Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

ros wrote-

Quote:

It wasn't too hot, it was too boring.

I already explained teleology to Wolf.

What you doing back then?

0 Replies

xingu wrote-

Quote:

Since all major sciences support evolution (chemistry, physics, geology, genetics, biology, ect.) I suppose the creationist student could put any answer on an exam he wants as long as it is supported by Biblical mythology.

Nah,nah.If you start a religion that says 2+3= 34.5 and an examining board ruins your potential career by giving you no marks for supplying that answer in a university examination you can get a lawyer and sue the arse of them under the human rights malarkey and the Constitution.

Is that not right?

0 Replies

That is neither correct nor right, spendi.

0 Replies

ros wrote-

Quote:

But what happens if a parent doesn't even want their kids to be *exposed* to a particular idea. But that idea (scientific knowledge) happens to be part of the public education system (in the US).

I know a few biological/psychological facts ros that I would bet you yourself would refrain from being exposed to.

The scientific knowledge which is part of your public education system,and ours,has been winnowed. Do you not know that? The ground upon which you stand has been carefully tailored so that it is acceptable to you.

Your position,and that of others,is that the ground you stand on is superior to the ground others stand on.That's all.You are not stood on open,free,unfettered scientific ground by a long shot and that goes treble in the retort in which religion,evolution theory and social mores are stewed.

So your statement that-

Quote:

But that idea (scientific knowledge) happens to be part of the public education system (in the US).

is incorrect and is well known to be.

You need a "some" before "scientific knowledge".
The "some" consists of the non-controversial parts of scientific knowledge.To think that those are the whole of scientific knowledge is naive in the extreme. As soon as an attempt is made to just peek into the controversial parts all sorts of trouble and strife ensue.

That is the reason why the British Museum and the Vatican Library have sections which can only be accessed by those who can both show a need and are deemed capable in a number of respects.

I am aware that such things are humiliating and especially to those who think they have something useful to contribute to discussion on organising an educational system in the service of 290 million people with disparate traditions and economic functions.But there it is.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Have you ever heard the expression "Might is right"?

What ethics have you to oppose that with.And altruism is no good on its own.Those who think might is right will come to power.

Yes, the only situation where that has happened that I can recall is Germany during the 1930s and that was due to a combination of incompetence on behalf of the Social Democrats and a huge recession of the likes we've yet to see again. Those "might is right" people wouldn't have gotten into power were it not for economic factors.

Quote:

Altruism underpinned by an appeal to an imaginary other wordly authority is weak enough. Without that appeal what is it apart from easy going for the ruthless. Powerful,ambitious and ruthless people will laugh at altruism. And yoke its adherents.

This assumes that the majority undergo altruism because of the appeal of some God-figure. This is not the case. I'm sure you'll find plenty of people here who have done altruistic things not because they fear the punishment of some God but because they think it is right.

Furthermore, once again, you are assuming that teaching Evolution exclusively (and I still haven't seen you define what you meant by that) will bring about the destruction of the concept of God and that the destruction of said God will bring about the death of Altruism. There is no proof that such a thing will happen, especially seeing as Evolution does not deny the existence of God.

Since Evolution does not deny nor affirm the existence of God, merely denying some of his roles within our origins, it therefore follows that it does not contradict religious teachings regarding the vague concept of an all-loving, all-forgiving God that required us to do unto others, what thou wouldst wish they do unto you.

If they do not contradict, a teacher's reply to a student's proposition that they do contradict can go thusly:

"Evolution states how we came to be. However, the Bible states clearly that God came and interjected, to tell us to do be altruistic instead. It is therefore God's intention that we must not evolve any further, because he told us to go against natural selection."

Quote:

Yes it is but the above applies to that as well.There would be no limits to what a ruthless leader would do with medical science. He would define good and evil if no groundswell of a religious authority existed.

Yet, you will find in every society those who would oppose the ruthless leader. As you quoted from Spiro Agnew:

"If God didn't like what we do He wouldn't let us get away with it."

Quote:

Polygamy is the same as monogamy in this debate. The real alternative is promiscuity.

