Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

wande wrote-

Quote:

Humans are different from apes,

You obviously don't get around much in the late night air wande.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

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.

I didn't write that.

spendius wrote:

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.

I didn't write that either.

0 Replies

Spendi must have just got back from the pub and more than a few pints. :wink:

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

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?

1NT is pretty standard opening to show a strong or balanced hand, suit to be decided later. (You can't bid 1 heart after 1 NT.) I am curious as to which bidding system opens at 1 heart without any hearts in the hand.

Your earlier claim of evolutionists playing an ace on a six doesn't show much card playing sense either. It is quite common to play the ace if you have a long run at the top of a suit. It gives the impression you have a singleton to those that aren't paying much attention.

0 Replies

Profuse apologies ros.

0 Replies

parados wrote-(I'm concentrating)

Quote:

1NT is pretty standard opening to show a strong or balanced hand, suit to be decided later. (You can't bid 1 heart after 1 NT.) I am curious as to which bidding system opens at 1 heart without any hearts in the hand.

I've forgotten.I wasn't very expert anyway but my partner was.He played for the county but not with me.1H might just be a spoil.No points bid.Or a lot of points bid.Next time lowest possible bid or a jump bid depending on opponents.Trying to get into a redouble which is where the cash flows.It's water under the bridge.

Quote:

Your earlier claim of evolutionists playing an ace on a six doesn't show much card playing sense either.

I never said evolutionists were sensible.If the case does go to the SC,as some have predicted (not me) then I don't see the anti IDers having any more cards to play.I know the IDers have.

Quote:

It is quite common to play the ace if you have a long run at the top of a suit. It gives the impression you have a singleton to those that aren't paying much attention.

Or haven't much experience.

Hey-it was only a metaphor.Not a bad one if I do say so myself flaunting my well-known arrogance.

0 Replies

In order to improve the quality of quotes on here here's one from The Doors of Perception.I won't insult you by saying who by.

"That humanity at large will ever be able to dispense with Artificial Paradise seems very unlikely.Most men and women live lives at worst so painful,at the best so monotonous,poor,and limited that the urge to escape the longing to transcend themselves,if only for a few moments,is and has always been one of the principle appetites of the soul. . . . For unrestrained use,the West has permitted only alcohol and tobacco.All the other chemical Doors in the Wall are labelled Dope,and their unauthorized takers are Fiends."

And these "Fiends" have surely increased in both number and determination as Religion has declined.
As have the activities associated with the states they enjoy.If Religion were to vanish,which is obviously the aim of the anti-IDers on here,they couldn't possibly wish otherwise from the way they have categorised it,won't we all be Fiends then?And our nearest and dearest.One does have to think of others.

0 Replies

Obviously those industries benefitting from our being degraded into Fiends will support anti-ID.
News dispensers will be the only thing left in media due to real life being more exciting than silly old soaps and Oscar award ceremonies.Some diehards,such as myself,will probably be prepared to switch over to the sport when the athletes are getting onto the blocks for the Olympic 100 meters final.

Welfare industries will have a field day.Fiends counselling Fiends.A bit like psychoanalysis only bigger.

You must have noticed a mushroom of "News" and "caring concern".They are 3/4 to taking tobacco away and,mark my words,booze is next.
They started on Monday here.The ink was hardly dry on the smoking in public places bill.They moved even quicker than I anticipated.Livers instead of lungs.Shrivelled in bottles.Millions of millions of working days lost.Domestic violence.You could hardly understand why booze had ever been allowed in the first place.They didn't even bother with the heart disease.

Religion might be the last solace for the non-Fiends.A bit like pubs are the last bastion of freedom and not very good either.

0 Replies

Various politicians who have supported the teaching of intelligent design have expressed the view that chance mutation does not seem to explain the evolution of complex organs. Professor Elliot Sober of the University of Wisconsin has written several essays on the design argument. He states that Darwin's natural selection principle refutes the argument that evolutionary theory relies only on "chance":

Quote:

The process of evolution by natural selection is not a uniform chance process. The process has two parts. Novel traits arise in individual organisms "by chance;" however, whether they then disappear from the population or increase in frequency and eventually reach 100% representation is anything but a "matter of chance." The central idea of natural selection is that traits that help organisms survive and reproduce have a better chance at becoming common than traits that hurt. The essence of natural selection is that evolutionary outcomes have unequal probabilities.

0 Replies

wande quoted=

Quote:

The essence of natural selection is that evolutionary outcomes have unequal probabilities.

Is the prof including humans in that statement of principle?

0 Replies

spendius,

Professor Sober is discussing the evolution of traits for organisms in general.

There would be no need to exclude human traits.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

Various politicians who have supported the teaching of intelligent design have expressed the view that chance mutation does not seem to explain the evolution of complex organs. Professor Elliot Sober of the University of Wisconsin has written several essays on the design argument. He states that Darwin's natural selection principle refutes the argument that evolutionary theory relies only on "chance":

Quote:
The process of evolution by natural selection is not a uniform chance process. The process has two parts. Novel traits arise in individual organisms "by chance;" however, whether they then disappear from the population or increase in frequency and eventually reach 100% representation is anything but a "matter of chance." The central idea of natural selection is that traits that help organisms survive and reproduce have a better chance at becoming common than traits that hurt. The essence of natural selection is that evolutionary outcomes have unequal probabilities.

That's why it's called Natural Selection and not Natural Randomness

This surprisingly obvious reality to the way the process works is often overlooked by people who only hear the word "chance" when they hear evoluton.

