Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

spendius wrote:

timber wrote-

Quote:
And perhaps you find your ramblings pertinent, salient, humorous, relevant, or some combination thereof while others find the reverse.

Well timber- I think the Materialist Theory of Mind is pertinant, salient (?). very,very humorous and extremely phukking relevant. If you are not up on it so bloody what?

We can't all be held back by your lack of education can we now. That's no way to evolve into the glorious future.

Oh, I'm familiar with Armstrong's work, spendi, and with that of those who's more recent works largely have supplanted his A Materialist Theory of Mind over the ensuing past couple decades - Dennet, for one, Pinker for another, Nagel, Janes, Byrne, and, of course, Tooby and Cosmides. I class my self more as a Functionalist than a Materialist, though some might find the distinction difficult to discern.

I submit for your consideration an article by James Alcock, written over a decade ago, The Belief Engine
Quoting from his conclusion in that article,

Quote:

Critical thinking, logic, reason, science - these are all terms that apply in one way or another to the deliberate attempt to ferret out truth from the tangle of intuition, distorted perception, and fallible memory. The true critical thinker accepts what few people ever accept - that one cannot routinely trust perceptions and memories. Figments of our imagination and reflections of our emotional needs can often interfere with or supplant the perception of truth and reality. Through teaching and encouraging critical thought our society will move away from irrationality, but we will never succeed in completely abandoning irrational tendencies, again because of the basic nature of the belief engine. Experience is often a poor guide to reality. Skepticism helps us to question our experience and to avoid being too readily led to believe what is not so. We should try to remember the words of the late P. J. Bailey (in Festus: A Country Town): "Where doubt, there truth is - 'tis her shadow."

I submit also, spendi, conjecture pertaining to the educational achievement of another known to one only through the internet occasionally proves entirely unfounded. But then, judging from what I've seen of your consistent - or perhaps persistent better embodies the concept - contribution of questionably coherent, psuedo-Joycian, impertinent and irelevant postings on these boards, I surmise revelation of the afoundational nature of many of your conjectures and postulations is not for you a notably infrequent experience.

0 Replies

How would things be different if Spendi posted no more?

0 Replies

timber-

What was "afoundational" about-

Quote:

Quote:
They're "an excellent example of evolution in a nonbiological world," said Stephen G. Harvey,

as a start,a foundation, and pointing to the oddness of the statement coming from a leading light in the campaign to push unmediated materialism into the schools and, presumably, into the heads of the kids.

As you must know if you are familiar with Armstrong the Materialist Theory of Mind envisages no other principles than biological ones in human behaviour often as physio/chemical processes.

So what is Harvey referring to by his "nonbiological world". One might not understand the Pope or a clairvoyant using such a term but at least it would be consistent with their other ideas. How do you explain someone who is pushing materialism at the kids using it.

Is Harvey mixed up? Does he not know what he is talking about? Or,if he does, is he simply hamming a part up for money and fame?

That is what I was rambling on about and I can't see that I was not

Quote:

pertinent, salient, humorous, relevant, or some combination thereof

to the quote wande gave us which exposed this flaw in Harvey's words. If there is a non-biological realm it must be intimately connected with irreducible complexity.

Quote:

I submit also, spendi, conjecture pertaining to the educational achievement of another known to one only through the internet occasionally proves entirely unfounded.

If I manage to keep any fault of mine in this regard to "occasionally" I will be doing better than a lot of other stuff I've seen on these boards not least the suggestion that my comment about Harvey was not "pertinent" which questions my educational achievements. I was obviously relevant in commenting on the previous post of wande's and I didn't have any humorous intention.

Quote:

Quote:
They're "an excellent example of evolution in a nonbiological world," said Stephen G. Harvey,

I might have questioned more in this statement than I did. It suggests Harvey hasn't much idea of evolution either. It seems "afoundational" to me and it questions the educational attainments of IDers. And he's getting paid I presume. I think it clumsy, wishy-washy and it underestimates people.