And I can argue that promiscuity is bad from a medical science perspective, because promiscuity increases the chances of spreading STDs, which is detrimental to the health of the population and of the gene pool.

Quote:

Yes, but only by those being exploited by business to protect themselves. Business itself finds ethics anathema.See Robert Maxwell,Enron and price gouging in New Orleans.(Chosen from long list.)

Yes, but if we teach students to be ethical and reinforce the positives, when they get into the positions of being CEOs, they will act more ethically. They will at least donate money to charities like Richard Branson does or Bill Gates, even if they don't be as ethical as we'd like them to be.

Quote:

I'll accept that providing there's no clash in the social field and that when there is the science is curtailed and subservient to the ethics.

It is subservient to ethical concerns set out by the Government. Animals for animal testing are treated as ethically and humane as possible. To not do so is punishable by law.

A considerable of a scientist's research grant is proving that there are no real ethical problems with his research. If his research is considered unethical the Medical Research Council will not give a research grant. That is why I once mulled the option of teaching ethics in science, because ethics is needed to create a proper research grant proposal.

Quote:

A chance at that curtailment.

You and I are British, Wolf. We don't have a written constitution.

Yeah, I always found that strange. How is a non-written constitution better than a written one?

Quote:

ID is an American idea to try to get that curtailment's nose under the tent when the rigid constitution has kept it out. Some people don't like the direction society is moving in and see ID forms as a possibly check on it. They may well be too late.

The problem is that ID isn't a check. ID states firmly that Evolution is correct, but anything we don't understand can be attributed to God. That doesn't reinforce morals. It doesn't even reinforce God's status, because there is no evidence to support ID.

Evolution itself does not state there is no God or that God didn't have a hand in it. In the case of Evolution, the argument for the existence of God is irrelevant. Evolution is not about declaring that God made our world. Research into evolution is about how He made this world, not whether He did.

ID's focus is not on how God made our world, but on confirming that He did.

A good Christian should always assume that God made our world, which makes the ID perspective redundant. A good Christian should look at Evolution and think it is God's work anyway, and if they are a good scientist as well, they should think that anything we do not understand is something we should investigate further.

And that is where we differ in our opinions.

You see Evolution as an affront to the concept of God, when in fact, it is not. Your argument only makes sense if Evolution truly is an affront to God, but seeing as it makes no reference to God's existence, that cannot be.

The issue here is not science's fault. It is the fault of their local pastors in failing to state, "Yes, Evolution is true, but who do you think was the one that created and set the Evolutionary Laws?" The confusion of principles isn't meant to be addressed by the scientists, but by Reverends that can think clearly, understand all the evidence and see what it means in relation to God's existence.

That is why I maintain I am an agnostic, though I tend to lean towards the atheistic side. Nothing in science disproves the existence of God or approves it, so it is therefore illogical to say that God does not exist if you cannot prove he does not exist.

Is that any better?

0 Replies

It is certainly better in the sense that it represents a civilised debating style which is often absent on this thread.

It is worse from my point of view because a reasonable reply might take months if not years.

The point about "might is right",a stumbling block for all philosophy,is that it is always there in the background and will spring out if the circumstances permit quite naturally.The law,religion,ethics,tradition and conditioned popular sentiment hold it in check and the discrediting of these,which is what happens when they are seen to be in disarray,weakens the checking force.

Quote:

I'm sure you'll find plenty of people here who have done altruistic things not because they fear the punishment of some God but because they think it is right.

I'm sure you are right there but the cynic would say that the altuistic things are done for a selfish purpose such as to build up a store of goodwill or to be perceived as a "good" person.Which,of course,doesn't alter the value of them socially.

The "God" problem,it seems to me,resolves itself into the simple choice of whether a society can function successfully with no God idea.A view has to be taken on it but once taken I suppose anything is justifiable to support it.Even lies.The success of one's society is more important than telling a few porkies I tend to think.Take the Catholic precept of not eating meat on Friday.

Quote:

And I can argue that promiscuity is bad from a medical science perspective, because promiscuity increases the chances of spreading STDs, which is detrimental to the health of the population and of the gene pool.

