97
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 23 May, 2006 05:03 pm
The operative word being "palatable".
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 23 May, 2006 05:21 pm
spendi, In your case, it's more like "drinkable."
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 23 May, 2006 05:36 pm
You do know c.i. I suppose,given your obvious intelligence,education and experience,that there are nutritious benefits from boozing. Boozing is often referred to by intellectuals as drinking the grain.

It is easy to tell when it is overdone because the stomach distends over the elasatic contrivance that hold the trousers up and as my stomach is as flat as a billiard table I am sure that I need this nutrition in order to get through tomorrow's workload. If you wish to get your calories from bread that's your affair. I find it boring.

Boozing is more fun that eating the grain and only a puritan prohibitionist masochist would think otherwise.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Tue 23 May, 2006 05:41 pm
I don't know much about booze, but I am against women.





(as often as possible)
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 23 May, 2006 05:51 pm
I know the feeling Chum.

But you need to keep moving otherwise you can easy get bogged down in turgid domesticity and the concommitancies contained therein which are much too embarrassing and comprehensive to describe in a short post such as this.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 23 May, 2006 06:25 pm
spendi, That you mention "bread" for nutrition is interesting, because I have had the privilege to eat breads from many countries, and I usually find them of good taste and quality. Some are too "heavy" for my taste, but I even enjoy rye with corned beef with mustard once-in-awhile. Wink
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Tue 23 May, 2006 06:38 pm
UK UPDATE

Quote:
Exam Board rules out creationism in UK classrooms
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 23 May, 2006 07:05 pm
This decision probably makes spendi very sad.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 24 May, 2006 05:18 am
c.i. wrote-

Quote:
This decision probably makes spendi very sad.


Good grief c.i.

What cause have I given you to think such a ridiculous thing as that.

I find it amusing that people should sit around discussing such trivia. I can see them in my mind's eye. Serious faces and fatuous little speeches and press releases to swell up the scribblings on the backs of adverts and the whole circus assidously concentrating on their self importance as a means of satisfying themselves that they are useful members of society whilst their average intelligences are comfortably parked on a padded chair in a temperature controlled environment with secret agents of the sex police monitoring their every move in case any untoward advances are made towards the odd physically acceptable specimens who have accoutred themselves with a view to provoking such effects.

Their hidden agenda being, of course, to discredit the Bible and doctrinal authority which have a few strenuous things to say about their usual after hours activities which are funded by their salaries and corruptly devised expenses claims derived from these meetings.

How could any reasonable person find such activities "sad"?

It is absolutely necessary that the increasing productive wealth of the real economy should be kept out of the hands of the poor as they will all buy a motorcar and clog up the roads and the atmosphere and become unavailable for invidious comparisons generated by such organs of the record as The Guardian,The Independent and The BBC. Squandering the excess wealth in waste and uselessness on the patronising assumption that our dear children, who are known to be just as smart as their parent's generation,if not smarter, cannot arrive at similar conclusions to that of the meeting and by a similar process is enough to make a gate post laugh.

What has surprised me is that there has been no comment on my post regarding alternative treatments. I can only think this is due to anti-IDers having had recourse to such treatments themselves in the past which are based on beliefs rather than scientific proof. If that is so, and I don't claim it is, it would look as if irreducible complexity is only to be denigrated when it suits another purpose.

Oh dear!!
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Wed 24 May, 2006 07:48 am
spendi wrote:
Quote:
What has surprised me is that there has been no comment on my post regarding alternative treatments. I can only think this is due to anti-IDers having had recourse to such treatments themselves in the past which are based on beliefs rather than scientific proof. If that is so, and I don't claim it is, it would look as if irreducible complexity is only to be denigrated when it suits another purpose.


I suppose that the alternative medicine controversy is somewhat analagous to the ID controversy. However, evolutionary theory has definite medical applications (evolution of viruses and bacteria in response to the agents used to treat them). Does ID have any medical applications? Can ID be detected, tested, and used to formulate explanations about natural phenomena?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 24 May, 2006 09:43 am
wande wrote-

Quote:
Does ID have any medical applications? Can ID be detected, tested, and used to formulate explanations about natural phenomena?


I'm not sure about that wande. My impression has been that, all other things being equal, which they rarely are, the religious people get ill less than irreligious people so medical applications are less needed for them. I think concentrations of religious people have lower suicide rates, lower murder and general violence rates, lower mental health problems, lower stress levels, lower venereal disease difficulties, lower teenage pregnancy rates, lower percentages of single parent families and generally all round better health and happiness ratings and so on and so forth. In a nutshell-less social problems and greater longevity.

