Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Oh, yeah -- it can be "sent out" but not received. Too bad that isn't true for spam. These posters are now relegated to the category of spammers. They are trying to sell the idea that religion has all the answers, science does not. What fools these mortals be.

(I'm waiting for radio wavelengths to be equated with electricity).

0 Replies

UK UPDATE

Quote:

Creationism flap stirred in Britain
(UPI, April 24, 2006)

Australian geologist John Mackay, a well known creationist, Monday started a controversial speaking tour of British secondary schools and universities.

Mackay believes he has found fossil evidence proving it was not evolution that produced the world, but, rather, God, who created all life during six days, The Independent reported.

His eight-week visit has elicited anger from scientists, who told The Independent they are concerned about what they view as an increasing focus by evangelists on children.

The London newspaper noted Mackay's tour has also drawn criticism from teacher's unions and various secular groups, all of which condemn the exposure of a captive audience of children to his views.

The Royal Society recently issued a statement arguing creationism has no place in schools and students must understand that scientific evidence supports the theory of evolution.

Geneticist and author Steve Jones said suggesting creationism and evolution be given equal weight in education was "rather like starting genetics lectures by discussing the theory that babies are brought by storks."

0 Replies

You know I've always wondered about this, we dont get that many storks in England.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote-

Quote:

Who said it was for the purpose of impressing the "ladies?" There they go again with the sexist, mysoginistic comments from the peanut head gallery. Quit while you're behind 'cause the hole is already twenty-feet deep. This thread has been in subjective limbo for several weeks -- a little jarring with some diversion into other subjects won't hurt a bit.

What was it in aid of then? Most of the people who are regulars on wande's thread have their own areas of expertise and are not perticularly impressed at being treated to verbalisations of those of others, however esoteric the language.

I don't accept that the thread has been in "subjective limbo for several weeks" although it has took a turn in that direction since you started contributing to it.

Quote:

My back patio is a new candidate to tear out all the lo-vo and install all fiberoptic.l

I rather think that belongs on the Home and Garden thread,if there is one.
Your personal attitudes to your back patio are as subjective as subjective gets.

Quote:

I'm a thinkin' we should hook up spendius' toes to a generator and give him a good dose of God. (no emoticon)

Rather sad.You have my commiserations. Who do you include in the "we"?

0 Replies

Mackay has been doing this "chicken and peas" stump for a few years . First , he is no longer a geologist, hes a pimp who had originally gotten some degrees in geology to better serve his credibility gap.

His "proof" is total BS. Ive reviewed and critiqued his crap that he collected from the Chattanooga shales. Schieber and others work on this formation has shown that bioturbation and inflowing veggie mats are not uncommon. It seems that the redefinition of the multiple sedimentary sequences in the Chatttanooga have been responsible for why MackAY CAME OVER HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. At least he reads the Journal Of Sedimentary Petrology.

Then he books a plane and comes over and collects fossils of bioturbation areas and goes back to Oz and begins writing "GeoCreationist Tracts" on How the existence of plant material prooves that the Chatanooga was a Flood Deposit.

He stated that'The Chatanooga has long been interpreted as a deep water shale"

Scieders work has, instead of sticking with the "deep water" model has defined the Chatanooga as up to 14 different units of shallow water (possibly estuarine) deposits that are conformable to the Catskill Formation. Veggie mats are not uncommon throughout. Besides, Mackays "leaps of Faith" require him to ignore the fact that theres another 20000 ft of sedimentary rock ON TOP of the Chatanooga. (A little geologic fact that his "mission" would like to ignore). The actual thickness of the Chatanooga is now in the hundreds rather than thousands of feet. Its been seen that the formation has a series of horizontal boundaries that are consistent with the shorelines moving in and moving out.
These facts are on;y significant to a geologist hunting for Uranium (the Chatanooga contains alot of detrital Uranium Oxide). However, Mackay makes it a central portion of his argument, hes trying to blow a lot of **** on the argument in the hopes that noone will challenge him. Hes not doing any scholarly or applied geoscience. hes using a science by contaminating it with fake "field work" just so guys like real life and spendi will be easily impressed and further convinced that science is providing evidence to a Creationist interpretation and a literal Bible.

