Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

fm-

I don't support creationism. Whatever gave you that idea? It can't have been anything I said.

I am fully on board with Darwin and his theories. Why else would I have these books by him and about him in my residence otherwise.

I just don't think that his theories are suitable for the general public. OK you may say that is elitist but there it is. Inheritance of traits is achieved through sexual relations and Darwin's theories only apply to situations where those are regulated by nothing other than nature. Would you really like to see human sexual relations regulated by the same forces that are in operation in the fields Darwin studied and why would adolescents come to any other conclusion after studying Darwin than that they have been given intellectual justification for carrying on in the same way animals do when left to themselves.

Almost every law and custom humans have, even in primitive societies, of regulating sexual behaviour is anti-Darwin in essence although I will admit that with the decline of religion we may well be moving towards his position.

And it is not a pretty sight and extrapolating the general direction of it, which is to be expected if no inhibition exists, has many manifestations which I don't think anti-IDers have thought through or, if they have, must enthusiastically embrace.

You must realise that a 50% divorce rate represents the breakdown of the marriage relation. One can hardly expect that only the 50% who go to the trouble and the upset to get divorced are the only ones who have thought of doing.An animal has no sense of duty.

There are a number of scientific arguments relating to these important matters which cannot possibly be placed on threads which censored my innocuous post yesterday.

It is a disadvantage to my side and we live with it. I would blow you away in the pub. Even mild hints have sent grown men scuttering for cover.

So there's a position to take and having taken it one is fully justified in employing every low down trick to support it.

I hope you didn't shoot too many lovely little defenceless squirrels or any that had a warm nest of babies awaiting their return.

0 Replies

Quote:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3634&program=DI%20Main%20Page%20-%20News&callingPage=discoMainPage

Explain Evolution's Weakness

By: Pete Chadwell
Bend Bulletin
July 3, 2006

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Original Article

Recently, the state of South Carolina joined Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Kansas and New Mexico by approving statewide science standards which require a critical analysis of evolution in science classrooms. In these five states the standard-issue Darwinian evolution will still be taught, but with an interesting twist which ought to raise some eyebrows - the scientific WEAKNESSES of Darwinian theory will ALSO be disclosed.

In a country where ideals such as free speech, diversity, balance and tolerance are preached constantly, the remaining states DO NOT ALLOW the scientific weaknesses of Darwinian evolution to be presented in our public school science classrooms. This means that, in the state of Oregon (and 44 others) Darwinian evolution is taught as sheer dogma - scientific weaknesses are withheld from our students and Darwinian evolution is presented as a theory of origins that is incontrovertible.

Is this truly indicative of where American high schools are at concerning free speech or is this simply more indicative of the "Discovery" Institute?

0 Replies

JTT,

Your quote is indicative of the Discovery Institute's propaganda.

South Carolina rejected an attempt to single out evolution for critical analysis. The legislative language was replaced with a general statement that all academic subjects should include critical analysis. It is a gross distortion to say that South Carolina is requiring critical analysis of evolution.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

JTT,

Your quote is indicative of the Discovery Institute's propaganda.

South Carolina rejected an attempt to single out evolution for critical analysis. The legislative language was replaced with a general statement that all academic subjects should include critical analysis. It is a gross distortion to say that South Carolina is requiring critical analysis of evolution.

Thank you, Wandeljw. I had kind of suspected as much. Did you notice the quotes around "Discovery". They weren't typos, I can assure you.

Could you please point me towards some sources which support what you've just told me?

0 Replies

spendi doesn't support creationism, but wants it taught in our schools.

What's wrong with this picture?

0 Replies

JTT: This is how the Associated Press reported on South Carolina:

Quote:

Education panel approves wording on biology standards
(Associated Press, June 12, 2006)

COLUMBIA, S.C. - The state Education Oversight Committee approved high school biology standards Monday that do not require students to learn to critically analyze the theory of evolution.

The wording of standards had caused an impasse between the committee and the state Board of Education.

Education Board members and state Education Superintendent Inez Tenenbaum worried the change would open the door to teaching alternative theories such as intelligent design.

Under the wording approved Monday, students would have to understand how scientists use data to critically analyze the theory.

"Scientific inquiry is taught at every grade level and in every discipline," Education Department spokesman Jim Foster said. "It does not require students to study alternatives to evolution that are decidedly out of the mainstream."

Monday's unanimous vote to approve the standards without more controversial wording came with almost no discussion and there was no mention of evolution.

"I cannot see this as anything other than a victory," said Casey Luskin, a spokesman for Discovery Institute, a Seattle, Wash.-based think tank that encourages critical analysis of evolution. "Students will now learn the scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolution."

Both the Education Board and the oversight committee had to approve the biology standards before they could be adopted. The standards have to be approved every seven years, meaning the debate could begin again in 2010.

0 Replies

Frankly, I welcome and encourage the efforts of the Creationist?Id-iocy crowd; the simple fact of the matter is that Creationism/ID-iocy is unscientific, has no claim to legitimacy as science, and should not be taught as science. As philosophy, perhaps, though there are problems with that, too; in the final analysis, the Creationism/ID-iocy concept relates most closely to that subset of philosophy known as theology.