Whether you consider those to be medical applications or to be natural phenomena is probably dependent on what sort of job you or one of your close relatives does.

People who work in the very large business of attempting to ameliorate these social problems will obviously see religious communities as useless for their careers and will thus favour irreligion for strictly Marxist reasons.

They are likely to derive their self-serving opinions from professional journals which represent the professions benefitting from pathological social conditions and which are written and controlled by the elite of the "caring" community who may be presumed to know what they are doing when they concentrate on cures for the sick and dysfunctional rather than on prevention. They would be unlikely, for example, to publish any surveys which show how healthy people live and possibly obstruct the commissioning of such surveys in the first place.

It is odd though that very few people who support pure scientific logic live their lives according to its obvious principles and that they have singled out religious belief for denigration can only be due to traditional religious precepts getting in the way of their sexual preferences or other self indulgencies which alternative treatments don't do.

Which is a long winded way of saying that they are a bunch of deluded hypocrites to put it at its mildest.

Before you rush to respond with witterings about N Ireland and Iraq please take note of the phrase "all other things being equal" which is meant to refer to economic and political considerations which are often the principle cause of the pathologies I have mentioned. Religion is often dragged into those sad cases because it offers a simple explanation and thus enables those with low attention spans to spout without too much intellectual effort in company which knows no better.

I refer you to Ivan Illich and his famous paper Medical Nemesis.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Wed 24 May, 2006 11:36 am
SOUTH CAROLINA UPDATE

Quote:
Agency pressured on evolution stance
(South Carolina State, May 24, 2006)

A five-member panel of the Education Oversight Committee has recommended that the school reform agency rescind its objection to South Carolina's evolution-only high school biology standard.

State Department of Education spokesman Jim Foster said Tuesday the agency hopes to hold an emergency meeting of the state school board by May 31 to respond to that overture. Both the EOC and the board must agree on the standard.

Rep. Bob Walker, R-Spartanburg, an EOC member, had urged the state board to relax the evolution-only standard. Walker said he dropped objections because the Legislature is poised to approve a requirement directing the Department of Education to buy textbooks emphasizing "critical thinking."
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Wed 24 May, 2006 11:53 am
spendius wrote:
My impression has been that, all other things being equal, which they rarely are, the religious people get ill less than irreligious people so medical applications are less needed for them. I think concentrations of religious people have lower suicide rates, lower murder and general violence rates, lower mental health problems, lower stress levels, lower venereal disease difficulties, lower teenage pregnancy rates, lower percentages of single parent families and generally all round better health and happiness ratings and so on and so forth. In a nutshell-less social problems and greater longevity.


For some reason, reading that made me think of Snake Handlers...

Quote:
THE

SNAKE HANDLERS

Snake handling was an outgrowth of the Azusa Street revival. In 1910, after reading in Mark 16:18 "they shall take up serpents… and it shall not hurt them," former bootlegger George Went Hensley, aka "Little George," took a rattlesnake box into the pulpit. He reached in and lifted out the venomous viper, showing his faith to take God at his Word. He then challenged his congregation to do the same. News spread throughout the hills of Grasshopper Valley in southeastern Tennessee. Before long, others joined in the handling of rattlers. The practice continued for ten years until one of the faithful died of a snakebite. Hensley moved to Harlan, Kentucky.

Ambrose J. Thomlinson, a travelling Bible salesman and founder of a Church of God of Prophecy (a new Pentecostal denomination), ordained Hensley into the gospel ministry. For the next ten years Hensley preached and demonstrated snake handling. While on a preaching tour, he discovered his wife and a neighbor were having an affair. Hensley attacked his friend with a knife. Fleeing to the hills and turning his back on the faith, he rebuilt his whiskey still. A short time later, the law apprehended "Little George" and sent him to work on a chain gang. But Hensley executed a brilliant escape to Cleveland, Ohio, where he remarried and resumed preaching the Oneness Pentecostal message. Before long, he was again picking up serpents and heading back to Kentucky. Hensley's fame spread far and wide. He married and divorced four times.

In 1928, the Church of God in Prophecy revoked Hensley's license to preach and forbade all its members from further handling of snakes.

Snake handling did not return to Grasshopper Valley until 1943 when Raymond Hayes, one of Hensley's converts, conducted a revival there. The outcome was the founding of Dolly Pond Church of God with Signs Following. Located on the spot of the first snake handling service, Dolly Pond Church is considered a hallowed site.

There were approximately 2,500 snake-handlers in America in the early 1940s. When deaths from snakebites became prevalent, state legislatures passed laws, which forbade the taking up of snakes in religious services. Despite the new statutes, snake handling persisted. Between 1936-1973, 35 persons died from poisonous bites, including Hensley who died on June 24, 1955 at the age of 74.