As does this-

Quote:

And perhaps you find your ramblings pertinent, salient, humorous, relevant, or some combination thereof while others find the reverse.

Which, I'm afraid to say, is meaningless and presumptuous of some at least of the"others". It is meaningless on the "perhaps" and fails to take account of others, who may be a majority, who actually find my comment on Harvey both pertinent and relevant which are two words which appear next to each other in Roget and thus constitute a tautology or,if you like,brain splatter.

I can't say I'm impressed with Alcock either. Does he really think that a society of 290 million people can function with nobody believing what is not so. If he does he must be living in an ivory tower and I would advise him to wave his underpants from a high window and hope that a knight on a prancing steed is passing close by who might think they are knickers.

0 Replies

Jay Ingram of the Discovery Channel has written an insightful essay on the ID controversy:

Quote:

Intelligent design a difficult foe

0 Replies

Quote:

Dover judge addresses graduates
(York Daily Record, May 22, 2006)

A federal judge who outlawed the teaching of "intelligent design" in Dover science classes told graduates at Dickinson College that the nation's founders saw religion as the result of personal inquiry, not church doctrine.

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones gave the commencement address Sunday to 500 graduates at Dickinson College, his alma mater. Jones received national attention during a 2005 trial on whether intelligent design should be taught to students in Dover Area School District.

"The founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry," said Jones, who was thrust into the national spotlight by last year's court fight over the teaching of evolution in the Dover school district.

The founding fathers - from school namesake John Dickinson to Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson - were products of the Enlightenment, Jones said.

"They possessed a great confidence in an individual's ability to understand the world and its most fundamental laws through the exercise of his or her reason," he said.

"This core set of beliefs led the founders, who constantly engaged and questioned things, to secure their idea of religious freedom by barring any alliance between church and state."

Following a six-week trial in 2005 that explored concepts in biology, theology and paleontology, Jones concluded that the Dover Area School Board had violated the separation between church and state.

Intelligent design holds that living organisms are so complex some kind of higher being must have created them. In his ruling, Jones called it "an old religious argument for the existence of God" and accused the school board of "breathtaking inanity" in trying to teach it.

In a 139-page opinion, Jones ruled that intelligent design was repackaged creationism, which courts had previously ruled should not be taught in science classes.

Jones struck down Dover Area School Board's curriculum policy that required biology students to hear a statement that told them "intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Charles Darwin's view."

The school board had argued that it hoped to expose students to alternatives to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

The intelligent design case cost the district more than $1 million in legal fees - and cost school board members, who were turned out in November's election, their seats.

Jones credited his liberal arts education at Dickinson, more than his law school years, for preparing him for what he calls his "Dover moment."

"It was my liberal arts education . . . that provided me with the best ability to handle the rather monumental task of deciding the Dover case," he said.

0 Replies

wande quoted Judge Jones as saying-

Quote:

"It was my liberal arts education . . . that provided me with the best ability to handle the rather monumental task of deciding the Dover case," he said.

It seems difficult to apply the word "monumental" to something of "breathtaking inanity". Usually breathtaking inanity can be dismissed with a contemptuous wave of the hand and hardly justifies a long costly trial.

Quote:

"They possessed a great confidence in an individual's ability to understand the world and its most fundamental laws through the exercise of his or her reason," he said.

The utopianism in that is staggering unless the word "an" was only meant to apply to the elite to which of course the fathers belonged.

Perhaps it was a strategy designed to weaken the one established source of doctrinal authority in Rome. That might make sense.

Quote:

Jones struck down Dover Area School Board's curriculum policy that required biology students to hear a statement that told them "intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Charles Darwin's view."

The five paragraphs I presume were what made up the statement which was to be read out once if I remember correctly. That hardly constitutes rejoining Church and State or teaching Creationism. Once the statement is read out the biology teacher is free to go his own way.

