Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

wande wrote-



and



In a speech in Paris in the summer of 1939 intended to reassure the French Sir Anthony Eden said this-

"....Clearly if we do not adopt conscription,other nations will doubt our purpose.We must stop these doubts.That is why we have agreed to this reversal of our traditions as we would to any other that might be necessary."

When your traditions are so fixed as to be written down and set in stone it is impossible to say such a thing.This leads to the idea that the traditions themselves are more important than the welfare of the nation.Some posters on here think that is a satisfactory state of affairs but it is only a "belief" and not a scientific fact.

This is why we won't get into the situation you have got into and it is a mistake to think that you can export the ID controversy to us even though some easy-money merchants and self-publicists might try.

And, at the risk of being told to keep my nose out of it,
I think Spendi and Farmerman are probably both
on the 'same side,' in fact.

The enemy is ignorance. That's what needs to be
comabatted.

(blush)

I mean combatted.

Or did I unwittingly come up with a more apposite word?

fm wrote-



We are pretty smart but that isn't the reason.It is more that we don't much care whether ID gains ground or not.The British phlegmatic spirit,not having a written constitution,can prevent ID from doing any damage should it prove necessary.

I'm not sure what "gain grounds" means anyway.Going from miniscule to minute is to gain ground.

Once again an expression is used intended to frighten when it's only a feather.Just another piece of slippery propaganda which would hardly pass muster in a creche for persuasiveness.

You really do have a low opinion of your readers fm.



I don't think "disdain" is an appropriate word there.
It is impossible to teach science to the masses.One may pretend to of course and sit around in meetings and debates nodding reassurances to all and sundry but that seems to me to be more a personal problem than anything else.

Most people I know have had science lessons for 7 or 8 years and the way they behave and talk suggests they failed to appreciate the slightest scientific principle as,I feel emboldened to add,is the case with the majority of posters on this thread.A few of them know that table salt is scientifically known as sodium chloride but that sort of thing is about as far as they can stretch.



It is impossible for me to admit having made a silly proposal because if I thought a proposal of mine to be silly I wouldn't have proposed it.



Any student capable of becoming a scientist has very little to learn from the sort of teachers in the secondary schools where the "masses" are educated.Most of those teachers are glorified child-minders and have difficulties in managing their own lives satisfactorily.Young people generally consider their teachers to be stark,staring mad and having known a good number of such teachers I am not inclined to take issue with them on the matter.I daresay there are exceptions but one can hardly build a national education policy on the strength of them.

In my opinion, the changes in UK science education standards are similar to those in Kansas. Both represent attempts to "wedge" religion into science class.

c.i. wrote-



and fm wrote-



That sort of stuff shames the American educational system.That grown men should think that such things are a contribution to a debate and that they are seemingly unaware that they do not represents a failure of momentous proportions.

Nobody even slightly versed in a scientific mindset would dream of using such silly expressions and if anyone was sitting here with me they would be quite in agreement with my categorising them as such.

And imagining that they would have the slightest effect,which is presumably what they were intended to have,requires an underestimation of the audience which I won't be found ever indulging in.

spendi, Here's a clue; you're probably the only one that participates in these threads that most people challenge. If I were in your shoes, I'd wonder why. But then, your ego will not allow such introspection.

Challenge!!!!

Challenge!!!!

Where??

Now my ego won't allow introspection.I'm a big head too no doubt.Can't write for toffee.Don't know anything about Darwin.Or science.Or America.Or education.I'm so dangerous I have to have an electrified barbed-wire fence round me.I flunked maths at university.

Jumping Genesis to get harpified!!Cor blimey.

spendi wrote:
I'm so dangerous I have to have an electrified barbed-wire fence round me.

Have you figured out yet that everything doesn't revolve around you?

The genteel case for a gentle ID seems to do precisely that.

You should see the snotty,snarling case which my natural regard for the sensitivities of others precludes me from presenting.Don't think I'm incapable of the sort of childlike smear tactics you use.I'm only in first gear.

And anyway-



is only another self-serving and semi-articulated presumption of the usual type.It means nothing in this debate and I don't think anything I've written warrants such a blurted conclusion.

It means nothing to you; that's your problem.

Show me any post by another member of a2k that have supported you in any way. Then, I'll shut up.

I don't feel the need to defend myself by doing such a thing.

I will say that I attended a posh Catholic School,had a long period in HM Civil Service interrupted only by military service and latterly have been in business serving the whims of an averagely refined marketing niche.I have also been cunningly entrapped and enslaved by a beautiful,superior and demanding female on a number of occasions.

Which is to say that my ego has been comprehensively shredded and scattered to the four winds.

Now if I was to take to the air to travel across continents,with all that entails regarding its effects upon my fellow man,just on a superficial whim coming about by a series of meaningless chances I might consider myself in a different light.As I also would if I said that one side in a debate raging around the courts and costing millions of pounds was "stupid" or somesuch and could be dismissed with a contemptuous gesture.

As a thourough-going,dyed -in -the -wool,fundamentalist Darwinian and worse,much worse,I am well aware that my fellow man is not ready to hear the full story.It is far too savage,cynical and unforgiving for people who send greetings cards out and dine in restaurants and suchlike.Anybody who uses egoprops isn't really ready for Darwin.

One does have to take our mental evolution into account because had we not evolved past 1850 we wouldn't even be debating Darwin&Co.We are a part of the picture.This is not an abstract mind game.This is serious politics.And booing gets laughed at in that zone of operations.

On account of it being not all that dissimilar from a baby skwiking for its comforter which is always funny in any person over about 18 months old.

spendi, It's really good that you can find comfort in your own little world.

I gave up on finding comfort many years ago.There are no comforts.Any Darwinian will tell you that.So will any decent author.

Those trying to get money out of you by pretending otherwise are a different matter.But I don't bother with them.I can see them coming from miles and miles.

Speaking of miles.

Have you ever heard of "milers" as pigeon types.
A bloke in the pub has just been telling me about them.They are sprinter pigeon racers.

They race over one mile and the winner gets all the money.Not the pigeon.The trainer.The pigeon gets the training.Which,from what I could gather,involves proper diet and being sex-starved and the object of adoration the finishing tape.

These types of races are quite difficult to organise it seems unlike those from 400 miles away where a few seconds are of not much importance.Getting the ring off a "miler's" leg and into the time recorder,an electrical device the integrity of which has been agreed by the committee, whose task it is to ensure fair play,has to be quick.Pigeons,which Darwin studied intently,have a tendency to fly at quite similar speeds and it is obvious that in races lasting only about a minute the speed with which the ring can be got off the pigeon's leg and into the timing clock,assuming no tinkering with long wires or any corrupt agreements with the clock technicians,is of paramount importance.This is quite a tricky task but you can rest assured that the principle of the survival of the fittest will lead to the winner being deserving of his victory however much the losers whinge.

So all Darwinians and decent authors are subjugated to a "big bad world" that provides no comfort to us poor souls. You must quit reading the bible and those "decent authors." They've poisoned your mind.

c.i. wrote in his usual inimitable style-



which is booing dressed up to convince the under 5s.

I should be reading sales brochures I suppose.Have myself chucked under the chin at great expense.

It doesn't take money or sales brochures to remove your gloom. Go for a walk, visit an old folks home and read to them, or go look at the displays in a museum. Expand your world from the doom and gloom.

Doom and gloom!!!!!

Don't be silly.

I spend half my time laughing at the antics of the modern monkey trying to pretend it is something it isn't.I suspect Darwin of trying to cheer himself up in a very tragic life by a similar method.