I guess you are thinking of promiscuity in our world which is not quite the same as promiscuity itself.Then you are probably right. But it is much too sensitive a subject to open up on.

Quote:

Yes, but if we teach students to be ethical and reinforce the positives, when they get into the positions of being CEOs, they will act more ethically.

That's a bit idealistic.Not many students will become CEOs and acting ethically can be detrimental to an ambition to become one.Not always of course.

The position VIZ takes regarding Mr Branson is more cynical than you allow.

Quote:

. Animals for animal testing are treated as ethically and humane as possible.

Which can mean different things to different people.
The definitions of "ethically" and "humane" are political.Some say that animals should be left alone.
That even comfortable zoos are inhumane.

Quote:

Yeah, I always found that strange. How is a non-written constitution better than a written one?

Better for who?Lawyers seem to benefit from a written constitution.Our tradition finds them too inflexible.We can change the law with a 1 vote majority in the House of Commons.

We have a Boundaries Commission which can,and often does,redraw voting boundaries to take account of shifting population.In the US the state lines are rigid which can lead to a distortion.I've read complaints that it does but I don't know for sure.

Quote:

It doesn't even reinforce God's status, because there is no evidence to support ID.

I know.That is why "irreducible complexity" is brought in.It is in that zone,which is a large one,both sides are relying on a belief.

Quote:

A good Christian should always assume that God made our world, which makes the ID perspective redundant.

I agree.ID is not my idea of Christian.The Catholic Church is my idea.Sects and cults are always springing up to satisfy wandering desires and avoid the discipline of the Church.The American Catholic Church is not a topic I feel like saying much about.

There are certain new ways of thinking which need The Bible to be discredited and removed.It is a direct affront to those who adhere to those new ways.I'm afraid that the ID protagonists are providing them with an opportunity.

You should remember Wolf that "Reverends" are not particularly noted for intellectual acuity.Any that are become bishops etc.The real action is at the top.

You have raised the tone Wolf for which many thanks.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

It is certainly better in the sense that it represents a civilised debating style which is often absent on this thread.

Civilised debating styles tend to go out of the window when one side gets exasperated with the other. In Evolution debates, this tends to happen more often than not.

Quote:

The point about "might is right",a stumbling block for all philosophy,is that it is always there in the background and will spring out if the circumstances permit quite naturally.The law,religion,ethics,tradition and conditioned popular sentiment hold it in check and the discrediting of these,which is what happens when they are seen to be in disarray,weakens the checking force.

And Evolution is not powerful enough to discredit one of these, let alone all of them.

Quote:

I'm sure you are right there but the cynic would say that the altuistic things are done for a selfish purpose such as to build up a store of goodwill or to be perceived as a "good" person.Which,of course,doesn't alter the value of them socially.

The cynic will also point out that altruism because of a Superior Being is also selfish, because the person isn't being altruistic because he wants to, but because he fears punishment from the Superior Being.

Quote:

The "God" problem,it seems to me,resolves itself into the simple choice of whether a society can function successfully with no God idea.

You mean, like a Buddhist society?

Quote:

A view has to be taken on it but once taken I suppose anything is justifiable to support it. Even lies. The success of one's society is more important than telling a few porkies I tend to think.

Yet I have argued in my previous post that it is not necessary to tell a few porkies about Evolution in order to maintain the success of our society.

Quote:

I guess you are thinking of promiscuity in our world which is not quite the same as promiscuity itself. Then you are probably right. But it is much too sensitive a subject to open up on.

Of course I'm talking about promiscuity in our world. What other type of promiscuity is there? A theoretical one in a world without STDs? What use is that?

Science classes is about teaching students about how the real world works, which is why I don't like ID nor the simplified model of how electrons orbit a nucleus in set paths, because they have very little to do with the real world.

Quote:

That's a bit idealistic. Not many students will become CEOs and acting ethically can be detrimental to an ambition to become one.Not always of course.

Exactly. Not many students will become dictators with a "might-is-right" mentality after being taught Evolution.

Quote:

The position VIZ takes regarding Mr Branson is more cynical than you allow.

Yes, I'm quite well aware that Mr. Branson's hot-balloning exploits don't show his true colours concerning charity and altruism.