Spendi's quote also makes me think of tents full of revivalists all begging to be saved and healed... I hate to think what I'll find when I look that up.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Wed 24 May, 2006 12:06 pm
I just thought the following was an interesting article. It addresses the question of *why* discussions of ID and Evolution and Creationism are important. It has little to do with determining correct science, because we already know correct science. It has more to do with freedom and constitutional law.

Source

Quote:

Science and the First Amendment
Patricia J. Princehouse

When I was a grad student, I had romantic notions about how knowledge was gained, how science was done and how democracy worked. Little by little, those notions have changed.

One blow came when I was doing field work at a 19-million-year-old fossil site in Africa. This wonderful site had six different species of fossil hominoids all living in the same place at the same time. It had been declared a national monument, and yet the shoestring budget couldn't muster the funds to bring all the fossils back to the museum. Many had to be left to erode into dust, along with all the knowledge they could have offered.

I had the notion that scientific investigation was always well planned-out, with reasonably clear and specific expectations for how knowledge would advance. This view was challenged when my adviser at Yale explained how a crucial discovery in human evolution actually came about. They were in the field in Africa, he said, and they were really bored. No one had found much of anything and it was too hot to breathe anyway. The only thing they kept finding were piles and piles of fresh elephant dung. It's not clear how it got started, but at some point somebody chucked a handful of elephant dung at someone, and pretty soon they were in the middle of an elephant dung slinging contest. At one point, he hit the deck to avoid getting plastered, and right in front of his eyes was a fossilized footprint. The dung-slinging escapade led to the discovery of a trail of 3 million-year-old footprints made by three individuals of the same species as the fossil hominid Lucy. Three million years ago, a volcano had erupted, and before the ashfall had hardened, these three had crossed the tuff. Two of the individuals were walking together, and the third, a tiny child, was stepping into the footprints of one of the adults. This wonderful find was the result of serendipitous elephant dung.

That's not exactly how I thought science worked. But it turns out that gaining knowledge and doing science is a messy business, impinged on by all sorts of prosaic issues like funding and elephant dung. And I've come to love seeing how embedded science is in the rest of human endeavor. I've learned to value such stories as going to the heart of science as a very creative and very human enterprise.

But what about democracy? What about the noble Constitution? I used to think the US Constitution was fixed, an absolute guarantee of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press in this country. The past five years have shown me that the Constitution is valuable only insofar as people are willing to stand up for the rights it protects. Our freedoms are guaranteed only as long as ordinary, everyday people are willing to claim them--indeed, to insist on them.

People ask me, Why pour so much energy into protecting science education? Why not fight for literacy generally or any of a thousand other educational issues? I have two answers. One is easy: I know about evolution, so it makes sense that I would work on what I know best. The second is harder to grasp. And that is that freedom of religion is the bedrock foundation of liberty in this country. If we allow certain special-interest religious groups to co-opt the public school science classroom, to use it as a vehicle for converting children to religious views their parents don't hold, if we allow them to spout outright lies about the nature and content of science, what do we really have left? If you can lie about science and get away with it, you can lie about anything.

Evolution is just the tip of the iceberg or, as the creationists put it, the leading edge of "the wedge." The wedge they are seeking to drive through the heart of American democracy. The lies about science are not limited to evolution. Every day more lies about science seep into public consciousness. Lies about stem cell biology, lies about global warming, about clean air and water, lies about sexuality, about conception and contraception, lies about the effects of hurricanes on metropolitan infrastructure.

The war on science is a war on democracy itself. And the special weapons and tactics are rhetorical. The enemies of democracy use the language of tolerance to attack it from inside. Why, they ask, are we "censoring" the evidence for "intelligent design"? Why do we deny our teachers the "right" to use their "academic freedom" to teach "critical analysis" of evolution. Isn't it only fair to teach both the evidence for and against evolution? All these clever ploys play well in the media on this issue and many, many others, and we will see these word games more and more in coming years. I call it the "orange is the new pink" strategy; every time the public cottons on to a catch term like "creation science" or "intelligent design," they change to a more neutral-sounding term like "critical analysis" or "evidence against." But defenders of American freedom are learning to stand up and say no, it really is fair to forbid teachers to lie to students, to prohibit school boards from using the power of the state to convert children to other peoples' religions. Tolerance requires judgment.

So the rhetorical battle is pitched and the enemy is well armed. But it turns out that standing up for freedom and democracy is a lot like doing science. You start with noble principles and do the best you can, but when you get right down to it, you spend a lot of time dodging elephant dung.