Correct me if I'm wrong wande but I thought the argument was about reading out the statement and not about the content of subsequent lesson plans.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

The five paragraphs I presume were what made up the statement which was to be read out once if I remember correctly. That hardly constitutes rejoining Church and State or teaching Creationism. Once the statement is read out the biology teacher is free to go his own way.

Correct me if I'm wrong wande but I thought the argument was about reading out the statement and not about the content of subsequent lesson plans.

The statement was to be read to the biology class immediately before they began discussing the textbook chapter on evolution. This was a forced action by the school board to denigrate evolution and erroneously misrepresent intelligent design as a theory of equal weight. Since intelligent design is a religious view, the reading of the statement in a public secondary school constitutes an unconstitutional endorsement of religion by a local government entity. The constitutional prohibition of religious endorsement extends to local government by virtue of the fourteenth amendment.

Judges are generally more strict about applying the "establishment" clause in cases involving elementary and secondary level public schools. This is because school attendance is mandatory at that level and students are, in effect, "a captive audience".

0 Replies

wande wrote-

Quote:

This was a forced action by the school board to denigrate evolution and erroneously misrepresent intelligent design as a theory of equal weight.

Do you seriously think the statement meant anything quite so dramatic as that? Are the biology teachers not up for overcoming the statement with rational scientific evidence even if "denigrate" is allowed as the meaning of the statement which I'm not sure I would and even if it is allowed that the kids are attentive and will retain it in their memories or give two hoots one way or the other or even understand it.

When JJ uses the phrase "monumental task" he is surely implying that there is an issue to debate.

I also think it is stretching things a little to say that reading out a statement about ID constitutes any endorsement of religion whether constitutional or not and it certainly does not constitute endorsing creationism in any of its manifestations.

0 Replies

wande-

Do you think children should be imprisoned as you say they are in schools?

0 Replies

spendi plays the projection game very well, just like the "righties" of this country. Unfortunately, spendi tries to argue issues beyond the norm, and his posts are many times too incoherent for people to understand the content of his posts. "Riddles" is a good description of what he writes.

0 Replies

c.i. wrote-

Quote:

Unfortunately, spendi tries to argue issues beyond the norm,

Are you saying there that-

Quote:

even if it is allowed that the kids are attentive and will retain it in their memories or give two hoots one way or the other or even understand it.

is an abnormal assessment of the average classroom situation?

0 Replies

spendi wrote:
Do you seriously think the statement meant anything quite so dramatic as that? Are the biology teachers not up for overcoming the statement with rational scientific evidence even if "denigrate" is allowed as the meaning of the statement which I'm not sure I would and even if it is allowed that the kids are attentive and will retain it in their memories or give two hoots one way or the other or even understand it.

When JJ uses the phrase "monumental task" he is surely implying that there is an issue to debate.

I also think it is stretching things a little to say that reading out a statement about ID constitutes any endorsement of religion whether constitutional or not and it certainly does not constitute endorsing creationism in any of its manifestations.

********
Do you think children should be imprisoned as you say they are in schools?
|||||||||||||||||||||||this is a fence separating spendi's quote from mine|||

spendi, When any teacher is required to read anything associated with ID, it's promoting and endorsing religion. Children do not know the difference when they are taught ID in science class that what they are being "taught" is in fact religion. ID is religion; nothing else. If we didn't have religion, ID would be a non-issue.

The only prison here is your brain; it's locked into an idea that doesn't allow anything else to penetrate.

0 Replies

c.i. wrote-

Quote:

Children do not know the difference when they are taught ID in science class

Who said anything about teaching ID in science classes. I certainly didn't.
We were talking about reading out five paragraphs of gobbledegook when the kids were shuffling into their desk spaces eyeing up their classmates.

Once you allow parents,or other unqualified adults, anywhere near education you have this stuff going off and Dover voters getting creamed.

0 Replies

c.i. wrote-

Quote:

The only prison here is your brain; it's locked into an idea that doesn't allow anything else to penetrate.

Is it too much to ask that you refrain from sullying this thread with such squitterings of thin,pale brown shite as that is.