0 Replies

wande quoted-

Quote:

The Independent reported.

This newspaper is described on page 6 of last Sunday's The Sunday Times Culture magazine as-

"the eccentrically left-leaning Independent"

by Mr Brian Appleyard.

0 Replies

So you deny that it is true, as reported by United Press International, that Mr. Mackay has begun this tour to promote a creationist point of view? Because UPI quotes The Independent? That's a damned low threshhold of credibility, even by your quixotic standards.

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

just so guys like real life and spendi will be easily impressed and further convinced that science is providing evidence to a Creationist interpretation and a literal Bible.

I can't speak for real life but where you get the idea that any of that stuff relating to Mr MacKay even interests me never mind impresses me I cannot imagine. Neither am I in the slightest bit interested in the provision of evidence for Creationism or the literal interpretation of The Bible. You won't find a shred of evidence in any of my posts which even suggests that I'm a creationist or that I think The Bible to be anything other than a literary production.

The Creationists and the Bible thumpers are obviously aware of that which is presumably the reason they never comment on my posts. Why you are unaware of that fm can only be a function of your reading skills.

The only "field work" that interests me is that associated with trends in our society in the here and now and where they look to be leading. 20,000 ft of rock formation from hundreds of millions of years ago may well provide a few carefully chosen individuals with high salaries and/or a modicum of fame,and good luck to them, but it leaves me,I'm afraid,speechless and,I have little doubt, I am no different in that respect to about 99% of the population at least although I will admit the figure would be appreciably higher regarding Lightwizard's patio illumination arrangements.

I hope you don't mind my setting the record straight. I think real life and myself might agree that an ice-cream on a hot day is quite nice but I think any similarity would stop there.

0 Replies

Quote:

I think real life and myself might agree that an ice-cream on a hot day is quite nice but I think any similarity would stop there.

STOP THE PRESSES ! ! !

Spendi wrote a coherent sentence ! ! !

Perhaps there's hope . . .

. . . naw.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote-

Quote:

So you deny that it is true, as reported by United Press International, that Mr. Mackay has begun this tour to promote a creationist point of view?

Not in the least. Why would I wish to deny a thing like that. I haven't any idea why Mr MacKay has begun his tour. If I was asked to speculate I would first of all suggest that money might have something to do with it or self-publicity or **** stirring or simply not wishing to do a job in the real economy. He might even get a buzz from addressing audiences containing a proportion of intense ladies. Who knows?

He might just be bored.

0 Replies

Which is, of course, obtuse, as it ignores that you attempted to impeach Wandel's post by using a quote discrediting The Independent.

0 Replies

A boxcar sentence with several cabooses (I think the period key must be intermittantly malfunctioning?):

"The only "field work" that interests me is that associated with trends in our society in the here and now and where they look to be leading. 20,000 ft of rock formation from hundreds of millions of years ago may well provide a few carefully chosen individuals with high salaries and/or a modicum of fame,and good luck to them, but it leaves me,I'm afraid,speechless and,I have little doubt, I am no different in that respect to about 99% of the population at least although I will admit the figure would be appreciably higher regarding Lightwizard's patio illumination arrangements."

So glad you finally came around without playing the self-appointed moderator as this isn't your thread to begin with. This thread and Chumly have gotten me off my sofa to start work on the fiberoptic lighting in the back patio. I'd been procrastinating, posting on A2K with those who cannot seem to explain their position on this subject other than their basic disinterest in gaining even a modicum of knowledge. Declaring that 99% of the public aren't interested is merely self-gratifying baloney.

Mackay seems to favor his own brand of flim-flam science that works nicely with ID and Creationism. Thinly disguised dishonesty or has he been put away without our knowledge and they are smuggling his writings out of the asylum like the Marquis De Sade?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote-

Quote:

Which is, of course, obtuse, as it ignores that you attempted to impeach Wandel's post by using a quote discrediting The Independent.

