Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Farmerman mentioned author and researcher Stephen R. Palumbi. I found an interesting comment by Palumbi regarding knowledge of evolutionary processes:

Bernie wrote in a long overdue sighting-



No problem with "urban intellectuals". Separated from the earth by hideous slabs of concrete and tarmac interlaced with pipes of various biologically and psychologically derived functions and only connected to the plant and animal world through mastication through excretion processes their narrowed minds find solace in inventing a range of appropriate behaviour patterns, appropriate to their subjectivity I mean, which they recommend, often forcefully, to the rest of us. The wavelengths of light entering their optical apparatus are limited by cost effectiveness,dyes being called into use, and almost every sound which penetrates their ear-lugs is jarring to the central nervous system. Their taste buds are vitalised by spices drawn from all corners of the world on the novelty/fashion principle and their commonest olfactory experiences are of hot cooking fat and room refreshers. Tactile encounters are confined to opportunities to obtain tension relief and the urgency caused by overstimulation of the libido leads to a surprising eclecticism in this regard.

Due to the fact that they control all organs of media it is only to be expected that they will attempt, enraged with jealousy as they are, to force such a way of life onto everyone else and will thus react positively, with Pavlovian certainty, to any half-baked scheme such as anti-ID which leaves no room for doubt as to the exclusive supremacy of a posteriori over a priori. They bet the house on reason on the basis of their own contemplation of their own capacity to reason and they could be starved out in a week by a determined rural revolt of superstitious yokels.

I have no difficulty in describing urban intellectuals apart from the obvious shortage of time which causes me to distill the essence down to a few drops.

wande-

Could you explain the meaning of "mitigate" in your last quote.

Palumbi made that comment in an essay titled "Humans as the World's Greatest Evolutionary Force". I believe the author was asserting that human beings, by virtue of their population growth, technology, and use of chemical agents, are dramatically affecting evolutionary change in other species. Rapid evolutionary change has some bad side-effects for global ecology. Our understanding of evolutionary processes could help us to "mitigate" our negative impact on ecology.

Good reason for young students to learn evolutionary theory, spendi!

wande wrote-



With the "could" and migation possibly meaning almost zero and altering the sentence to "will help us" and exacerbating negative effects which is much the most likely could provide a good reason for students not to learn evolutionary theory.

You scientifics don't half use loose language in order to delude yourselves.

It doesn't delude me. When did we ever show any sign of mitigating our negative effect on the ecology. The Chicago job, a miniscule affair in ecological terms,certainly didn't mitigate any negative effects on the ecology and permission was granted for the other 6 or 7 billion to try it if they get the chance and the posts did try to make it sound fantastic.

Pull the table leg wande! Not mine and others on A2K.

You should be in politics.

spendi,

I answered your question by giving the context in which the author used the term "mitigate". It was a totally honest answer on my part. I tried to explain what the author meant.

I don't know why you waste your time, Wandel. It is evident to me an everyone else here that you post in good faith. You should ignore the old dypsomaniac--he just feeds on the attention, which i suspect he can't get anywhere else.

It's spelled "dipsomaniac". did you just call spendi an old drunk?

I wouldn't read Veblen on why folks have dogs if I was you after a feeble crack like that.

Is everyone who posts seeking attention in some way. At least I don't put my fissog up on show.

And I think wande can decide for himself whether he is wasting his time which he self-evidently didn't think he was doing.



wande-

You drew a conclusion about the teaching of evolution from the meaningless Palumbi sentence, which I had not previously commented on, which was not justified.That's why I came in. Palumbi's hopeless sentence is in no way of use for that conclusion.

It is odd though that the only poster on this long running and popular thread who defends ID is accused of being an attention seeker and all the others who are anti-ID are not.

There is only one explanation for that. Setanta thinks that all the readers of this thread are stupid.

There is never only one reason for anything, spendi. It is because of presumptions like that, your posts are so vapid.

He must think other posters are stupid to think they are going to miss that point.

Or are you suggesting he might be stupid and the others patronisingly let it pass.

Did you think my post on "urban intellectuals" was vapid.

I'll bet Bernie doesn't agree.

wande wrote-



How many reasons are there for your presence on the earth.

snood wrote-



Hi snoodie-

It's no sweat.

Being considerably more intelligent than some I could mention you obviously know what a thought experiment is.

So

Let us suppose,just for the sake of having a good laugh, that this thread was concerned with the relative merits of beer or lager,which are two alcoholic beverages derived from different plants,which,as you know,are favoured by different types of soil and climatic conditions and thus the relative merits of the two beverages has important economic implications regarding such things as property values and suchlike.

Let us further suppose,a not unreasonable supposition IMHAHO,that I am the only supporter of beer due to the fact that my old man owns 50,000 hectares of prime beer plant land and I'm being ganged up on by a bunch of semi-literate lager louts.

Now.

I might easily say,having been granted permission by the assertions of the other side, that the leader of the lager louts, and their henchmen, had been whelped by progenitors who ate the flesh of wolves raw and had been baptised in the saliva of a rabid dog.

I would say such a thing, once assertions have been institutionalised as scientific fact by the lager louts, in order to rack up the outrage of my semi-educated beer drinking fans (a euphemism for stupid beer drinkers) whose numbers are not inconsiderable and who, I feel sure,as they take these matters very seriously, would soon start chanting "Woof woof" and "Up from the back" and howling ironically everytime the moon showed up. If I provided them with a short verse about tail wagging, or being on heat or pricked ears, I am confident they could easily find a tune to put it to and then sing it with gusto.

I would, of course, make sure I knew what letters to couch my phrasings in as even semi-educated beer drinkers (a euphemism for stupid beer drinkers) would laugh at me if I said "drynkers" or "salyva".

Not that I would ever think of making such easy to do assertions about my opponents due to the fact that I was not brought up in the 7th or 8th century when even Popes and Patriarchs engaged in such underhand tactics although I must admit they had a bit more style in those days than the girl's infant school playground bleats of today.

Is this a sitting duck competition?

I'm not sure, but it seems to me nothing spendi's posted provides any solid basis for attributing to him any particular specific elderliness; if that in fact is correct, if nothing spendi's posted provides definite, or at least probable, indication of his age, then asserting he is an "OLD" drunk would be unwarranted. Now, if someone remembers and drags up a post in which spendi narrows down his age demographic to within say give or take a half decade or so, then I'm wrong, and if that age is closer to say 60 than to 40, then OLD might be warranted - still, though, even that might be a matter of perspective; most days I don't feel all that old, though my 59th birthday is a relatively distant memory.

Okay timber - that takes care of old...

what about "drunk"?

Some things which endeavor to look, walk, and quack like ducks just sit there, snood ... make your own call on that.

thank you yoda - I mean timber....

:wink:

SOUTH CAROLINA UPDATE