Given that natural selection can be understood even by common sense, it's really amazing that so many people are in denial over this obvious and inescapable process in biology. It's clear that people's fears and desires take precidence over their common sense.

0 Replies

Well then wande,as I have already said,nepotism is degenerative and thus anybody who engages in it is damaging the future and the prospects of the nation and self evidently so.I don't know about the prof and whether or not he has been the recipient of an advantaged start in life or whether any children of his are receiving any advantages from his high position but I'll bet that is the case at evens.In which case it's evolution red in tooth and claw for the rest of us but featherbedding for the prof.Perhaps he might start a dynasty leading to a monarchy.I suppose he might then try running the "intelligence is inheritable" line like when a blacksmith's biceps are passed on to his sons and daughters.
What you end up with then,of course,is your whole elite having an average IQ of 100 facing competition from nations which exclude nepotism with elites averaging 130.

(Loud squealings and wailings from gallery.)

0 Replies

spendius,

You seem to be discussing some version of "sociobiology".

Professor Sober is referring to natural processes found in nature.

0 Replies

wande-

You did say-

Quote:

There would be no need to exclude human traits.

Which is it?You'll say anything but your prayers.

0 Replies

spendius,

Your post went far beyond the subject of biological evolution. Professor Sober limited his statements to evolutionary processes in nature. Your post strayed into the odd realm of "sociobiology".

0 Replies

OKLAHOMA UPDATE

Quote:

Evolution bill stirs debate on origin of life, religion
(TIM TALLEY, Associated Press, March 3, 2006)

OKLAHOMA CITY - While other states are backing away from teaching alternatives to evolution, the Oklahoma House passed a bill Thursday encouraging schools to expose students to alternative views about the origin of life.

The measure, passed on a 77-10 vote, gives teachers the right to teach "the full range of scientific views on the biological or chemical origins of life." The measure stops short of requiring the teaching of "intelligent design" alongside the theory of evolution in science classes.

Its author, Rep. Sally Kern, R-Oklahoma City, said evolution is taught in some classrooms as if it were scientific fact although the theory, developed in the 19th century by Charles Darwin, is neither observable, repeatable or testable and is not solid science.

"They are getting a one-sided view of evolution," said Kern, a former teacher. "Let's teach good honest science."

Critics said the lessons would be more appropriate in religion or philosophy classes than in science class. They said the measure would take control from local school boards on developing lesson plans and violates the constitutional prohibition on government endorsement of specific religious views.

"I think we're about to open a slippery slope here," said Rep. Danny Morgan, D-Prague. In December, a federal judge blocked attempts to teach intelligent design in high school biology classes in Dover, Pa. "We're going to be right back in the courthouse," Morgan said.

Kern said her bill does not promote a particular religious point of view but promotes critical thinking by students by exposing them to all sides of a scientific debate.

"This bill is not about a belief in God. It is not about religion. It is about science," Kern said. "I'm not asking for Sunday school to be in a science class."

Evolution teaches that all organisms are connected by genealogy and have changed through time through several processes, including natural selection.

Intelligent design teaches that life is so well-ordered that it must have been created by a higher power. Critics argue that the theory is merely repackaged creationism, which teaches that the Earth and all life were created by God.

Supporters said exposing students to different viewpoints will create lively classroom debate.

"Do you think you come from a monkeyman?" said Rep. Tad Jones, R-Claremore. "Did we come from slimy algae 4.5 billion years ago or are we a unique creation of God? I think it's going to be exciting for students to discuss these issues."

Opponents said alternative theories on the origin of life are a matter of faith, not science. "God truly is the creator of heaven and Earth, but I can't prove that," said Rep. Al Lindley, D-Oklahoma City.

The bill now goes to the state Senate, where similar legislation has been defeated in the past.

0 Replies

ros wrote-

Quote:

Given that natural selection can be understood even by common sense, it's really amazing that so many people are in denial over this obvious and inescapable process in biology. It's clear that people's fears and desires take precedence over their common sense.

It is impossible to discuss such a statement ros.If you think anti-IDers have the inside track on common sense well you just think it and really that's all there is to it and there's not much point in discussing it.You have shown,as have others on here,that you have a closed mind on the subject and that those who disagree are simply dumb asses who should,if you are correct,be kept well away from any power positions.

I,as the only defender of religious belief on here,have got it quite clear that your sense =common sense and there is no point in you repeating it further.

0 Replies

spendius,

I never intended religious belief to be either attacked or defended in this discussion. This is why I placed the thread in the "science and mathematics" forum.

There are threads about evolution in the religious forum if your main purpose is a defense of religion.

0 Replies

One may hope the Oklahoma Senate does the right thing and prevents the state from exposing itself to ruinous challenge. As the article mentions, the OK Senate has in the past defeated such legislation.

A couple things stand out there; obe, the part about "... teach the full range of scientific views on the biological or chemical origins of life." offers a profound challenge to ID-iocy even should the bill become law in as much as ID-iocy has been found to be not science. A fine point, no doubt lost on the bill's proponents.

Another is the ignorance displayed by the remark from Rep. Thad Jones (interestingly coincidental last name, given the circumstances): "Do you think you come from a monkeyman?" ... obviously, Rep. Jones has absolutely no knoiwledge nor understanding of the issue, and is patently unqualified to engage in any debate pertaining to same.

In a mean sorta way, I'd almost like to see Oklahoma take the plunge and go for it. Such a legislative stupidity would without doubt place the issue squarely before the Supremes, where it would be dealt with once and for all. The ID-iots who think a more conservative SCOTUS offers their blatantly unconstitutional absurdity improved prospect need the kick in the face they'd be sure to get.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know