Nothing obtuse about it. I was merely thinking that a mainly American readership might not know of the reputation of The Independent and may inadvertently think they were reading balanced reporting. I wasn't implying that it was a sister sheet of Pravda.

I also don't think that "eccentrically left-leaning" is necessarily "discrediting" and it wasn't my opinion anyway but that of Mr Appleyard's who,along with his editor,has a vested interest in discrediting a rival. I think The Independent is irrelevant to this discussion as is Mr MacKay if he is doing what they say he is doing. He is working a niche as far as I'm concerned and he couldn't work it if it didn't exist.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote-

Quote:

This thread and Chumly have gotten me off my sofa to start work on the fiberoptic lighting in the back patio

I'm inclined to think that if I'm not on the sofa without very good reasons,such as going to the pub,I'm doing something wrong and not adhering to strict evolutionary principles.

Quote:

. Declaring that 99% of the public aren't interested is merely self-gratifying baloney.

I think it is merely a fact. I thought I was being generous at only 99%.After all, 1% of Americans is almost 3 million and I don't think you can find 3 million Americans who have any interest in 20,000 ft deep rock sediments laid down hundreds of millions of years ago.

0 Replies

Spendius wrote:

Quote:

Setanta wrote-

Quote:
Which is, of course, obtuse, as it ignores that you attempted to impeach Wandel's post by using a quote discrediting The Independent.

Nothing obtuse about it. I was merely thinking that a mainly American readership might not know of the reputation of The Independent and may inadvertently think they were reading balanced reporting. I wasn't implying that it was a sister sheet of Pravda.

Again you are being obtuse. Wandel was quoting United Press International, not The Independent. You not only have failed to establish that reportage by The Independent is not balanced, you have attempted to suggest that reportage by UPI cannot be balanced simply because they have quoted The Independent.

Quote:

I also don't think that "eccentrically left-leaning" is necessarily "discrediting" and it wasn't my opinion anyway but that of Mr Appleyard's who,along with his editor,has a vested interest in discrediting a rival. I think The Independent is irrelevant to this discussion as is Mr MacKay if he is doing what they say he is doing. He is working a niche as far as I'm concerned and he couldn't work it if it didn't exist.

If that were your opinion of the value of Mr. Appleyard's reportage, why do you assert that The Independent cannot be relied upon to provide balanced reportage? This thread concerns itself with whether or not "intelligent design" is creationism or science. On that basis, notice of Mr. Mackay's activities is germane, whether or not you are capable of understanding as much.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote-

Quote:

This thread concerns itself with whether or not "intelligent design" is creationism or science.

As ID is obviously neither the thread would be about half a page long and gone off the lists if we stuck there. You do like being pedantic when it suits you. What had the history lesson about Edison and Co to do with whether ID is science or creationism?

Quote:

Again you are being obtuse. Wandel was quoting United Press International, not The Independent.

I thought I saw The Independent quoted. I apologise if I didn't.

Quote:

If that were your opinion of the value of Mr. Appleyard's reportage, why do you assert that The Independent cannot be relied upon to provide balanced reportage?

Did I say that? Good heavens. I must try harder. Gaffes of that nature I usually avoid.

Quote:

On that basis, notice of Mr. Mackay's activities is germane, whether or not you are capable of understanding as much.

That was the point of the "niche" metaphor. I'll try to write more simply if I can.

0 Replies

Spendius wrote

Quote:

As ID is obviously neither the thread would be about half a page long and gone off the lists if we stuck there. You do like being pedantic when it suits you. What had the history lesson about Edison and Co to do with whether ID is science or creationism?

Read the thread title again, and then consider the large volume of posts from those who both deny that "intelligent design" is creationism, who assert that there is a scientific basis for "intelligent design," and who assert that it should be taught in school, based upon an assertion that there is as much evidence for either "intelligent design" or creationism as there is for a theory of evolution. The member "real life" in particular is fond of trotting out the same old canards over and over again, which in large measure accounts for the length of this thread.

