Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

spendi

Quote:

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.

.
All I can say is that you shouldnt present any arguments about that which you know not. If youve ever been to a serious scientific symposium or conference, the word "savage critique" comes to mind.
After reading your gradual "onion skin unfolding" of the mind that is spendius, I seem to recall several tens of pages back that you had called yourself a scientist. Where you lying then or are you lying now?.

0 Replies

fm-

Once a scientist always a scientist.It's simply a way of thinking and it is shocking to most people who think subjectively in the ordinary meaning of that word.
The materialist theory of mind says that it is impossible not to think subjectively but that is a refined theory and not suitable for day to day social relations.

I find difficulty in imagining a "serious scientific symposium" at which "savage critique" would play a part.I would think that anyone to whom such a term is directed oughtn't to be present at all and if such a person was present I would suspect that it wasn't a serious scientific meeting.

Would you say that my strictures on biofuels represented such a critique.I felt I was merely testing the thinking behind it as an important contributor in the energy supply.I quite admire those who work on it as it may well become a nesessity one day but only in much changed circumstances.

There is no "onion skin" in a scientific way of thinking.It is clear cut and completely transparent.It is easy to tell who does and who doesn't understand it.The onion skin may well be at the other end.

What was the most interesting thing you observed on your trip?

0 Replies

spendius,

Can you clarify what happened in Friday's announcement that creationism will be part of UK biology curriculum?

I am not familiar with the educational organizations involved in this. OCR (Oxford-Cambridge-RSA) designs entrance examinations for UK universities, is that true? Why do they feel creationism should be discussed in biology curriculum? Does OCR actually believe there is a legitimate scientific controversy about evolutionary theory?

Please "follow the money" on this for us.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

... Does OCR actually believe there is a legitimate scientific controversy about evolutionary theory?

absolutely not this from their website

Quote:

You may have seen coverage about our new Gateway Science specification in the media.

At OCR, we believe candidates need to understand the social and historical context to scientific ideas both pre and post Darwin.

In our Gateway Science specification, candidates are asked to discuss why the opponents of Darwinism thought the way they did and how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of interpreting empirical evidence.

Creationism and 'intelligent design' are not regarded by OCR as scientific theories. They are beliefs that do not lie within scientific understanding.

0 Replies

Steve,

What is their justification for including "social and historical context" in biology curriculum?

Why is evolutionary theory being singled out?

What "different ways of interpreting empirical evidence" are they referring to? And again, in the context of interpreting evidence, why is evolutionary theory being singled out?

0 Replies

wandel, It seems quite evident that only evolutionary theory is being singled out, because it's the only "theory" that threatens religion.

Age of earth, world flood, man created in the form of god, the six day - 24 hour creation, and the multitude of other contradictory findings of science vs the "word of god."

Fear.

0 Replies

wande-

I don't look at these things in the way you seem to do.I try to find the hidden forces behind the events.
I am not familiar with OCR.Nor am I familiar with day to day educational arrangements.But there used to be a number of examination boards with a regional flavour.These were in competition with each other.

I start out with the one basic fact that I know is true.Human beings make up the staff of all these entities.

My initial guess is that word has come down from on high.From the political level.Possibly from the very top.Once that happens a machine goes into operation in which those who promote that word get advancement and those who oppose it don't.One can see evidence of that in the "Honours" lists.

It then becomes a question of why the word was given which,in a system such as ours, is most unlikely to be a simple prejudice.It will stem from advice from various departments of state and discussions at many levels.That is what Civil Service departments are for and they also are competitive.

I have tried on your thread to provide some idea of what sort of inputs different departments might produce.And these departments are in daily contact with those organisations and pressure groups which represent the various economic and social interests.Going into detail would take years and selecting specific examples risks distorting the discussion down one narrow,though still complex,corridor.

The reading of large quantities of political memoirs and diaries is necessary to gain a flavour of the process.

Politics is the art of the possible.

The argument that ID is not science in such a framework is so naive it borders on absurdity.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

My initial guess is that word has come down from on high.From the political level.Possibly from the very top.Once that happens a machine goes into operation in which those who promote that word get advancement and those who oppose it don't.One can see evidence of that in the "Honours" lists.

It then becomes a question of why the word was given which,in a system such as ours, is most unlikely to be a simple prejudice.It will stem from advice from various departments of state and discussions at many levels.That is what Civil Service departments are for and they also are competitive.

Thanks, spendius. Your explanation sounds like a good one.

Are British citizens questioning the wisdom of this change in education?

0 Replies

Hey, I understood what spendi wrote for a change.
spendi, Your last post was well written; really.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

Steve,

What is their justification for including "social and historical context" in biology curriculum?

Why is evolutionary theory being singled out?

What "different ways of interpreting empirical evidence" are they referring to? And again, in the context of interpreting evidence, why is evolutionary theory being singled out?

Wandel, I'm not an educationalist but I suspect you are being unnecessarily alarmed by the creeping march of creationism in schools (now in Britain too?) if that is in fact what motivates your enquiries.

As OCR make quite clear creationism is not science, and is not taught as such. The social and historical context, if it is taught in biology at all, is merely to give the student some background to modern understanding. I dont think evolutionary theory is being singled out any more than Copernican theory might be contrasted with the earth centered solar system of an earlier paradigm.

Different ways of interpreting empirical evidence is surely how science progresses, sometimes through competing theories until one view perhaps with new evidence is generally accepted as the superior model. They are just trying to get a flavour for this across to the children.

If this is an attempt to introduce creationism and intelligent design into the curriculum by the back door, its pretty clumsy and doomed to failure imo. But I really dont think it is.

0 Replies

Steve,

It still sounds like evolution is being singled out.

