Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Thanks, Boss. I was inspired by Spendi to post at length on a subject of no particular interest, and without the least relevance to the topic at hand.

0 Replies

The appeals court decision on the "evolution sticker" case neither affirms nor reverses the January 2005 district court decision. Instead the three judges decided to return the case to the district court to conduct new evidentiary hearings after additional factfinding. The appeals court did not express an opinion on the constitutional issue. The three judges felt that the record on the original decision did not contain enough evidence.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

timber-

I have finally found the time to study your post of May 24 (2056752) for which many thanks.

Yer weccum

Quote:

There is much in it to discuss. Too much actually.

Not really - other, perhaps, than to your perception - and there's nothing there to dispute.

Quote:

In your view could the Judge at Dover have given any other opinion had he had a mind to. By which I mean had his own sympathies been with the school board in the underlying tone of its position without reference to the manner in which they proceeded. It seems odd that a Republican appointee of Mr Bush should be so unequivocal and so unsympathetic to a position one would normally expect him to, if not endorse, at least be more neutral about.

Of course that possibility exists, however, in that a Federal Judge charged with rendering a decision in a matter of particular potential national significance would be expected to err on the side of caution as would regard the potential of that decision being overturned by a higher court, the possibility must be considered exceedingly remote. Stranger things than Jones having gone the other way - sided with the ID-iots - have happened in Federal Courts, but only very rarely.

Quote:

Would you agree that the teaching of evolution science without any qualification constitutes, in effect, the teaching of irreligion which, in some eyes, might be seen as a type of religion?

No, I would not agree; any such proposition would be sophistic.

Quote:

Would you agree that such teaching of evolution without qualification could not sit comfortably in a school and in a community with the teaching of the qualifiers to evolution in other classrooms in close proximity and that teaching evolution without qualifiers in one classroom thus necessitates that it is the sole process throughout the school in order to avoid dissension and the risk of science and the school being discredited in some families?

No, I most emphatically would not agree; ignorance, prejudice, and superstition are antithetical to education, academic integrity, and intellectual honsesty.

Quote:

What do you see as the advantages of teaching evolution when there is so much non-controversial science to go at and so many other sources outside school for anyone interested in it to learn from if they so wish and which are likely to be of a higher standard than one could expect teachers to be able to match and to which teachers could point their students at when these issues come up,if they do?

As it is an indivorceable component of science, validated and corroborated through the cosmologic, geologic, and biologic sciences, suggesting there be basis for, let alone endorsing, any concept that the fact of evolution be subject to legitimate scientific controversy is at once unforgivably ingnorant and patently absurd.

Quote:

But thanks again and I'm sorry I took so long to read your post but it was obvious that it deserved a little more diligence than usual.

No need to apologize for the delay - I await patiently the results of your diligence. Do be sure to let me know if and when you have that handled.

0 Replies

An addendum - I was disappointed to see spendi's list of oxymorons ommitted a couple of my faves - "Military Intelligence" and "Government Assistance".

And at the head of the list oughtta go "Theologicaly valid" and the compatriot term "Biblical Innerrancy".

0 Replies

Or "Biblical Truth."

0 Replies

timber wrote-

Quote:

And at the head of the list oughtta go "Theologicaly valid"

I'll let that pass due to the extreme sensitivity of the subject. You might be a mite shocked if you unleashed it on me in the pub after a few pints and I was in the mood for unpicking a few of your petit bourgeois sentimentalities which I do believe the learned Judge shares as well he might. And assuming there were no witnesses.

All things which passeth the understanding are incoherent to those whose understanding they passeth.

0 Replies

KANSAS UPDATE

Quote:

Evolution, religion comments put heat on department spokesman
(By Sophia Maines, Lawrence Journal-World, May 26, 2006)

Normally, a government spokesman helps deliver news.

But David Awbrey, the mouthpiece for the Kansas State Department of Education, is making the news following his comments about science, evolution and religion at a recent public forum.

The controversy may drive him out of the job.

"I haven't been house-trained in public relations," Awbrey said Thursday, adding, "I'm going to have to spend some time during the next week or two thinking about where I'm going to go with my career."

Awbrey is a Kansas University graduate and former newspaperman who once was editorial page editor for the Wichita Eagle.