0 Replies

spendi, You wrote:
Are the biology teachers not up for overcoming the statement with rational scientific evidence even if "denigrate" is allowed as the meaning of the statement which I'm not sure I would and even if it is allowed that the kids are attentive and will retain it in their memories or give two hoots one way or the other or even understand it.

Why do they need to "overcome" anything? They shouldn't be reading garbage like that in any class for children. Exactly, what are your trying to defend or argue against?

0 Replies

c.i. wrote-

Quote:

Why do they need to "overcome" anything?

Isn't the whole educational process about overcoming things? It would probably, I would say certainly, be beneficial to have the chance to shoot down ID in the classroom from the anti-ID perspective.If the kids have never heard of it they might more easily be influenced by it later in life. I think there's a lack of confidence in biology teachers being demonstrated here.

Your use of the word "garbage" is belied by JJ's use of the phrase "monumental task" and it also weakens your own debating standpoint to categorise millions of American citizens in such an insulting and superficial manner. This is especially so when you,and others,have point blank refused to discuss the social consequences argument and have repeatedly shied away from offering a vision of a hi-tech society of 300 million people in which there is no "garbage". Many eminent writers from ancient Rome to this day have categorised monogamy and having babies as "garbage" and also the notion of private property. I think your notion of visiting far off exotic locations is garbage but I would show why and not rely on a blurted assertion. The use of such language betrays a paucity of argument and underestimates others.

Quote:

Exactly, what are your trying to defend or argue against?

Oh- a few things most of which are apparent if you read my posts properly. You seem to start from scratch everytime you post as if the whole of what has gone before never happened. I daresay you categorised ID as "garbage" months ago. Maybe years ago.

I think that Dover taxpayers have been taken for a ride by a bunch of free-loading con artists using pedantic nit-picking for the purpose of money making, self publicity and to relieve their boredom. Media went along for the ride because it was a cheap story. But, of course, it is much more complex than that. Some Dover taxpayers would have a nett gain.Those who supplied visiting professionals with gratifications for instinctual needs after the court adjourned for example.

Full fat Big Macs are back and even bigger. The health food experiment with salads has been dumped I gather by popular demand. They listened to do-gooders shouting that their full fat burgers were "garbage". The fools. The FDA are there to make decisions of that nature not jumped up self-asserters projecting their own superficial ideas onto society.

Suppose ID turns out to be as popular as full fat burgers.

0 Replies

Quote:

Suppose ID turns out to be as popular as full fat burgers.

Tis. And ID is as bad for your brain as fat burgers are for your heart.

Joe(pass the salad)Nation

0 Replies

Just imagine 290 million perfect brains like yours Joe. The nation might grind to a shuddering halt I fear.

Brains in Thunderbirds multiplied by 290,000,000. Cripes!

0 Replies

Hey-

Theyve kicked off here.

Scientists in the medical profession have got together and are calling on the Government to stop using taxpayers money to provide facilities in the National Health Service for what are known as "alternative treatments" such as acupuncture,cupping,herbals and stuff like that.

Prince Charles is leading the opposition to this challenge to the status quo in which provision does exist.

The scientists are saying that taxpayer's money shouldn't be used to fund anything which has not been proved to work scientifically.

I presume that the root of Prince Charles's argument (the theology) is that there's an irreducible complexity with alternative treatments because human psychology is a major factor which is a bit of a mystery unless we all become identical automata and,as such, come within a scientists understanding.

Prince Charles believes in these treatments and self-evidently can't prove they work to a scientist's satisfaction because he would do if he could.

But here the Cabinet will decide and get the House of Commons and the House of Lords to pass the appropriate legislation without any reference to a fixed constitution. A challenge to that in the courts is a very wearisome process and only a few very determined people ever seriously mount one. A challenge in the European Court of Human Rights then raises the issue of sovereignty of nations within the EEC.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Exactly, what are your trying to defend or argue against?

A question you may well ask but I fear a palatable answer will not be on the Spendi Menu.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know