Did OCR specify any other scientific theories besides what they call "Darwinism"? Are candidates required to be able to discuss "geocentrism"?

You write:

Quote:

Different ways of interpreting empirical evidence is surely how science progresses, sometimes through competing theories until one view perhaps with new evidence is generally accepted as the superior model. They are just trying to get a flavour for this across to the children.

Aren't you even suspicious about why they chose evolution "to get a flavour for this across to the children"?

I don't mean this as a criticism of you, Steve. I myself would be suspicious.

0 Replies

wande wrote-

Quote:

It still sounds like evolution is being singled out.

It is not being singled out wande.

The nature of the subject singles itself out.At the time of Darwin there were many other scientific discoveries being made and worked upon.None of those generated any controversy in comparison with Darwin's ideas for the same reason.

The theory represents a breakthrough in social organisation.It threatens the way of life of many people and the manner in which society is governed and controlled.At the same time it provides a theatre for others to displace the traditional forms of goverance and to take their place.

It is not really a question of what people think.It is more a matter of what they preach.An unbelieving scientific mind will not be affected by preaching creationism but a devout Christian will be seriously affected by the dissemination of Darwinism and particularly in its details and in its conclusions as they relate to human life.

At some point a view has to be taken on the value of either position for the good governance of a nation and for its economic and military capabilities.

It seems that some sort of decision may have been taken in this regard but it is hardly a decisive one at this stage and in my opinion represents no threat to the progress of science which all governments,even the one in Iran,have an interest in supporting.

What will probably happen,indeed has been happening all along,is that schools may choose how much emphasis to place in these matters and parents will be able to also choose what to do even if their choice puts them to varying degrees of trouble.

But it is of some importance to large numbers of people to have available to them a priestly class to lend a certain type of dignity to those key events in human life;birth,marriage and death.This dignity,which some headbangers like me might sometimes scoff at,cannot be maintained with an exclusive emphasis on evolution.

To some extent the availabilty of ID type teaching is a recognition of that real need which is apparent most forcefully in immigrant communities of which we have a fair number and which are represented in the House of Commons by MPs.

Some may say it is a fudge but those who deplore such a fudge show a marked lack of understanding of the mechanisms by which orderly and strong societies are maintained.

0 Replies

...and destroyed.

0 Replies

That is a matter of opinion.And possibly one of confidence.

0 Replies

Not confidence; history.

0 Replies

LOL, spendius. Your sentiments are very quaint. However, you seem sincere in wanting what is best for society.

The wife of Charles Darwin believed that her husband would not be allowed to spend eternity with her because of his "dangerous ideas".

0 Replies

c.i. wrote-

Quote:

Not confidence; history.

That involves a giant,and I think unreasonable,assumption which I have already discussed at some length.

And I don't think history is any guide to Faustian civilisation which is unique because of our science.

wande wrote-

Quote:

LOL, spendius. Your sentiments are very quaint. However, you seem sincere in wanting what is best for society.

The wife of Charles Darwin believed that her husband would not be allowed to spend eternity with her because of his "dangerous ideas".

I cannot imagine anybody not wanting the best for society.

And yes-that did sadden Emma a great deal and the subject was generally avoided in their domestic life.

Charles was a bit of a ram you know.It ran in the family,somewhat scandalously with Erasmus,and five years on a ship must have been quite trying.
Emma was a very patient and understanding wife.

0 Replies

c.i. wrote-

Quote:

Hey, I understood what spendi wrote for a change.
spendi, Your last post was well written; really.

As if I didn't know.

Everything I write is pretty good otherwise I wouldn't post it.Not as good as I would like but I'm usually on the hoof.

The Footballer's Wives post was a little different.

0 Replies

"History" is not a giant or unreasonable assumption. If you're talking about micro-societies, then your thesis might hold some truths. Tyring to apply it to all cultures and times makes it useless.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

wande wrote-

Quote:
It still sounds like evolution is being singled out.

It is not being singled out wande.

The nature of the subject singles itself out.At the time of Darwin there were many other scientific discoveries being made and worked upon.None of those generated any controversy in comparison with Darwin's ideas for the same reason.

Steady State did.

Quote:

The theory represents a breakthrough in social organisation.It threatens the way of life of many people and the manner in which society is governed and controlled.

Don't you think you're giving a bit too much credit to Evolution? How will it threaten the way society is governed and controlled? Hm?

You speak of Evolution as if it were some great anti-God religion. Yet there's nothing in Evolution to say there is no God. Nothing.

Quote:

At the same time it provides a theatre for others to displace the traditional forms of goverance and to take their place.

How?

Quote:

It is not really a question of what people think.It is more a matter of what they preach.An unbelieving scientific mind will not be affected by preaching creationism but a devout Christian will be seriously affected by the dissemination of Darwinism and particularly in its details and in its conclusions as they relate to human life.

Rubbish. Not a single devout Christian I've tried talking to has ever been persuaded that Darwinisim is correct. The devout Christian's belief in Creationism is as solid as the scientist's "belief" in Evolution.

Quote:

It seems that some sort of decision may have been taken in this regard but it is hardly a decisive one at this stage and in my opinion represents no threat to the progress of science which all governments,even the one in Iran,have an interest in supporting.

Yeah, except that Iran isn't too keen on Evolution or anything related to it.

Quote:

Some may say it is a fudge but those who deplore such a fudge show a marked lack of understanding of the mechanisms by which orderly and strong societies are maintained.

Yet, none of your arguments that Evolution can disrupt a society's order are convincing or related to the real world. The one argument I did read had some rubbish to do about God, but I have yet to see God's existence under threat from Evolution itself.

People may feel that God's existence is under threat, but it is those exact same people who are unwilling to change their stance over their belief in God.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know