Defending the Constitution is a messy business, but is it worth it? You betcha. Our future depends on it.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Wed 24 May, 2006 12:16 pm
Thanks, Rosborne. Patricia Princehouse has been active fighting anti-evolution legislation in Ohio.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 24 May, 2006 12:51 pm
In ros's quote, amidst the elephant dung, lies this little gem-

Quote:
One is easy: I know about evolution, so it makes sense that I would work on what I know best.


Tittering time.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 24 May, 2006 12:55 pm
spendi wrote:
I'm not sure about that wande. My impression has been that, all other things being equal, which they rarely are, the religious people get ill less than irreligious people so medical applications are less needed for them. I think concentrations of religious people have lower suicide rates, lower murder and general violence rates, lower mental health problems, lower stress levels, lower venereal disease difficulties, lower teenage pregnancy rates, lower percentages of single parent families and generally all round better health and happiness ratings and so on and so forth. In a nutshell-less social problems and greater longevity.

When you speak of "religious people," exactly who are these people?

You probably missed the history of the Crusades and the Inquisition. The religious based conflict in Ireland, and presently in Iraq.

Considering that over 80 percent of Americans are Christians, the suicide rate is "better" than which countries? The same goes for murder and general violence.

You must come out of your shell (pub) once-in-awhile to learn about the "real" world.

Your reality is all screwed up!
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 24 May, 2006 01:00 pm
ros wrote-

Quote:
Spendi's quote also makes me think of tents full of revivalists all begging to be saved and healed... I hate to think what I'll find when I look that up.


Aw gee ros. And I was hoping my little post would inspire someone to get out the statistics on typical religious and irreligious communities in the US as they relate to the few pathological problems I mentioned.

I never thought that all I would get is an anti-scientific stick and paste job of no consequence and a similarly inconsequential conclusion of the Newspeak variety.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 24 May, 2006 01:01 pm
* Oxford Journals
* Medicine
* International Journal of Epidemiology
* Volume 27, Number 2
* Pp. 214-221

© 1998 Oxford University Press
research-article
Firearm-related deaths in the United States and 35 other high- and upper-middle- income countries
EG Krug, KE Powell and LL Dahlberg

Division of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease control and Prevention Mallstop K60, 4770 Buford Hwy, Atlanta, GA 30341, USA

BACKGROUND: The Forty-Ninth World Health Assembly recenttly declared violence a worldwide public health problem. Improved understand of cross-national differences is useful for identifying risk factors and may facilitate prevention efforts. Few cross-national studies, however, have explored firearm-related deaths. We compared the incidence of firearm-related deaths among 36 countries.

METHODS: Health officials in high-income (HI) and upper-middle-income countries (UMI) with populations greater than one million were asked to provide data using ICD-9 codes on firearm-related homicides, suicides, unintentional deaths and deaths of undetermined intent, as well as homicides and suicides for all methods combined. Thirty-six (78%) of the 46 countries provided complete data. We compared age-adjusted rates per 100 000 for each country and pooled rates by income group and geographical location.

RESULTS: During the one-year study period, 88 649 firearm deaths were reported. Overall firearm mortality rates are five to six times higher in HI and UMI countries in the Americas (12.72) than in Europe (2.17), or Oceania (2.57) and 95 times higher than in Asia (0.13). The rate of firearm deaths in the United States (14.24 per 100 000) exceeds that of its economic counterparts (1.76) eightfold and that of UMI countries (9.69) by a factor of 1.5. Suicide and homicide contribute equally to total firearm deaths in the US, but most firearm deaths are suicides (71%) in HI countries and homicides (72%) in UMI countries.

CONCLUSIONS: Firearm death rates vary markedly throughout th industrialized world. Further research to identify risk factors associated with these variations may help improve prevention efforts.

Keywords Firearms, violence, suicide, homicide, cross-cultural comparison, developed countries, epidemiology

Accepted 21 August 1997
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 24 May, 2006 01:05 pm
But when the U.S. rate is 70 times higher to 110 times higher, at some point we have to say ŒStop looking for a genetic focus and concentrate on social and cultural factors.' We haven't had a homicide in a child under 16 in Boston for 18 months, and while Boston is an interesting city, we certainly didn't change the gene pool."

Nowhere is the peculiarly American ambivalence toward violence more evident than in the issue of guns. Estimates place the number of guns now circulating in the United States at over 200 million--nearly one for every man, woman, and child. With so many firearms so readily available, it's not surprising that gunshots are the leading cause of death for black teens‹and the second leading cause of death for white teens.

"Day after day, 100 people die from guns--and half of these are suicides. Clearly it's an American problem.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 10/16/2024 at 12:57:43