At a Kansas City Press Club forum earlier this month, Awbrey argued that evolution proponents are practicing a religion. Supporting evolution, he said, is metaphysical speculation.

"Anyone see the origin?" he said. "Anyone see the Big Bang? Anyone see the dinosaurs? These are metaphysical speculations."

Sue Gamble, a moderate Republican member of the state board who attended the forum, said she emphatically disagreed with the tone and content of Awbrey's statements.

Janet Waugh, also a Democrat and board member, had similar sentiments.

"When he is doing his job as public information officer, he should not have an opinion," said Waugh, who did not attend the forum. "When he is speaking for the board, he should represent the entire board. I think it was totally inappropriate."

********************************************************

Awbrey's statements provoked a Kansas resident to pen a letter to the editor that appeared in The Topeka Capital-Journal newspaper.

"Mr. Awbrey's starting salary at the KSDE is $76,000 per year," wrote Cheryl Shepherd-Adams, of Hays. "He knows less about science than a beginning science teacher who will have to work for about 10 years to earn just half of Mr. Awbrey's paycheck. Why is he telling that same teacher how science should be taught?"

Awbrey then wrote a reply.

"I think we should be humble and avoid claiming absolute knowledge of things that could well be beyond our intellectual or moral abilities to comprehend," Awbrey wrote, signing the letter with his communications director title.

A self-described "theistic evolutionist," Awbrey said Thursday he believes that both sides of the evolution debate are unyielding and both are engaged in metaphysical speculation.

0 Replies

It is charming to see jokers like that shoot themselves in the foot.

0 Replies

He seems to me from wande's post to be the sort of chap one wouldn't mind keeping company with in the pub.

His error being-

Quote:

"When he is speaking for the board, he should represent the entire board. I think it was totally inappropriate."

But it is slightly comforting to know that someone in his position-

Quote:

argued that evolution proponents are practicing a religion.

.

I think I said "type of religion" earlier.

I don't see anything else he said that a reasonable person could take exception to.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

But it is slightly comforting to know that someone in his position-

Quote:
argued that evolution proponents are practicing a religion.
.

According to the news item, the individual himself thinks he may be fired from that position.

0 Replies

Being a student or proponent of evolutionary science is not a religion nor a "type of religion," a sophistic semantic manipulation.

0 Replies

In an essay on theology and philosophy Prof Hepburn of the University of Edinburgh, where Darwin met and was influenced by R.E.Grant, a noted freethinker and beachcomber, has this to say-

"....to preface a statement of doctrine with such words as 'It is divinely revealed that...' cannot confer coherence on what is logically incoherent or make a contradiction come out as true."

and

"...however much of his religious beliefs a theologian regards as revealed, that cannot constitute a complete theistic system. The revealed totality has to be intelligibly related to the deity who allegedly revealed it, imparted it to mankind; and its authority needs to be more convincingly established than that of rival claimants."

I could argue with both these ideas but again only in the pub with no witnesses. But here I'll agree to both.

But-

the professor then goes on-

"There is, of course, one route of escape from that model of 'revealed package plus metaphysical account of its divine origin' ; namely, to see the 'revealed' package as a set of 'pictures', stories, parables by which to regulate human life, and for which no further grounding is possible or appropriate. The religious authority and the efficacy of these pictures, however, when taken in that way, become enigmatic--and questionable.

This I would accept without demur. It is the social consequences argument which lives in the real world of paupers and princes and peasants and kings and not in the iconoclastic reaches of individual minds which would wreck the whole world just to be proved right.

It may be as well to give attention to the "of course" a bit patronising though it is.

0 Replies

So maybe you will all now focus a little more on the social consequences argument or risk being accused of selecting data to suit your position which is pretty unscientific to say the least.

Besides-it is much more interesting and will become more so if there are more Judge Jones's to follow and thus allow you to wallow in your Pyrrhic victories.

As a side issue it is axiomatic that any true scientist finds anything and everything in the world interesting. As my presence on this thread is actually in the world whatever I say is also in the world and can only be designated "twaddle" or "lunacy" or "idiotic" or "splenetic" or "embarrassing" by a totally unscientific mind.

And the use of "splenetic" informs me that anyone using such a description of my posts has hardly yet learned to read which likewise is a fact in the world and thus of some interest.

