Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

wande-

That's a good article.It highlights the social problem very well.

But if you think those questions the kids asked Mr Frisby are difficult you should hear what I have in the locker room and which need careful handling in the pub.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

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

No. It's a construction meant to foist a religious ideal into a scientific subject where religious ideals are not meant to be. ID is not a social construct and I don't see why you would think it is so.

ID still states that the strong survive at the expense of the weak.

Quote:

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

No student I've talked to has done that so far. The reason? They are taught other things that would help prevent such psychotic reasoning.

Every time I see you post, all I gleam is that you fear that evolution will bring about the revival of the defunct and deceased Eugenics Movement. The Eugenecist is what you fear, not some made up word, Essdeeoids. It is Eugenics.

I can't believe that I completely forgot about the term, Eugenics.

Eugenics is the scary boogey-man that is born from taking Evolution too far by projecting it into the social realm. Evolution does not need to be projected into the social realm, because it happens regardless of whether we consciously force it along or not. Eugenics, however, is an active attempt to direct Evolution.

Society is revolted by Eugenics, even with Evolution being taught to students. The revulsion is enough to prevent anyone Eugenecist from getting his way, and is enough to prevent the majority of people from projecting Evolution into the social realm.

So, Spendi, shall we separate this into a different topic? I see it more as a philosophical debate, rather than a scientific one. Perhaps that is why you are not getting the response you need? Because you are arguing in the wrong place?

0 Replies

Wolf wrote-

Quote:

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

No. It's a construction meant to foist a religious ideal into a scientific subject where religious ideals are not meant to be. ID is not a social construct and I don't see why you would think it is so.

ID still states that the strong survive at the expense of the weak.

You pose some difficult problems for anyone to explain why they think you are wrong in both these cases and to do it quickly as this medium demands.

With the second proposition I would disagree because it is too stark.It is treating ID as a stationary object.Opponents of ID have often referred to "driving a wedge" and "nose under the tentflap" to describe what the objective is.And in both those metaphors there is movement.

What ID seems to me to be starting to do is bring the idea of God to the fore. Once that is done any "revelations" are easier to accept than they would be to someone who has no God. Such revelations can then be tailored to suit the social needs either of society in general or of a class of persons within it such as priests.Or commentators.

And there has to be a compromise.If the "revelations" of the priests are too demanding of the rest they will be overthrown usually violently.
Thesis-antithesis-new thesis and so on.

If the "revelations" favour the strong caring for the weak then ID,the original start point which led to them,would be the cause.

I do not see how ID could be presented in our world without such a message.It would be rejected out of hand if it had no social function and,further,a social function that appeals to what its adherents want. In the main they are rural and traditional people and such people rarely seek to enslave others.One cannot say the same for scientific city people with no God.

So I see ID as a feature of societies which have played around with the no God idea in order to indulge their freedom and are beginning to get a little nervous. Some of the choices they now have to make are bothering them.Collectively.

I must go.It is pub time.I'll attempt the rest later.But if you think that is sophistry I won't mind you pointing it out.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

With the second proposition I would disagree because it is too stark.It is treating ID as a stationary object.Opponents of ID have often referred to "driving a wedge" and "nose under the tentflap" to describe what the objective is.And in both those metaphors there is movement.

I have no idea why you said that. It seems entirely irrelevant to what I was saying.

Quote:

What ID seems to me to be starting to do is bring the idea of God to the fore.

Which is why it cannot be taught in American schools and why it has no place in science.

Quote:

Once that is done any "revelations" are easier to accept than they would be to someone who has no God. Such revelations can then be tailored to suit the social needs either of society in general or of a class of persons within it such as priests.Or commentators.

To be blunt, I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't understand what anything you've said so far has to do with ID.

Quote:

If the "revelations" favour the strong caring for the weak then ID,the original start point which led to them,would be the cause.

Seriously, what are you talking about? Revelations as defined by what? I see words, but it's barely making any sense. There is no logical connection, as far as I can see, between what you're talking about and the subject at hand.

All your attempts to explain any supposed logical connections have failed miserably, and it's not because I'm deliberately being blunt. I really can't see what you're trying to get at here.

Quote:

I do not see how ID could be presented in our world without such a message.It would be rejected out of hand if it had no social function and,further,a social function that appeals to what its adherents want. In the main they are rural and traditional people and such people rarely seek to enslave others.One cannot say the same for scientific city people with no God.

Rubbish. Absolute rubbish. Are you saying that scientific city people are Godless?

You go on about all these supposed social problems, but the only students I see that are arguing against teachers are the ones that don't believe in Evolution. The only ones that seem to be causing the problems are for ID and Creationism, neither of which solve any of the social problems you talk about.

