Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

spendi

Quote:

Hence moral authority would come to mean what the leaders said with no check from any other source.If you have faith in that all well and good.I don't.They can't even stop themselves from selling peerages or lying about it when their own incompetence exposes them.And nepotism would create a ghastly situation.Corruption would be endemic and any attempt to expose it would result in liquidation.

Thats exactly what the Jim Jones,and pat Robertsons have done. Youve got to be totally daft spendi. "Talk about the twig in your neighbos eye but missing the moat in your own" This is one of the more laughable statements that youve posted < Although it didnt display the schizophrenic tendencies that some of your other,equally famous posts have .
PS, DERBRA was merely paraphrasing from one of the major sourcebooks of the Creationist camp. Why deny it and try to ridicule that which, by its arrow strait path, has pierced your own gasconadery.

The point in this thread , after youve already agreed that ID isnt science, was the follow-on , that , as such, it shouldnt be taught as such. You have been trying to make major course changes in areas that are purely ridiculous. The only one here who thinks that you make points worth considering, is you.
"Being taken serious by you" isnt exactly high on the list of accomplishments that I want on my resume. I feel that having your approval would call into question , my own fitness to lead.

0 Replies

Actually, farmerman, I thought spendi's thesis was laugh-out-loud hilarious. (I hope he was joking.)

0 Replies

again

Quote:

I am in favour of not teaching evolution at all.

That would be getting us back to the days before the Fisrt World War in the US, when evolution was notconsidered to be the Value-free concept that unifies all biology. Why not, while were at it, lets dropthe periodic table from Chemistry and vector analyses from physics. WHy not just have a few more pints of Extra Smooth Whatever.

0 Replies

wande-

It's just the current expression of the state of the squirming through this fantastic sieve in this amazing shaking machine which sometimes whines and sometimes just rumbles depending on what the maestro fancies. Like the way they get pepper so that it goes through the little holes in your shaker.What emerges at the bottom is the finest grade.Evolution in a nutshell.

Why you have worries about it defeats me.I get the impression from Steve's neat phrasing that it defeats him too. I worry about important things like whether the pint I'll be in front of shortly will have a good frothy top on it.

Didn't Menken say something about people inventing scare stories to draw attention to themselves."Hobgoblins" I think is the word he used.Like when Orson Wells did something based on that idea and had you all running around like headless chickens.So I heard anyway.I don't know whether it's true or not.I can't see it being "all" of you.Most maybe.

The National Curriculum is what the elected government decides to teach the little monsters having taken advice from experts in a range of responsibilities some of which you might not even know exist so many are there.Anybody objects to that should start a party and get bloody elected and he or she can have it anyway that makes sense to them.

I wouldn't worry wande.You're in good hands.Best we can find at least no matter how bad they are.

0 Replies

wandeljw. We disagree. Spendi will take ridiculous positions for effect and get to convincing himself (but few others). So, Im sure what will follow are some Mittened diatribes and other insults. He needs the attention , and, like some fools, we give it to him.

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

Why not, while were at it, lets dropthe periodic table from Chemistry and vector analyses from physics.

It is,dear man,because the periodic table and vector analysis are unconnected,or I hope they are,with the relations between us geezers and the pretty ones and you emphatically cannot say that about evolution theory as you will realise if you take the trouble to "read" Mr Darwin's masterpiece.

And those relations strike to the very core of our being.That's what I'm hoping anyway shortly.

0 Replies

Fantastic navel lint today. I'm tempted to set fire to it.

0 Replies

which edition spendi?.

0 Replies

What on earth is navel lint?

And what does "which edition?" mean.

Don't forget I'm stupid.Be merciful.

0 Replies

It struck me in the bath earlier that the reason why people think religion is the cause of all the wars and bloodshed is similar to the desire to embrace evolution.

It's because both ideas are easy stupid.

And efficient as easy things are intended to be.

Once you think that religion is the cause of all the wars and bloodshed it saves you having to study all the actual causes of war,which is a very long-winded and often tiresome process.