To attempt to hide behind claims about who is or isn't pedantic in no way lessens the justifiable charge that you were being obtuse, because the subject of this exchange is not the relevance of the posts of this thread, but your justification in dismissing what Wandel quoted based on a reference in the United Press International report which he quoted to The Independent.

Quote:

I thought I saw The Independent quoted. I apologise if I didn't.

You do none of us any favors, thread diversions or no, by such elementary failures to pay attention. Yes, the report which Wandel posted quotes The Independent. But The Independent is not the source he used, UPI is.

Quote:

If that were your opinion of the value of Mr. Appleyard's reportage, why do you assert that The Independent cannot be relied upon to provide balanced reportage?

Quote:

Did I say that? Good heavens. I must try harder. Gaffes of that nature I usually avoid.

I have no reason to believe, based on the ordinary character of your posts, to believe that you make any effort to avoid "gaffes" of that nature.

Quote:

That was the point of the "niche" metaphor. I'll try to write more simply if I can.

A sneer suggesting that your remarks were to "complex" to be understood does nothing to absolve you of having been obtuse, either. This thread concerns itself with the issue of whether or not "intelligent design" is science or religion. A reference to Mr. Mackay is germane, whether or not you personally consider him to be exploiting an income "niche."

0 Replies

That's two british newspapers Americans should not read because Spendy disapproves:the Independent and the Guardian. It can be no co incidence that the Guardian claims more world wide hits on its website than ANY other quality newspaper.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote-

Quote:

The member "real life" in particular is fond of trotting out the same old canards over and over again, which in large measure accounts for the length of this thread.

I have not been aware that real life has played a prominent role in this thread. I don't remember a single post from that source during the whole of the Dover wrangle.

Just for the record-I don't consider the idea of intelligent design,used as a phrase and not a label, to be anything to do with creationism. And I don't think there is any evidence to support a scientific basis for it except the obvious fact that knowledge will never be complete and thus people will speculate in the gap and the type of speculation might or might not be useful for society. A fact is scientific.

I also don't think it should be taught in schools as a principle but if ideas conflated with it exist widely in the community and are useful to society and there is an insistance on teaching evolution then I think there is some use in students being exposed to it. I wouldn't teach evolution either.

Quote:

You do none of us any favors, thread diversions or no, by such elementary failures to pay attention. Yes, the report which Wandel posted quotes The Independent. But The Independent is not the source he used, UPI is.

Well okay-the article used the words "The Independent" and "The London Newspaper" and "Steve Jones". UPI hardly seemed to be present. I generally distrust all media on subjects of this nature but,I'm afraid,it is a bit difficult,not to say provocative,to explain why. I did make a five year long detailed study of our three "quality" newspapers and the local evening paper. The latter was one of a hundred local newspapers owned by the same firm and with cross directorships all over the media industries and banks and insurance companies. Let's just say patterns emerged and leave it at that. Local evening papers are not local at all.

Of course Mr MacKay is germane to the subject. He seems to have set himself up as the mouthpiece of a section of the population. That's a niche he found room to work in. So do others. It is the section of the population that is germane. Their megaphone is interchangeable on the basis of who most meets their approval. I daresay it is quite competitive.

The "niche" idea was an allusion to a well known saying in evolutionary thought, by who I forget, that if there's a niche in which an organism can make a living it will be occupied. I assumed you knew it.

0 Replies

Steve wrote-

Quote:

That's two british newspapers Americans should not read because Spendy disapproves:the Independent and the Guardian.

.

I said nothing of the sort Steve. I don't disapprove of them and I don't say they shouldn't be read by Americans. I can't imagine how you would come to such a conclusion.

Some Americans may not know that they are on the left. Sir Anthony Eden thought that Americans in high office viewed British public opinion at the time of Suez as being against his policy,which it wasn't,as a result of reading English newspapers and crafted their policy,such as it was, with that in view.

Quote:

It can be no co incidence that the Guardian claims more world wide hits on its website than ANY other quality newspaper.

That can be easily explained by the simple fact that people of the left are much more politicised than those on the right who are generally too busy with more important matters.

BTW-I use the expression "people of the left" to spare my readers from more forceful language.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know