Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

spendius wrote:

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.

No, spendi, despite the inability of some to come to grips with the reality of it, there is no other worthy of discussion ... at least of intelligent discussion.

Quote:

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.

Straw man, spendi, no such contention is offered, though it is to be noted the proponents of ID-iocy have brought nothing of substance or validity to the table.

Quote:

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.

Another straw man, spendi - though perhaps I can understand why you might, in error, infer such; having one's attempts at argument incessantly demolished, unfailingly shown to be specious, fatally flawed, illogical, irrelevant, immaterial, and wholly without merit well might be disheartening if one is incapable of formulating and presenting legitimate argument.

Quote:

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.

The closed mind here is yours, spendi, in common with the minds of the proponents of ID-iocy. Science seeks to acquire and sift the evidence, searching for clues and answers irrespective where that search might lead; religion seeks to decree its answer apart from and irrespective of research. Knowledge and understanding, intellectual integrity, simply are not matters to be established through fiat - they must be acquired legitimately, through honest work and open inquiry.

0 Replies

wande wrote-

Quote:

I never intended religious belief to be either attacked or defended in this discussion.

I think it is inevitable that it would turn into a debate about religious belief.We all know that ID is not science.You haven't seen me saying that it is science or saying that evolution theory is not science.I don't see how the thread can last more than a few posts if it is solely concerned with whether ID is science or not.

The first post read-

"Is ID theory a valid scientific alternative to evolution theory or is it only a religious view?
Is there a consensus in the scientific community one way or the other on this issue?"

Answer-No and yes and No.End of thread.

On the face of it a rather silly set of questions.The idea that 50,000+ views would appear to see the answers to such simple and obvious questions is palpably ridiculous.It has been entertainment.The idea that some ordinary Joes know anything worthwhile about education or sound government or evolution theory or scientific method or anything other than trumpet blowing in one note is very funny and anything funny is entertaining.It's just like the pub in that regard and just as laughable.

Had I happened across the thread on that first post I would have passed on.

It is **emphatically** to be noticed though that once again you have failed to address the anti-evolution principle in nepotism.As a man of the world I can understand your predicament and sympathise with it.You are well advised to continue closing your eyes on it and sticking to fossils.You can't come to much harm with fossils.

All it means is that you accept evolution theory when it suits you and not when it doesn't.Or when it relates to human objects and not yourself.You probably can't even allow that Paris Hilton was taking the piss out of nepotism when she starred in her famous porn movie using her inheritance simply because you hadn't thought she might have been.Spiro Agnew irony.

The only possible science relating to this matter is that concerning itself with the effects on the social structure of restricting students to scientific method exclusively in a realm where the wider world is divided and thus real students, as opposed to some abstract idea of students,are going to question such an approach.You,and your fellow travellers,have ignored that aspect too and on many occasions and have retreated into your rote learned mantras.

And aw gee we haven't even got started on sexual selection which I've been really looking forward to.

And you ignored the table settings which are entirely religious.

0 Replies

spendius,

In my opinion, biological intelligent design can simply be dismissed as bad science or pseudo-science.

Before I began this thread, my understanding was that scholars such as Dr. Behe and Dr. Dembski were promoting the intelligent design hypothesis as a scientific alternative to the natural selection hypothesis.

When I began this thread I honestly did not know whether there was any valid science behind intelligent design. I discussed the methodology proposed by Dembski and tried to get feedback on whether an objective determination could be made that an organism was intelligently designed rather than having evolved through natural processes.

Many scientific angles were investigated on this thread. I was never able to find any valid science supporting biological intelligent design.

In interviews after the Dover decision, Dr. Dembski acknowledged there was a need to strengthen the "scientific underpinnings" of the intelligent design hypothesis.

0 Replies

timber-

ros used "common sense" in a way that implied he had it and opponents didn't.

You have used "intelligent" in a similar way.

Both are simple variants of the "It is","No it isn't" girl's playground arguments.

Quote:

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.

Another straw man, spendi - though perhaps I can understand why you might, in error, infer such; having one's attempts at argument incessantly demolished, unfailingly shown to be specious, fatally flawed, illogical, irrelevant, immaterial, and wholly without merit well might be disheartening if one is incapable of formulating and presenting legitimate argument.

I don't see a SM.You,and your fellow travellers,have called your opponents a lot worse things than dumb asses and on many occasions.

You have never even tried to demolish any of my arguments never mind incessantly.And do I seem disheartened to you?I'm not in the least.I'm trying to show the viewers what a half-baked scientific method fanatic is really like.

And that last quote from you doesn't constitute an argument at all.It is an extended assertion.Again.

Quote:

Quote:
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.

The closed mind here is yours, spendi, in common with the minds of the proponents of ID-iocy. Science seeks to acquire and sift the evidence, searching for clues and answers irrespective where that search might lead; religion seeks to decree its answer apart from and irrespective of research. Knowledge and understanding, intellectual integrity, simply are not matters to be established through fiat - they must be acquired legitimately, through honest work and open inquiry.

