Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

You know, after reading your post on the "Origins of Earth", chr42690, I'm beginning to wonder whether you really have an issue with Evolution. It may actually in fact be you getting us to do your homework for you and if that is the case, my opinion of you will become even lower than it is now.

That is not true. I am interested in the topic and although I do have a homework assignment on it, I am not trying to get you to right the information for me. I am simply trying to find sources on the information.

0 Replies

chr42690's post is a side issue.It has just given essdeeoids a chance to put their old worn out record on again.

0 Replies

your worn out record is so old it's a 78, spendi

0 Replies

username wrote:

"Therefore the universe has a cause" is a philosophical statement, not a scientific one. It is so vague that it has essentially no meaning. "Cause" is non-defined, and non-definable, in any testable way.

How could the universe have been formed without something prompting it to begin?

0 Replies

chr42690 wrote:

That is not true. I am interested in the topic and although I do have a homework assignment on it, I am not trying to get you to right the information for me. I am simply trying to find sources on the information.

That's good to hear. I'm taking your post as a honest reply and at face value and therefore retracting my earlier accusation. Also, in the honour of retracting an earlier accusation, I apologise fully for the slur against you.

Quote:

It has just given essdeeoids a chance to put their old worn out record on again.

It's only worn out, because you guys refuse to acknowledge what we say and we have to repeat ourselves over and over again. It's not our fault, you cannot understand us and it's not our fault that you refuse to acknowledge real hard scientific discoveries.

0 Replies

(Referring to the post before Wolf):
Why do you think that's the case? Why do you think there is "something" that had to "prompt" it? Is there necessarily something other than the phenomenon itself? You have absolutely no evidence that there is any such thing.

0 Replies

username wrote:

Why do you think that's the case? Why do you think there is "something" that had to "prompt" it? Is there necessarily something other than the phenomenon itself? You have absolutely no evidence that there is any such thing.

Name one creation today that does not require a cause.

0 Replies

Name one that does.

0 Replies

OK. The 9/11 terrorist attacks were caused by 19 hijackers. They created Ground Zero.

0 Replies

wolf wrote-

Quote:

Well now, Mr. Spendius, your position confuses me greatly. You argue against Evolution so vehemently,

I do not argue against evolution at all.If you think so maybe you cannot read so good which is no doubt a factor in your confusion.

Evolution theory is not strong enough to base the assertions that have been made on here on it.It would need to be able to prove scientifically that everything happens without cause and for no reason to be useful for those assertions.

Which,of course,it can't and won't ever be able to do.

Therefore the argument is not about God or no God. It is about the respective merits of the two positions which are immiscible,and it's no good pretending they are not immiscible,as ways of conducting society in order that it remains strong and successful.

Essdeeoids have manfully hid their faces at this approach and I know why they have.It is partially because they are taking advantage of a system of values built up by Christianity in order to undermine that system and they fondly believe that nothing much will change if it is undermined comprehensively despite the obvious fact that just a decline in Christian values has demonstrated the direction of the change.

The other reason is a bit too tricky for on here. A thread was opened on it in Religion and Spirituality which I simply viewed to see if it went anywhere interesting,which it hasn't done yet.

0 Replies

spendi is a drunk who rattles on somethimes without making any sense. He's to be disregarded as a serious participant on any issue.

0 Replies

Wolf wrote-

Quote:

It's only worn out, because you guys refuse to acknowledge what we say and we have to repeat ourselves over and over again. It's not our fault, you cannot understand us and it's not our fault that you refuse to acknowledge real hard scientific discoveries.

I do understand your position.I understand it well enough to know that you don't understand it in its functional implications which is what an educational system is concerned about.

**You won't understand that for various reasons and thus you are not serious debaters in any political sense.It is a political issue.It isn't anything else.**

Amidst all the confusions of life going past the argument is confusing so in order to clear the mind a little essdeeoids ought to answer,or try to,a long standing question which they have so far treated like a hornet's nest tossed in their direction by me which is-what will a completely atheistic society look like?When everybody agrees with you.

They will no doubt say-"Oh but we are not going to get one".Which is useless.And helps the ID side.Or it would in the Supreme Court.I should hope.

They remind me a bit of vandals who smash things up little realising that if everybody followed their example anarchy would result.They can only smash things up so long as most don't.Which is a bit self-indulgent in my book.

0 Replies

chr, that's not a "Creation", that's an event consonant with physical, chemical, biological, social and political precursors already existent.

0 Replies

c.i. blurted-again-

Quote:

spendi is a drunk who rattles on somethimes without making any sense. He's to be disregarded as a serious participant on any issue.

This thread isn't the success it is due to posts of that deplorable nature.

0 Replies

spendi wrote:
They will no doubt say-"Oh but we are not going to get one".Which is useless.And helps the ID side.Or it would in the Supreme Court.I should hope.

spendi, Lay off the hooch; it's damaging your ability to communicate coherently.

0 Replies

wande wrote-

Quote:

Spendius has confused a lot of people. He claims not to be anti-evolution or pro-ID. His views on religion are mixed. However, he believes it is dangerous to teach children evolution and would rather have them indoctrinated with myth. Children for spendius are "little blighters".