Seriously, I cannot understand you. The more I read your posts, the less I understand your position. It makes no sense. I cannot see the logic and your explanations serve only to complicate things.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Seriously, I cannot understand you. The more I read your posts, the less I understand your position. It makes no sense. I cannot see the logic and your explanations serve only to complicate things.

Join the club. There is a whole bunch of us to trying to wheedle sense out of the musings of our dear Spendy.

0 Replies

You may not get an answer for a while . . . he's very likely down at the local soaking up some more of what passes for wisdom at his house . . .

Honestly, i can't see why you bother, Wolf. He's completely trashed this thread with his incoherent blather. I'd not have stopped in myself, had i not seen the name of our esteemed colleague Steve . . .

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I'd not have stopped in myself, had i not seen the name of our esteemed colleague Steve . . .

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Honestly, i can't see why you bother, Wolf. He's completely trashed this thread with his incoherent blather. I'd not have stopped in myself, had i not seen the name of our esteemed colleague Steve . . .

Well, it all went like this:

One day, in a completely different debate forum, a whole bunch of us were debating against this real bigot about homosexuality. We also argued against him in an Evolutoin Thread. He left for a while and we didn't see him come back. We thought that was the last of him.

Big mistake.

He came back and spouted out more nonsense and had the cheek to say that he had won the last two debates he had participated in. Won? How can you win these debates? It made no sense. But obviously he came away from the debate, thinking he had successfully argued his viewpoint and proved us wrong when he did no such thing.

It got me thinking...

That guy thought that because we couldn't change his mind, he had won. If we shouted at him, he'd think that we'd run out of arguments and started being angry instead, thus proving that he was right and that we were wrong. If we ignored him, he'd have thought we couldn't possibly argue against him so his viewpoints must be right. Whatever we do, he would come out of the thread thinking he had won with some self-righteous smug smile on his git-like face!

I think it may be possible that these debate forums has driven me quite mad.

0 Replies

Mad as a hatter?

You know, those old boys used mercury in the making of felt, and they were, quite literally mad.

I don't think you're mad, but i question the wisdom of wasting your time in "debate" with Spendi.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I don't think you're mad, but i question the wisdom of wasting your time in "debate" with Spendi.

There is no wisdom. Heck, it's pure insanity, hence why I've wondered whether I really have gone mad. No sane person would continue "debating" against someone who will always come away from the debate thinking they've won, just because the thought of letting them think they've won is infuriating.

I think I'll go take a powder for now... Lest my sanity really does suffer.

0 Replies

The hat making industry centred around Stockport employed over 8000 people in the 1920s. The process itself, using urine and mercury salts to cure rabbit fur and the like was...

just thought cure rabbit fur? what does our wesident wabbit have to say?

0 Replies

Wolf, I think it's a process; we see spendi now in the final phase. You're far from even being in the first phase, so don't worry none.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Wolf, I think it's a process; we see spendi now in the final phase. You're far from even being in the first phase, so don't worry none.

you think spendology is doomed?

0 Replies

I'm not sure what you mean by "doomed," but all the symptoms are there for brain cancer.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean by "doomed," but all the symptoms are there for brain cancer.

no i didnt mean him personally. I meant the study of spendy- spendology. As kremlinologists used to study every nuance from the politburo to determine hidden meaning. Its the same but harder and more exasperating.

0 Replies

I guess it's hard for me to remove the persona from their beliefs. "Spendology" is belief held by many christians. Since spendology christains aren't about to accept evidence presented to them about evolution, they will keep confusing ID with science. I don't see that disappearing any time soon.

0 Replies

Wolf wrote-

Quote:

Rubbish. Absolute rubbish. Are you saying that scientific city people are Godless?

Well-in Sartre's Roads To Freedom the city-slicker secular,God-forsaken,atheistic cynical libertine kneels at the altar rails and begs abjectly to be granted the gift of faith and he begs it of a plaster-of-Paris statuette obviously knocked out in a moulding process in an industrial unit.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Wolf wrote-

Quote:
Rubbish. Absolute rubbish. Are you saying that scientific city people are Godless?

Well-in Sartre's Roads To Freedom the city-slicker secular,God-forsaken,atheistic cynical libertine kneels at the altar rails and begs abjectly to be granted the gift of faith and he begs it of a plaster-of-Paris statuette obviously knocked out in a moulding process in an industrial unit.

A novel... Rolling Eyes

I see it now... You're deliberately going out of your way to ensure I go mad, aren't you? Shocked

Furthermore, why do I keep getting drawn here? I promised myself I'd take a break from this... Question

0 Replies

c.i. wrote-

Quote:

I'm not sure what you mean by "doomed," but all the symptoms are there for brain cancer.

You can trust c.i. to try to bring in negativity issues in order to smear anything he can't understand.It's assertion by rot

Cancer is not a word that readily springs to my mind.You won't find it in any of my posts except this one.

0 Replies

Sorry-I meant "rote" not rot.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know