Ha ha ha ha.The bloody needle's stuck again.

Where on earth does the "closed mind" come from in the quote you give.I am the only defender I think.Is it a closed mind now sticking to the fact of that.And did ros mean his "common sense" or mine?And do I know what he thinks.Of course I do.So why keep repeating it?

Where's the closed mind?

Or is it just another trotted out meaningless cliche?

Water off a duck mate.Waste of time.

But don't mind me-flail away.

0 Replies

wande wrote-

Quote:

In my opinion, biological intelligent design can simply be dismissed as bad science or pseudo-science.

Don't be so daft wande.It's no sort of science.

Quote:

Before I began this thread, my understanding was that scholars such as Dr. Behe and Dr. Dembski were promoting the intelligent design hypothesis as a scientific alternative to the natural selection hypothesis.

How naive can you get?It is my understanding that the gents were promoting their careers.I couldn't see a scientist taking the slightest interest in such matters otherwise.It is much more enjoyable getting in the papers and being on TV and selling books and appearences out of sight of the wife than doing hard grind research into,say,impulse frequencies in a single lateral line fibre of a ray in response to perfusion of hyomandibular canals all week,all year in a nasty little lab far away from the spotlights.

Quote:

When I began this thread I honestly did not know whether there was any valid science behind intelligent design. I discussed the methodology proposed by Dembski and tried to get feedback on whether an objective determination could be made that an organism was intelligently designed rather than having evolved through natural processes.

Well I'll save you the bother wande.Nobody will EVER know objectively.Which is the reason you were never able to find any valid evidence for ID.There is none you see and there never will be.And it doesn't matter what Dr Dembski acknowledged.

The social functions or otherwise of ID (religion) is a much more interesting and fruitful line of debate.

0 Replies

spendius,

Since you also believe there is no valid science behind intelligent design, do you agree it should not be taught as science?

0 Replies

spendi, which of your arguments has not been demolished?

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

I,as the only defender of religious belief on here

I didn't say anything about religious belief in my post. You are the only one to bring that up.

My point was that Natural Selection is obvious common sense, and no matter how you spin it, it will always remain obvious and inescapable as a factor in evolution.

I don't care what people's religious believs are as long as they don't try to argue that they are scientific in any way (because that's a waste of everyone's time).

0 Replies

"Fellow travelers ? ! ? ! ?"

Does that mean we're commies, too?

0 Replies

wande wrote-

Quote:

Since you also believe there is no valid science behind intelligent design, do you agree it should not be taught as science?

Yes but there is a problem with this particular subject which has been swirling round since Origin was published.So I'm not sure I would teach evolution either.It does raise issues in the social and psychological fields which motivate people to challenge it with alternatives.When the challenge comes it ought not to surprise anyone and to dismiss the challenge with insults shows a lack of understanding of human society.If it wasn't such a dilemma there would be no fuss.The scientific fact of the fuss,and I have spent half of today reading about the fuss at the time of publication,is proof of the importance of the dilemma.It impinges on property,authority and,dare I say,sexual behaviour and is,as Darwin said it was,mightly complex.

timber wrote-

Quote:

spendi, which of your arguments has not been demolished?

None of them have even been addressed.But I suppose if you consider saying something is stupid proves it is stupid then every single one of not only my arguments but those of all religious believers has been demolished and not only religious ideas but any idea you say is stupid and idiotic is also demolished which can only make sense if you are always right and everybody who doesn't agree with you is always wrong because once it is allowed that you saying something is stupid and idiotic does not prove that it is actually stupid and idiotic then saying things you don't agree with are stupid and idiotic might then be really stupid and idiotic.

I don't know about that but it is standard practice in girl's playgrounds to think that calling something stupid and idiotic proves that it is stupid and idiotic.
Sir Anthony Eden remarked that even your highest government officials seemed to think that what they said was true simply because they had said it and with no reference to any other source being worth considering.

So yes-you have demolished every argument you have addressed,which is very few,on your own terms.Which must be very satisfying for you but it may also serve to satisfy others that the scientific approach without reference to the social system is somewhat dangerous as certain famous and powerful leaders have proved in the past.

So is nepotism directly contrary to the theory of the survival of the fittest?And are those people who practice nepotism and at the same time preach the doctrine of the survival of the fittest nothing but a load of hypocritical bullshite merchants?

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

ros used "common sense" in a way that implied he had it and opponents didn't.

Only in your mind.

Common sense means that it doesn't take an extreme education to understand something. That mere common knowledge is sufficient to realize the truth of something.

So, if someone says, "things that reproduce before they die pass on their genes in a higher proportion than things that die before they reproduce", that's common sense. And if natural conditions make reproductive success more likely for some individuals than others, then that's common sense. And together, they are Natural [Common Sense] Selection.

If you want to twist that into some type of attack on religion that's up to you. And if you want to assert that it makes me close minded to say it, then that's also entirely your own assumption.