Quote:

It doesn't even reinforce God's status, because there is no evidence to support ID.

I know. That is why "irreducible complexity" is brought in. It is in that zone, which is a large one, both sides are relying on a belief.[/quote]

Irreducible complexity is a load of unscientific nonsense that is not the same what I stated in my previous post. I stated that Evolution does not necessarily deny the existence of God. Irreducible complexity, however, states that evolution is too complex for it to happen without a God; it is far too presumptious.

My position is not the same as ID.

Irreducible complexity doesn't concern the natural laws. It states that somethings are so complex, evolution alone couldn't possibly have been its cause, so God must have done it. In other words, it's stating that Evolution is an incomplete process that is so bad that God must wade in every now and then to tinker with it.

This, which I find ironic, is an insult to God. Behe is clearly stating that God isn't smart enough to create a fully functioning system that create such complex life forms that doesn't require his input.

It's like saying that God isn't smart enough to create a fully functioning computer and his computer is so faulty, every now and then he must help it to do the calculations it was designed to do by doing the sums himself.

That is why I find the derogatory term, ID-iots quite fitting, because many of the IDers do not realise how insulting the concept of ID really is.

Quote:

I agree.

So why is it that you insist on defending ID and attacking the teaching of Evolution? If evolution does not contradict the concept of God and it can be shown not to contradict the Weltanschauung of Christianity, what is your beef?

Quote:

There are certain new ways of thinking which need The Bible to be discredited and removed.

Evolution is not one of them. Scientists couldn't care less whether the Bible exists or not. The Bible is irrelevant to Evolution, yes, but it will not be able to replace the Bible and nor will it be able to completely discredit it.

The only affront I see is ID, which is an affront to good scientific thinking and an affront to God.

Creationism, for example, is also an affront to Christianity, as Dr. Williams so rightfully pointed out.

Quote:

You have raised the tone Wolf for which many thanks.

There is no need for that. My tone changes based on how exasperated I am at the time of writing something.

0 Replies

In recent decades the state of Arkansas faced a great deal of controversy over the teaching of evolution in their public schools. Earlier this year, the Arkansas Science Teachers Association came out with a position statement to address the current controversy over intelligent design:

Quote:

Arkansas Science Teachers Association members hold various personal views concerning the origin of the universe and of life. As a professional organization, ASTA is opposed to any religious view, such, as creationism or intelligent design, being taught in the public schools as science.

ASTA finds science and religion to be complementary rather than contradictory. Science strives to explain the nature of the cosmos while religion seeks to give the cosmos and the life within it a purpose. Human existence is enriched by a knowledge and understanding of both science and religion.

Religious explanations of the origin of the universe and of life are based on faith. Because these explanations vary among different religions, the views are best taught in the home or within the context of religious institutions.

Scientific explanations regarding the origin of the universe and of life are based on experimentation and may change, as new evidence is uncovered. The goal of science is to discover and investigate universally accepted natural explanations. This process of discovery and description of natural phenomena should be taught in public schools. Therefore, both curriculum and selection of instructional materials for public schools must reflect established scientific evidence.

0 Replies

Wolf wrote-

Quote:

Civilised debating styles tend to go out of the window when one side gets exasperated with the other.

And-

Quote:

My tone changes based on how exasperated I am at the time of writing something.

I never get exasperated.

Quote:

Quote:
The point about "might is right",a stumbling block for all philosophy,is that it is always there in the background and will spring out if the circumstances permit quite naturally.The law,religion,ethics,tradition and conditioned popular sentiment hold it in check and the discrediting of these,which is what happens when they are seen to be in disarray,weakens the checking force.

And Evolution is not powerful enough to discredit one of these, let alone all of them.

I can't agree with that Wolf.I might accept it for tradition to a limited extent.So I might consider it a "porky" although I'm sure not deliberately.

Quote:

Quote:
The "God" problem,it seems to me,resolves itself into the simple choice of whether a society can function successfully with no God idea.

You mean, like a Buddhist society?

I wouldn't know.I don't know anything significant about Buddhist scocieties.