The only controvery is that manufactured by proponents of Creationism/ID-iocy; within the legitimate scientific and academic communities there is no alternative to Darwinian Evolution. Evolution itself is a fact, supported by all available evidence, absolutely without contraindication. The Theory of Evolution is the best available scientific explanation of the particulars and mechanics of evolution, just as the Theory of Gravity is the best available sceintific explanation of the particulars and mechanics of gravity, or The Theory of Electromagnetism is the best available scientific explanation of the particulars and mechanics of electromagnetism..

That some folks choose to think otherwise is immaterial; facts are facts. There no point offering rational rebuttal to those convinced of Creationism/ID-iocy; their mindset precludes rational discussion. In the long run, their pressing of their agenda will serve but to the most severe inconvenience of that agenda, serving only to even more concretely than is the present case not only to further separate religion from government, but to more greatly compartmentalize religion away from government - and thus from society.

That is a good thing.

0 Replies

c.i. wrote-

Quote:

spendi doesn't support creationism, but wants it taught in our schools

I have never said any such thing.

Can everybody else on here just say anything they want except me?

I never have given the slightest hint that I want creationism taught in your schools. Assuming you mean Genesis by that and if you don't what do you mean.

0 Replies

I am very appreciative of the insights of Darwin into the mechanisms of biological change (i.e., natural selection), and I am a firm believer in Nietzsche's (and Buddhism's) this-worldly perspective on the meaning or potential meaning of human life. Nevertheless, I am attracked to my notion that the universe is both stupid in the sense of Darwin's blind mechanisms of change and has some kind of, so-far unimaginable, "intelligence." But I must stress that this "intelligence" is nothing like human intelligence or our fairy tale attribution of Grand Intelligence to a human writ very large.

0 Replies

Look timber-

Can't you understand that ID has nothing to do with creationism. One might even argue that ID is the only thing which will reduce the power of creationism. Scientific, atheistic materialism certainly won't. It's inhuman you see.

I could understand you continually trying to link the two if you were going from town to town with a new audience every day but on here the matter has been dealt with on a number of occasions.

You are actually fighting a platoon that is on the same side as you.

The theory of electromagnetism (and nobody knows what electricity or magnetism is) and the theory of gravity ( and nobody knows what that is either) do not impinge on human behaviour in anything remotely as much as the theory of evolution does and it is humans we are dealing with rather than mechanical objects or waves of force.

Besides,you have said all that on many previous occasions.

I don't know who you think you are preaching to. Nobody has disputed anything you said there.

Can't you see that-

Quote:

The Theory of Evolution is the best available scientific explanation of the particulars and mechanics of evolution, just as the Theory of Gravity is the best available sceintific explanation of the particulars and mechanics of gravity, or The Theory of Electromagnetism is the best available scientific explanation of the particulars and mechanics of electromagnetism..

are just three tautologies. The best available scientific explanation of the mechanics of electromagnetism is the theory of electromagnetism.

Sheesh!

You're not going to give the kids that are you?

0 Replies

spendi, facts are facts, what I've referenced is fact, and another fact is that your "focus" on some imagined sociological impact is absolutely immaterial in the face of established fact. There simply is no validity to your proposition. I take particular notice of your assertion Creationism and ID-iocy be distinct from one another; the two are as different as would be an individual wearing one style of shoe or another.

The Creationist/ID-iot crowd in the US seek ultimately to get their proposition before the Supreme Court, and the sooner they manage to do so, the better, as far as I'm concerned; that the resultant decision will be fatally contrary to what the proponents of Creationism/ID-iocy intend is a foregone conclusion - facts are facts, Constitutional Law is Constitutional Law, and subjected to both, the Creationist/ID-iocy proposition hasn't a prayer.

0 Replies

Well timber-

I'm glad you finally said-

Quote:

The Creationist/ID-iot crowd in the US

The thread title does not mention the US. Intelligent design is an idea which Copernicus gave voice to as have many other famous scientists
both before and after him.

And it is not an imaginary sociological impact either. As my posting of the piece from Veblen yesterday was meant to show there is an economic impact as well as a sociological one.

There is a business interest on either side. I suspect you may be right about the Supreme Court but,if so, it only represents a further victory for city based hegemonies. It will be a political decision. I wouldn't mind representing the ID side in there.

An atheistic, scientific materialism will not work in my opinion. In the SC I would assume your side will be challenged to show how it might by people who have research teams which I don't have. They weren't at Dover as far as I could tell.

The omission was so blatant that I thought ID took a dive.

Did you read the Veblen piece? And he murders such things as creationism with dripping vitriol.

Anyway-what's the timetable?

0 Replies

Quote:

Precious angel, under the sun,
How was I to know you'd be the one
To show me I was blinded, to show me I was gone
How weak was the foundation I was standing upon?

Now there's spiritual warfare and flesh and blood breaking down.
Ya either got faith or ya got unbelief and there ain't no neutral ground.
The enemy is subtle, how be it we are so deceived
When the truth's in our hearts and we still don't believe?