0 Replies

OK your point is: literalism is silly, parables are just as bad, the net beneficial social consequences argument is easily refuted, and-and-and....... scientists are interested in stuff.

0 Replies

Chum-

You can only assert that-

Quote:

the net beneficial social consequences argument is easily refuted,

on less refined threads than this one. On here I expect you to refute it and especially if doing so is easy.

But I can assure you that it is a lot less easy than asserting it. I can refute it myself but it heads into nihilism. And fast. Nihilists are unsuitable for determining educational policy.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

on less refined threads than this one. On here I expect you to refute it and especially if doing so is easy.

Religious wars
Religious bigotry
Religious prejudice
Religious censorship

Given that there is no weight of evidence to support the view that moral teachings have substantive increased efficacy when combined with a belief in the supernatural my case is presented aptly.

0 Replies

An assumption that those who favor the teaching of a theory of evolution in a science class are nihilists is extravagent bullsh!t even by Spendi's outrageous standards.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote-

Quote:

An assumption that those who favor the teaching of a theory of evolution in a science class are nihilists is extravagent bullsh!t even by Spendi's outrageous standards.

I said nothing remotely like that. You must not be paying attention, but why should you. Derrida said that you can read anything any way you like so Branch Derridians will do I suppose. It has nothing to do with me.

You might try keeping all the balls in the air rather than just one. Reality insists upon it.

Chum wrote-

Quote:

Religious wars
Religious bigotry
Religious prejudice
Religious censorship

If you take Prof Hepburn seriously, as I do, it is the regulation of human life that is fought over. Religion, as a means to regulate human life is only a tool. Obviously bigotry and prejudice will be quite normal in those who think the lives of others should be regulated in a way which suits their interest as Mr Bush pointed out only last night in his fine speech about bringing democracy to Iraq with which our PM agreed.

Are you in favour of no censorship? An intellectual case can be made for that until the social consequences become apparent.

We live in a world where the bulk of the social consequences derived from religious values are still dominant if under threat. You are hiding behind that comfort and seeking to remove it.

Give me an idea of what the removal of the censorship patterns still existing, which derive from Christian values, would look like in actuality.

They tried it for one night in the 1890s at the Can-Can and the cops had to restore order. They tried it in, I think, Denmark in the 1980s and it was called off,again after one try. It's not a question of what Auntie Florence might do--the movers and shakers would take over. There's a massive demand to push the envelope, as they say, which analysis of Google hits confirms by the billion.

0 Replies

Hi Spendi,

There is no reason whatsoever why the "the regulation of human life" imputes a belief in zombies and fairies and ghosts and immortally and miracles etc.

Whether I am, or am not in favor of censorship, in any form, at any time, is wholly irrelevant the point of fact that "religious censorship" has no net positive benefit. The spurious and wholly arbitrary application of superstitions to dictate what should or should not be censored has no basis in rationality.

You asked me to "refute it and especially if doing so is easy", I have done so aptly and our subsequent dialogue changes that not one iota.

Chumly wrote:

spendius wrote:
on less refined threads than this one. On here I expect you to refute it and especially if doing so is easy.
Religious wars
Religious bigotry
Religious prejudice
Religious censorship

Given that there is no weight of evidence to support the view that moral teachings have substantive increased efficacy when combined with a belief in the supernatural my case is presented aptly.

0 Replies

Hi Chum-

Quote:

There is no reason whatsoever why the "the regulation of human life" imputes a belief in zombies and fairies and ghosts and immortally and miracles etc.

That's much to superficial I'm afraid. I know it's true in the abstract and in intellectual word play in ivory towers. I'm in the street with the great unwashed. As a sparky I thought you might be. They like zombies and fairies and the whole bag of tricks that goes along with them. It calms them and comforts them and keeps them on the rails and their noses to the grindstone. And they like that too. They might not admit it but just take it away and see what happens.

I think of "religious censorship" as opposed to other forms,as a euphemism.

As I take my evening bath courtesy of the workers and warriors to whom I owe my deepest gratitude you might ponder that.

Have you skived off early tonight. Top rates for sparkies once the weekend is underway you know. Only the desperate call on weekends. The sitting ducks.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know