Yes -I do think it is a risk teaching children evolution.I find it hard to imagine what life would be like if we weren't indoctrinated with a few myths.I suspect we would still be in caves.Or possibly extinct.

It is an English tradition that children are little blighters.Little monsters actually.Anybody who thinks otherwise is patronising them and is going to get **** on.

Wasn't Huck Finn a bit of a blighter and that lot in South Park should be in cages.

0 Replies

ros-

I'm sorry for taking so long to get to your post.I got sidetracked and I've been getting the easy stuff out of the way first.

Quote:

Spendi's main point (besides looking for chances to insert odd sexual references in to the discussion)

Do you think I do that for no reason?

Quote:

Spendi thinks we should study ID not as a scientific idea, but as a cultural phenomena which marks a significant portion of the population as being stupid; an idea which Spendi pushes regularly by aruging that most people are dim witted scientific wanna'bees.

I would prefer averagely intelligent to "stupid".I do think most people have little knowledge of science and that one way to pose to the contrary is to support what they see as the scientific side of this argument with nothing but assertions and fatuity.I'm sure most scientists are shocked to have them dragging the coat tails of science in the mud with the weight of their erudition which is brick-like.

Quote:

Nobody on this thread seems to want to take Spendi up on his discussion of ID as a sociological indicator of intellectual and educational weakness in society. Or on the idea that religion is a necessary psychological tool to brainswash and control the semi-civilized baboons of humanity. And Spendi doesn't want to start his own thread (which has been suggested) because he prefers to hock in little bits of absurdity, rather than to contribute any meaningful thought or comment.

If you could find a way of getting that into a balloon ros you will be in the Guiness Book of Records for fastest ever ascent into the Heavyside Layer.

It is about education.What happens in schools and what the result might or might not be.The subject is sociological technology in your face.

"Weakness" was the wrong word.I don't know which side will produce weakness and which strength.I haven't got a crystal ball like the essdeeoids have.

I do think religion is a necessary psychological tool but I wouldn't describe its use as you do.No known culture,society or community that I know of has ever done without it in some form or with some lesser or greater emphasis.

I'll pass on the last bit.It has no merit.

Quote:

That's just my personal interpretation of course. I could be totally wrong, but I don't think many on this thread would disagree (not even Spendi. Right Spunki?).

It would be none I think.And you are,whilst not totally wrong,almost so.

0 Replies

Excerpt from a New York Times article describing the petition signed by scientists who support intelligent design.

Quote:

Few Biologists but Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition
(By KENNETH CHANG, New York Times, February 21, 2006)

In the recent skirmishes over evolution, advocates who have pushed to dilute its teaching have regularly pointed to a petition signed by 514 scientists and engineers.

The petition, they say, is proof that scientific doubt over evolution persists. But random interviews with 20 people who signed the petition and a review of the public statements of more than a dozen others suggest that many are evangelical Christians, whose doubts about evolution grew out of their religious beliefs. And even the petition's sponsor, the Discovery Institute in Seattle, says that only a quarter of the signers are biologists, whose field is most directly concerned with evolution. The other signers include 76 chemists, 75 engineers, 63 physicists and 24 professors of medicine.

********************************************

The Discovery Institute says 128 signers hold degrees in the biological sciences and 26 in biochemistry. That leaves more than 350 nonbiologists, including Dr. Tour, Dr. Picard and Dr. Skell. Of the 128 biologists who signed, few conduct research that would directly address the question of what shaped the history of life.

Of the signers who are evangelical Christians, most defend their doubts on scientific grounds but also say that evolution runs against their religious beliefs.

0 Replies

wande, Good find! Most of us already knew who those so-called scientists were, but it's good to see that most are refuted on the basis of their actual field of knowledge; the bible.

0 Replies

Here we go again.Same old assertion trick.

Quote:

whose doubts about evolution grew out of their religious beliefs.

How do they know that?

Doubts on this issue can arise in other ways.

They might have pondered the life/no life conundrum only deeply.They might be aware that they themselves know so very little about these mysteries.Doubt could grow from that without any interference from religion.

It could also grow out of some deep thought about the social functions of evolutionary theories with no brakes on a steep hill backwards.(How's that for a metaphor-don't try "crusadering" me not with it being not only wrong but lazy as well.)

The difference might be in the depth of thought.Anybody who thinks "with the determination of a crusader" is a good metaphor is not likely to think deeply about anything.

Why does the article state that their doubts grew out of their religious beliefs.It might be the other way round and the depth of their thought couldn't be explained except maybe in art.

When I read things like that ignorant assertion I know I'm in the presence of drivel.Scientifically.

That doubt could easily lead to a doubt relating to the superficiality of evolution and its popular attraction.It might be posher to be religious.

I could think of others but I have to go and get blind skenning pissed out of my tiny brains now.

PS-c.i.

If you look up Roget under 301 (liquor) you will find a few new variations to play on that weary one note tune of your's.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know