Design

0 Replies

wande-

He was doing okay until this-

Quote:

"Why is this a big deal?" asked Miller. The answer, according to Miller, is the future of science in America. We are raising a generation of people who are going to be suspicious of science, and that has huge implications for scientific fields. Other countries will be moving ahead in science, leaving the United States behind. "What is at stake is, literally, everything," said Miller.

I don't accept that for a moment and his example of Mendel contradicts it too.He lacks confidence.

I also don't think that a paleontologist's jaw dropping,if such it did,is much use as an argument.He may well have only met a few and they might be in agreement with his view.

0 Replies

I can't imagine a competent, accreditted, credentialed paleontologist, or any other actual, legitimate practitioner of any of the life sciences for that matter, reacting otherwise than with shock, dismay, and disbelief at the ignorance betrayed by such an assertion, spendi; they know whereof they speak, unlike ID-iots and their apologists.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

ros wrote-

Quote:
spendius wrote:
We all know that the future is coming but if it is an atheist future I think you will find yourself revolted by it when you see it.

I doubt it.

Not good enough ros.We need some reasonable certainty when designing the future.We are not choosing a tie.Your remark speaks of little regard for future generations.I don't doubt what I said.An atheist future will be repulsive.I suppose it's easy to vote for it though when it's just an abstract concept in your mind clung onto for personal reasons.

Quote:
Athiests are just as Moral as any other group.

Oh yeah.You maybe but not the movers and shakers.I would provide a few gentle,coy allusions if I thought the mods would allow.

There is no guarantee of anything in the future. There is certainly no guarantee that a highly religious future will somehow be more moral and less destructive than a non religious one. One only needs to look at the way religion has been and is presently being used to justify the killing of innocent life.

It is just as easy to say a religious future will be repulsive. Neither is provable; your ellusive illusionary allusions notwithstanding.

Since you like the bridge analogy, I somehow get the impression that you like to bid without bothering to look at your own hand or listening to what the others are bidding.

0 Replies

timber wrote-

Quote:

I can't imagine a competent, accreditted, credentialed paleontologist, or any other actual, legitimate practitioner of any of the life sciences for that matter, reacting otherwise than with shock, dismay, and disbelief at the ignorance betrayed by such an assertion, spendi; they know whereof they speak, unlike ID-iots and their apologists.

On receiving this rebuke I double-checked my post and I find no assertions present which is unsurprising to me as I try to avoid assertions.

I have been at close quarters with a whole raft of practitioners of the life sciences,very close quarters in some cases,and I can assure you timber that it would take much more than an IDer's pronouncement to cause their jaws to drop.

To suggest that science is under any threat from religionists is naive at best.At worst base propaganda aimed at an uneducated audience.

0 Replies

ros wrote-

Quote:

Since you like the bridge analogy, I somehow get the impression that you like to bid without bothering to look at your own hand or listening to what the others are bidding.

My longtime fairly expert partner often made remarks in a similar vien but,as I told him just as often,he had a strange set of priorities.

I know there is no guarantee of any sort of tomorrow and,as I've tried to explain many times before,there are other Malthusian forces at work creating destructive impulses and which use religion for their purposes.Those forces will not disappear in any event.They are to do with land and scarce resources and power projection.They have nothing to do with religious belief.
The repulsive nature of an atheist society is closer to home than things like wars.

As Mr Pope said-"mankind is the proper study of man." I detect a yearning for apeness growing and in an atheist society it will be realised and,in some places which you obviously have little knowledge of,is being realised right now.This is only to be expected from people who think themselves to be an ape.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

As Mr Pope said-"mankind is the proper study of man." I detect a yearning for apeness growing and in an atheist society it will be realised and,in some places which you obviously have little knowledge of,is being realised right now.This is only to be expected from people who think themselves to be an ape.

spendius,

You have claimed that you are involved with people working in life sciences. Why do you persist in mischaracterizing evolutionary theory? Humans are different from apes, they merely share a common ancestor. That common ancestor is extinct. 98% of all organisms that once existed are now extinct.

0 Replies

Spendi,

Your posts are littered with claims to knowledge that the rest of us don't have but you seem to be unable to communicate what you "know." Your long time partner must have been often confused as to why you opened with 1 heart when you had none in your hand. Same thing here, you make a claim that upon examination has no substance to it.

0 Replies

ros wrote-

Quote:

Your long time partner must have been often confused as to why you opened with 1 heart when you had none in your hand.

A one heart opening in a number of systems has nothing to do with how many hearts one is holding.What it defines for your partner is cleared up on the subsequent bidding pattern.It is a code.With 7 hearts inc. say,AQJ98 a one no trump opening is essential in the systems we played.Or any other suit.I've forgotten the details.We played ACOL mainly.For money.
The partner has to piece together what he can.The idea is to win money not toss cards around randomly to pass on the time and think of yourself as a posh bridge player like anti-IDers think they are scientists.

Geddit?

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know