Quote:

Of course I'm talking about promiscuity in our world. What other type of promiscuity is there? A theoretical one in a world without STDs? What use is that?

There's natural promiscuity.The promiscuity in our world is not natural.But I take your point that discussing that isn't much use except for a scientific debate on the subject which,of necessity,transcends our world.I doubt that natural promiscuity causes STDs.
Natural work is not like our idea of work.

Quote:

Science classes is about teaching students about how the real world works,

Up to a point yes.ID is a real fact in a real world.It exists and exerts a force.It is beside the point whether I like it or not.

Quote:

Exactly. Not many students will become dictators with a "might-is-right" mentality after being taught Evolution.

Dictators are a very rare breed.After being taught evolution I don't see how any other position than "might is right" can be held. It is the doctrine of the survival of the fittest.

Quote:

Quote:
It doesn't even reinforce God's status, because there is no evidence to support ID.

Surely I didn't say that. I think I know how it happened but I feel a need to clarify it.

Quote:

Irreducible complexity, however, states that evolution is too complex for it to happen without a God; it is far too presumptious.

Maybe,but I can see reasons why some people accept it.It opens the door to wonder for one.Everything can seem mundane without it.A society with no wonder left in it could become subject to mass ennui.

Quote:

Irreducible complexity doesn't concern the natural laws. It states that somethings are so complex, evolution alone couldn't possibly have been its cause, so God must have done it.

That isn't my impression."Must" is too strong I think.And I don't care what Behe says.

Quote:

So why is it that you insist on defending ID and attacking the teaching of Evolution?

I'm doing neither.I'm questioning evolution as a principle to organise society around.That isn't attacking it at all, and I support a belief system as a better method.If ID is all they have so be it.I prefer the pure religion of the Church.I'm open to suggestions though but I've been unable to elicit any in the real world.

My beef is on the social function side of things.On that evolution does contradict Christian values.And Darwin was well aware of it.His wife was a Christian.

From your final remarks I presume you are a liberal on the well known contentious issues.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Quote:
Quote:
The "God" problem,it seems to me,resolves itself into the simple choice of whether a society can function successfully with no God idea.

You mean, like a Buddhist society?

I wouldn't know.I don't know anything significant about Buddhist scocieties.

Well, there you go. Buddhism is a bit like Evolution in that it does not deny nor affirm the existence of any God, and does not have a creator God. Yet it functions with people doing things that seem exactly the same as what Jesus preached.

Quote:

There's natural promiscuity.The promiscuity in our world is not natural.But I take your point that discussing that isn't much use except for a scientific debate on the subject which,of necessity,transcends our world.I doubt that natural promiscuity causes STDs.

You must explain this natural promiscuity to me, because to me, promiscuity is promiscuity. Unless you're not talking about sex, in which case, what are you talking about?

Quote:

Quote:
Science classes is about teaching students about how the real world works,

Up to a point yes.ID is a real fact in a real world.

No, it's not. ID is not a real fact. It is a hypothesis that cannot be proved to be true or not, through circumstantial evidence or other types of evidence. And it is this contention, that shows a complete misunderstanding of science, that exasperates me, because it appears in these topics over and over again, despite someone who does science and knows about science telling the person that makes this contention that ID is not science and it's not real fact.

Quote:

Dictators are a very rare breed.After being taught evolution I don't see how any other position than "might is right" can be held. It is the doctrine of the survival of the fittest.

Because pupils are being taught to do unto others as thou wouldst wish they do unto you. If this might is right thing is being accepted because of the teaching of Evolution, do you really honestly think that so many people would be protesting against the Iraq War and against Guantanamo?

Do you really think they'd say things like "Free Tibet"? Because clearly, these people who are being oppressed are the weak. Yet these people who've been taught evolution want equal rights, they want the NHS to be able to help those that need it.

I cannot accept your position, because the evidence I see goes against it.

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
It doesn't even reinforce God's status, because there is no evidence to support ID.

Surely I didn't say that. I think I know how it happened but I feel a need to clarify it.

No, you didn't say that. I just thought I'd mention it because it needs mentioning.

Quote:

Quote:
Irreducible complexity, however, states that evolution is too complex for it to happen without a God; it is far too presumptious.