0 Replies

spendi, you tilt at windmills. Your core contention that sociologic considerations bear any operational significance in or relevance to the incontravertibly established Darwinian model is absurd, wheter or not you recognize or accept that fact. Every attempted argument you have presented in furtherance of your central proposition has been demolished. Whether you recognize that or not is as irrelevant and as immaterial as have been your purported arguments. You cannot number among your position's allies logic, reason, science, or law.

0 Replies

Well I'm sorry ros if I took this-

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.

that anti-IDers are,in your view,commonsensical and IDers are not commonsensical.I'll accept that I presumed that's what you meant.

I think it is natural for fears and desires to take precedence over common sense.One only need go into a pub on a Friday night to see that.Maybe I oughtn't to presume that you have not experienced such a behaviour but people do have genuine fears and desires.They fear the unknown.Yes-belief comforts them and lucky for them that is so and,often wishing I had such comfort,I feel I know how important it is for them and how large parts of their emotional lives are grounded in it.

I don't think their views and lifestyles impact on scientific endevour in any degree except where we all agree that it should.

So I see no threat in allowing them,if they are sufficiently strong politically in their own locality,in allowing them to offer an explanation,however far-fetched it is,for life,its origins and its destiny.

I see no sense in insulting them and no scientist would.

I'll come back shortly.A steam bath awaits.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Well I'm sorry ros if I took this-

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.

that anti-IDers are,in your view,commonsensical and IDers are not commonsensical.I'll accept that I presumed that's what you meant.

As you can see from the quote above, I didn't mention ID in any form. In my opinion, anyone (ID or anti-ID, religious or non-religious) who doesn't realize that natural selection is an inescapable aspect of biological evolution, isn't using common sense.

spendius wrote:

I think it is natural for fears and desires to take precedence over common sense.

It's natural for children to be afraid of the dark too, but most parents don't encourage it.

spendius wrote:

One only need go into a pub on a Friday night to see that.

A lot of what you learn seems to come from the Pub.

0 Replies

ros wrote-

Quote:

As you can see from the quote above, I didn't mention ID in any form. In my opinion, anyone (ID or anti-ID, religious or non-religious) who doesn't realize that natural selection is an inescapable aspect of biological evolution, isn't using common sense.

It is what is meant by "natural selection" and what effects what is meant has that is important here.I think we all agree that certain meanings are obvious common sense.

And I was simply using shorthand when I said IDers and anti-IDers.I thought we all understood that.The two sides in all their raging glory warts and all.

Quote:

It's natural for children to be afraid of the dark too, but most parents don't encourage it.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that because you have no fears it means that others don't.

It is encouraging fear to say that the scientific project in the USA will go down the drain and the country with it,as has been said,if those paragraphs had been read out in the biology class in Dover and if the fear is actually a will-o-the-wisp bogeyman,as I think it is,well then-what do you think?

Governments don't allow things to happen that weaken the scientific project and yours most certainly won't.

Quote:

A lot of what you learn seems to come from the Pub.

Well-you can learn a fair bit about sexual selection,which isn't natural selection by the way,in pubs, if you have read enough books on certain subjects related to the sex war and you can stand above the fray.You can spot trends.You can project those trends.You can derive their mainsprings.

Late night university.The world of physical work is another one.Television is another.Trends are easy to spot in fast changing worlds.You should try it.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

It is what is meant by "natural selection" and what effects what is meant has that is important here.

That was such a weak dodge you couldn't even say it right. But it doesn't matter, you're avoiding the point...

spendius wrote:

Don't make the mistake of thinking that because you have no fears it means that others don't.

and missing the point.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

The social functions or otherwise of ID (religion) is a much more interesting and fruitful line of debate.

What social function does ID serve?

What "other" function does ID serve?

0 Replies

ros wrote-

Quote:

That was such a weak dodge you couldn't even say it right. But it doesn't matter, you're avoiding the point...

We will just have to agree to disagree on those three assertions.

Quote:

and missing the point.

Likewise.

Quote:

What social function does ID serve?

What "other" function does ID serve?

I've been through all that before.I may have missed some effects but I think I've done the main ones.The strength of feeling on the ID side is enough evidence to show there are social functions of value which the ID side sees as being positive.If there are none the debate and expense is pointless.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

ros wrote-

Quote:
That was such a weak dodge you couldn't even say it right. But it doesn't matter, you're avoiding the point...

We will just have to agree to disagree on those three assertions.

Agreed.

spendius wrote:

The strength of feeling on the ID side is enough evidence to show there are social functions of value which the ID side sees as being positive.

Well, duh. Of course they *think* there are social benefits of their views, but the question is *are* there really any social benefits to their views compared to other available views.

I can only see one value to the ID view at this time; it's different. I think there is social value in having a variety of ideas available just as there are benefits to having a variety of individuals in a population. But that doesn't mean that I think we should let the inmates run the asylum.

0 Replies

rosborne,

I would add that it would be wrong to give students the impression that ID has equal standing with evolutionary theory. Maybe students should be shown why ID is poor science.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know