You have it in one sweet and easy cliche.No need to bother studying.All one needs is the "Eureka moment" and problem solved.

Hence you can present the idea to the public that if only religion was eradicated all wars would cease and you needn't even bother getting up off your lazy fat arse and you would be the most famous person who ever lived for solving this problem despite the ancient Greek Stoics,the Sophists,the Ascetics,Rabelais,Voltaire,Stendhal,Flaubert,Shaw,
et al having already suggested it many a long year ago.By the thousand too.

And you are a virtuous person as well.

It has no downside.

0 Replies

Apart from it being completely fatuous I mean.

0 Replies

And fatuous is pretty complete without needing a completely to put the chocolate knobs on it.

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

I feel that having your approval would call into question , my own fitness to lead.

You see dear viewers.Inchoate Big Brother.What else would one expect of an Essdeeoid?

You have been warned."Exterminate,exterminate".

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

gasconadery.

Gee!Only one entry in Google.That's a first for me.
Talk about esoteric.

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

WHy not just have a few more pints of Extra Smooth

Wise words at last.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

What on earth is navel lint?

And what does "which edition?" mean.

Don't forget I'm stupid.Be merciful.

"Navel lint" is lint found in the navel. Presumably Adam, being born of the earth, and Eve, being born of a rib, were not familiar with this phenomenon, especially as fig leaves are not prone to the generation of lint.

After the fall, of course, the evils of navel lint were visited upon mankind.

As to "which edition," f-man is merely responding to your pugnacious inference that he has not read "The Origin of the Species" (or perhaps "The Descent of Man"), and that you were intimately familiar with this work. It's all documented right here in the ether.

0 Replies

shhhh, poor little thing. Let him sleep it off.

0 Replies

Patiodawg,

I still don't know what "navel lint" actually is.I've never heard of it.Is it sexy?

I read a reprint of the sixth edition a few years ago and I've been consulting it on and off recently as well as the Desmond and Moore biog and some other stuff out of my library.

I would never assert that anybody hasn't read it but I'm certainly doubtful.

Quote:

My conclusion (...) will be that indeed both Popper and Kuhn were right about science. In a sense -- in the ever-greater exemplification and satisfaction of epistemic norms -- evolutionary science is object and aspires towards objectivity. But in another sense -- in the uneliminable and significant position of culture, including its values -- evolutionary science was and ever remains in the realm of the subjective.

Mystery of Mysteries by M.Ruse.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Mainly what to do in schools.I've been focussed on the social result of the two choices.I recognise that they exist in tandem but that to eradicate some sense of belief I think will lead to an amoral society.

Evolution is not supposed to replace a belief system. Quite a lot of people here in the UK belief in Evolution and still hold Christian views at the same time. Just because Evolution proves that the Bible isn't 100% correct, does not lead to the downfall of religion.

Furthermore, evolution doesn't say anything about God. It doesn't disprove God's existence or disprove the fact that God created the Universe. So why create ID? ID is unnecessary. Teaching God in Evolution is unnecessary and not science.

This is what I've been getting at with ID is not science.

ID is not science and Evolution is not a belief system. Christianity is not science and Evolution is not a religion. One was not meant to replace the other, no matter these atheists say.

How does Evolution contradict God? It only contradicts the Bible. Is the Bible God? It is not. Did God say the Bible is completely infallible? Don't think so.

Contrary to what most people think the concept of God is very flexible. As science pushes our knowledge further, God retreats into the shadows until the very concept of God becomes so abstract that it becomes impossible to prove or disprove his existence.

Your fears of Evolution replacing Christian beliefs are nonsense. Furthermore, why are Christian beliefs so good? Why not Buddhists? They're equally as peaceful and follow the words of Jesus Christ almost to the letter.

0 Replies

Wolf-

You still have a problem in the schools.

You haven't addressed that nor my post on the subject.

Nobody on here,I think,will disagree with anything you've said.All that has been more or less accepted.
It's a practical problem.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know