Maybe,but I can see reasons why some people accept it.It opens the door to wonder for one.Everything can seem mundane without it.A society with no wonder left in it could become subject to mass ennui.

There is still the wonder left without the need for some supernatural hocus pocus. Taking away a God-figure, does not take away the wonder of anything in this Universe. It is still mind-boggling, even more so if there really is no Intelligent Creator behind it all.

Quote:

Quote:
So why is it that you insist on defending ID and attacking the teaching of Evolution?

I'm doing neither.I'm questioning evolution as a principle to organise society around.

I'm not even arguing for evolution as a principle to organise society around. I was under the impression that you believed that teaching Evolution would result in the organisation of society around its principles. That was what I was arguing against, that teaching Evolution does not cause society to be organised around its principles.

Yes, Natural Selection does seem to go against Christ's teachings. However, the evidence seems to weigh in favour of natural selection being more concerned about the genetic level. Related organisms share the same genes, so it is in their best interest to ensure the survival of their relatives. This explains the familial behaviour that seemingly contradicts natural selection.

It only seemingly contradicts natural selection.

No animal in its right mind consciously undergoes natural selection. All animals do (and plants and life forms, for that matter) is ensure the survival of their own genes.

That is nature's Weltanschaung, it's Principle of Life. Natural selection is only something that happens through the interaction of animals. It is not a principle that they themselves employ. It is something outside of the hands of the organisms that take part in it.

I cannot control natural selection, because other organisms will always thwart any attempts I make to push it one way or the other. The individual cannot alter the direction in which evolution takes. Individual organisms are merely there for the ride.

Natural selection is a principle of life, but not an individual organism's principle of life. It is what occurs when living beings do what they do best, ensure the survival of their own genes, even if that means ensuring the survival of a related organism that shares only a few copies of their own genes.

I see no contradiction between Jesus' teachings and Evolution, and that is why I see your argument as nonsensical. If I can fit the two perfectly together without contradiction, then it is possible to ensure that all students see it the same way.

If they see no contradiction, as I see no contradiction, then your fear of society being organised on the principles of Natural Selection (which I think is a more accurate term than saying that it is organised around the principles of Evolution) will not appear.

Quote:

My beef is on the social function side of things.On that evolution does contradict Christian values.And Darwin was well aware of it.His wife was a Christian.

From your final remarks I presume you are a liberal on the well known contentious issues.

Well, that's what the political tests say whenever I take them.

0 Replies

Wolf wrote-

Quote:

Well, there you go. Buddhism is a bit like Evolution in that it does not deny nor affirm the existence of any God, and does not have a creator God. Yet it functions with people doing things that seem exactly the same as what Jesus preached.

It was taken over after 2000 odd years by a few sailors armed with glass beads and firesticks.That is hardly evolutionary functioning.It's societies are now totally dependent on Faustian science and technology.It's a tourist attraction and sometimes a fashion statement by people who want to be different and exhibit that difference.To all intents and purposes it has been selected out and is extinct.

Quote:

ID is not a real fact.

I'm obviously referring to its existence as a social fact and one having consequences.We only know about sub-atomic particles from their consequences.The form ID takes is neither here nor there.It is the fact of its acceptance by a large and influential group of people that is the fact.And anybody who thinks it is going to go away simply by insulting it is wasting their time.Monogamy is a hypothesis supported on its acceptance not on its rightness or wrongness.

Quote:

If this might is right thing is being accepted because of the teaching of Evolution, do you really honestly think that so many people would be protesting against the Iraq War and against Guantanamo?

The number protesting is reducing rapidly and last night's news gave out that the alleged massacre of Iraqi civilians has hardly caused a ripple of protest.It has hardly been mentioned in America and some of our news channels have ignored it."It's war" was a phrase used with a shrug.In other words it's evolution.Pity fatigue has set in again.We are the strongest therefore it's our oil.
How do you know that the original protests weren't motivated by a psychological need to exhibit a holier than thou attitude which has now become boring with repetition.

