Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

spendi, No need; your "talk" and offers have very little meaning when you contradict yourself on issues. I quit trying to figure you out a long time ago; it takes too much effort.

Well that figures c.i.

I never thought effort was high on your list of priorities.

Babies like banging on drums because it produces a big noise with little effort.

book

spendi, You beat on little drums that doesn't say hardly anything of value. If you would bother to read responses to your posts, the majority have arrived at the same conclusion as I have. Ever wonder why?

Username, In The Case for a Creator, William Lane Craig said, "Even atheist Kai Nielsen said, 'Suppose you suddenly hear a loud bang...and you ask me, 'What made that bang?' and I reply, 'Nothing, it just happened.' You would not accept that."

c.i.wrote-

quote]spendi, You beat on little drums that doesn't say hardly anything of value. If you would bother to read responses to your posts, the majority have arrived at the same conclusion as I have. Ever wonder why? [/quote]

Yes.

I do wonder why now you ask.I have been doing for some time now.

At the moment I think it is because of a selective sampling bias which is characterised by a need to pontificate on high esteem forums associated with Science and Mathematics without the bother,or effort,of knowing anything about either subject for the obvious purpose of associating the respondent with these subjects with the minimum of effort and trying to sound erudite in front of an audience assumed to not know its arse from its elbow.

If I thought it was typical of Americans in general I might rethink some of my previously held opinions.

spendi, Awe, come on, don't hold anything. We know you want to "share" your insights. Also, I must give credit where credit is due; your last post was written where most of us can understand what you're trying to say. Congrats!

Check out last verse of "It's Alright Ma,I'm Only Bleeding"by my favourite folk singer.

Thanks for the reiteration/elucidation, spendi.

That said, I can safely say that I disagree with pretty much every one of the turns you took on a road to supporting the teaching of ID (if one can ever find a cogent statement of it, and there is very little I would say the proponents of ID are solid on -- that is, the irreducible complexity argument). I do agree that most people are "of average intelligence." Aside from being necessarily true in any population where measurements of intelligence assume a normal distribution, I also think that most people are disinclined to examine either scientific or religious precepts with any sort of scrutiny.

But to assume that it is necessary, then, to indoctrinate them with religion.... That's a pill I can't swallow. I certainly don't want state schools to be vehicles of spiritual indoctrination. I think that debases religion even more than it debases the state, and given the way that religion has been used to manipulate and distract the people of my country (the grand old USofA) in recent years, I'd just as soon see it go back into the private sector entirely. (Odd that an administration should seem to favor the privatization of everything but religion...)

I don't, though, favor the mandated of any exclusion of ID from the science classroom. Rather, I'd like to see it treated as a friend of mine teaches his high school biology students. They talk about the scientific method for a while, then they discuss Creation and ID idealogies in that light. The students tend to conclude that these schools of thought, whatever their philosophical value, make no testable predictions and therefore have no role in science.

What worries me is the insistence from some quarters the ID and its ilk be taught as science. Because it isn't, and accepting it in lieu of science is anathema to scientific inquiry. When a person is given the illusion of an answer, they aren't going to pursue the matter any further. And this is an intellectual habit that scares the hell out of me. History is full of groups of people doing horrible things to other groups of people, complicity gained through appeal to terror and mythology.





Or something. I need to get some coffee to scrub out the vodka and beer and get down to studying renal pathology. It's spectacularly dull, but apparently the ability to recognize subtle differences between different pieces of dead flesh will better prepare for treating it when it's still living and appropriately hidden from sight. God, what a ramble.

Well patiodawg-it sure was one of the best rambles I've seen on here from an American.



Exactly.It is something like that I have been getting at.The teacher and the class are what matters no matter what is said in courts.And that's how it should be.A teacher recruitment problem.
Those kids in your mate's class won't always be wondering about this hush-hush bogeyman in the background.ID's had the spotlight on it by being put there to be scrutinised.But he really ought to look at the social function of ID in those areas where it prevails in elections.

So you get into an overlap right away with biology connecting to social studies and by rights to geography and economics and others. The teaching of evolution requires the scrutiny of anti-evolution positions and the connections to the wider systems of the two ideas as they show themselves in life.



We have to be indoctrinated with something and I think that "indoctrinate them with religion" is too strong a phrase.It suggests no counter from other ideas.It's a black/white phrase and in terms of those this difficulty will never be resolved.
This suggests to me that those who use the black/white ideas don't wish to see it resolved or are simply unaware that extreme positions rarely do bring resolutions unless force is used.

"spiritual indoctrination" compounds what I see as the error.

Somebody should have suggested that Judge Jones
might have benefitted from hearing your mate's testimony.At least he might have toned down his language even if he didn't change his mind.

Good luck with the renal pathology.Rather you than me I'm afraid.I'm a bit squeamish.I'm alright with skin when it's frisky.

Good doggie!



Awwww, better luck next time.

That explains it then.Thanks.

spendi IS the best rambler from the UK; but at least patiodog's posts are coherent, whereas spendi's tend to sway from coherence to incoherence from one post to the next.

I believe spendi's brain has already been fried by too many drinks at the pub.

Well in that case you should know what belief feels like concerning imaginary entities.

Discuss.

Ramble.

Why is it that Spendi insists on making nonsensical posts or at least those that are so insanely difficult to understand, that it requires a PhD in Language Studies to understand him?

First it was some made up word and now this...!

As far as I can tell its geology-orientated and so filled with jargon the only possible person I know that could discuss it decently is farmerman. (And that's only if I'm right about this topic being right up FM's alley).

Have I been forgetting to explain any jargon terms I use? Is that why you posted this, spendi? To get your revenge? If so, I'm sorry. I normally only use jargon that the average laymen understands and explain the meaning of everything else.

A desire to be involved with the group. In essence, the same thing he claims others try to do.

It is fairly typical that people see the world not the way it is, but the way they are.

spendi is taking pains to demonstrate the paucity of his knowledge and understanding, and the ascendence of his ego over his intellect.

Nah, it's all because of his drinking.