Quote:

Do you really think they'd say things like "Free Tibet"? Because clearly, these people who are being oppressed are the weak. Yet these people who've been taught evolution want equal rights, they want the NHS to be able to help those that need it.

I don't necessarily think that what people say they want is what they actually want.And you need to define "need" because too loose and self indulgent a definition could eat up the whole GNP.Easily.
These people dont want equal rights at all.They want equal rights for themselves.

I have to leave-I'll attempt the rest later.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Wolf wrote-

Quote:
Well, there you go. Buddhism is a bit like Evolution in that it does not deny nor affirm the existence of any God, and does not have a creator God. Yet it functions with people doing things that seem exactly the same as what Jesus preached.

It was taken over after 2000 odd years by a few sailors armed with glass beads and firesticks.That is hardly evolutionary functioning.It's societies are now totally dependent on Faustian science and technology.It's a tourist attraction and sometimes a fashion statement by people who want to be different and exhibit that difference.To all intents and purposes it has been selected out and is extinct.

Buddhism is exctinct? Wow. You're right. 380 million practitioners must mean that particular religion is on the verge of extinction.

The rest is not my place to argue anymore. This topic stopped being about the science a long time ago. I will now leave this thread to die. Frankly, I don't want you having the last say or coming off thinking you've won, but I've grown tired arguing against something nonsensical with no proof.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

The rest is not my place to argue anymore. This topic stopped being about the science a long time ago. I will now leave this thread to die. Frankly, I don't want you having the last say or coming off thinking you've won, but I've grown tired arguing against something nonsensical with no proof.

Welcome to the party Smile

0 Replies

The ring is littered with towels.

As evolution so roundly proclaims-"The winners can laugh and the losers can suit themselves."

I've known all along that there are evolutionists and there are evolutionists only when it suits. I just didn't want evolution being defended by half-baked evolutionists using a scientific principle to row their own boat.That discredits science in general and hands the field to the others.

When scientific principles are simply in the service of selfishness they are blown away.

But to knock five out and without breaking into a sweat is not bad.

Gee-I've been selected in in the refined environment of this thread.And ros brags about being selected out and jollies his "gang" to keep up their spirits.

In the survival of the fittest the fittest is defined scientifically as the ones who survive.

0 Replies

I'm coming back now, because of that self-righteous smug post. I stated clearly that Evolution is not a way of life that society should be based on, yet you keep arguing as if I had said the complete opposite.

I say start a new thread about what you want to say and be clear about it.

EDIT: And yes, me coming back is sado masochistic in a way, but I won't rest until Spendi is proved wrong. It boils my blood that a single person, ignorant about Evolution, can successfully come away from an argument thinking he's won when all he's managed to do is tire out the people arguing against him with his incessant ignorance of the opposing side's arguments.

0 Replies

Quote:

Testing Darwin's Teachers

0 Replies

Wolf wrote-

Quote:

I will now leave this thread to die.

That's an evolutionist position is it?Cyber death. wande's great and successful thread is going to die when Wolf drops out because,it seems,he can only debate with people who agree with him or those bound and gagged. It sounds more like a flounce to me.

Anyway Wolf-welcme back.My provocation worked did it.

You won't prove spendi wrong because spendi is a flat-out evolutionist of the first water who understands evolution so well that he is quite used to opponents flouncing out saying they are tired or somesuch to try to save face.

I'm an example of what you get if the teaching of evolution is successful and the writers of VIZ and ZIT are fellow travellers.Watered down evolution mixed in with the teaching of belief systems of any stamp,not just ID, is the worst of all worlds.It confuses the kids.Manipulates them actually.

And that 35% of American science teachers who skip the evolution chapter do so for the very reason I would.

We'll have to wait and see.

A thread with the "popular" sign flashing,with 4,675 posts and 57,539 views is not something to be sneezed away because a late-comer runs off.

wande has done his stuff I see.I'll read that little lot when I get home.

0 Replies

spendi,

I believe you understand the science behind evolution. It is your attempts to project evolution into the social realm that posters find unrealistic.

0 Replies

But wande-

Won't students project it into the social realm for themselves.They get constantly reminded that we are animals.

0 Replies

And isn't ID,the subject,entirely a social construction.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know