Shine your light, shine your light on me
Shine your light, shine your light on me
Shine your light, shine your light on me
Ya know I just couldn't make it by myself.
I'm a little too blind to see.

My so-called friends have fallen under a spell.
They look me squarely in the eye and they say, "All is well."
Can they imagine the darkness that will fall from on high
When men will beg God to kill them and they won't be able to die?

Sister, lemme tell you about a vision I saw.
You were drawing water for your husband, you were suffering under the law.
You were telling him about Buddha, you were telling him about Mohammed
in the same breath.
You never mentioned one time the Man who came and died a criminal's death.

Shine your light, shine your light on me
Shine your light, shine your light on me
Shine your light, shine your light on me
Ya know I just couldn't make it by myself.
I'm a little too blind to see.

Precious angel, you believe me when I say
What God has given to us no man can take away.
We are covered in blood, girl, you know our forefathers were slaves.
Let us hope they've found mercy in their bone-filled graves.

You're the queen of my flesh, girl, you're my woman, you're my delight,
You're the lamp of my soul, girl, and you torch up the night.
But there's violence in the eyes, girl, so let us not be enticed
On the way out of Egypt, through Ethiopia, to the judgment hall of Christ.

Shine your light, shine your light on me
Shine your light, shine your light on me
Shine your light, shine your light on me
Ya know I just couldn't make it by myself.
I'm a little too blind to see.

Bob Dylan.

" Can they imagine the darkness that will fall from on high
When men will beg God to kill them and they won't be able to die?"

Well-the lawyers and the medics need to get their cut in an atheistic,scientific ,materialistic set-up.Why not?

Oscar winning,Grammy Awarded,Legion of Honoured,Hall of Faming, Genius of the Highest Order,Composer of Mr Tambourine Man,a feat unparalleled in the annals of song,multi-millionaire who jacked university because he wouldn't watch a rabbit die, who told a big TV network to shove it when he hadn't got 10 cents in his pocket, top of the bill at Live Aid because nobody dared go on after him, and who is loved by millions in every nation on earth and I am one of them. And so are all my best mates.And their ladies.

0 Replies

Nice to see ol' Bobby's found honest work - he's a passable DJ. I've been catching his show fairly regularly. Never knew he was a big baseball fan 'til I heard him going on and on and on about it between music and reminiscing.

0 Replies

OHIO UPDATE

Quote:

Revisiting intelligent design

0 Replies

wande quoted-

Quote:

"Discuss and be able to apply this in the following areas: global warning; evolutionary theory; emerging technologies and how they may impact society, e.g. cloning or stem-cell research."

timber wrote-

Quote:

spendi, facts are facts, what I've referenced is fact, and another fact is that your "focus" on some imagined sociological impact is absolutely immaterial in the face of established fact.

There are many other areas besides cloning and stem-cell research which will impact on society and on every member of it and in a profound way.

timber's assertion is obviously not accepted by Ms Grady. Nor by me.

Evolutionites are living a life of indulgence and hiding behind the fact that the impact of evolution theory on society is too sensitive a subject to discuss even in their own homes.

On the Chicago Meeting thread the impact of global warming was much too sensitive a topic for the participants to even contemplate. They just didn't wish to know. When I raised it I was an "annoying buzzing noise" as if that was a reply suitable for adults.They buried their heads in the sand which is tame stuff indeed compared to what most evolutionites will do in a proper discussion of evolution theory's impact on society which is already strikingly apparent to those who have their eyes and ears open.

0 Replies

U.S. CONGRESS UPDATE

Quote:

Freedoms should be celebrated, not hobbled by laws
(WILLIAM CONNELLY, Evansville Post-Courier, July 9, 2006)

This week, U.S. citizens celebrated their good fortune to live in a nation with a constitution that guarantees our fundamental rights and protects us from oppressive majorities and their tendency to be swayed by the emotion of the moment.

An example of emotion- clouding judgment was Congress' recent debate regarding the flag-burning amendment. We were spared this embarrassment by one vote. (For what it is worth, the silliness was bi-partisan.)

It is important that we remain vigilant to ensure that the rights protected and guaranteed by the Constitution are not be weakened by rule changes.

Eighth District U.S. Rep. John Hostettler, supported by friends of the Religious Right in the legal community, has proposed such a change. HR 2679 (also known as the Public Expression of Religion Act, or PERA), if passed, would alter a rule in cases involving the religious establishment clause of the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof").

Currently, if someone sues a public institution (such as a school or governmental body) for actions that violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment and wins, the public institution is responsible for that person's legal fees. That seems fair. The institution, after all, wronged the individual.

However, defenders of PERA believe that current practice discourages public officials and public employees from expressing their religious beliefs in their official capacities, violating their right to freely exercise their religion. A more plausible interpretation is that it rightly discourages public officials and public employees from using their official positions to impose their particular religious beliefs on others, especially religious minorities. It is just this sort of imposition the Constitution should prevent.

Imagine if a teacher, in his official capacity, were to lead a prayer in class endorsing a particular religion (say a non- Christian prayer invoking "the one true God who has begotten no other").

Under PERA, a student or parent who successfully sued the school would still be responsible for his legal fees. The litigant would be forced to pay for the constitutional right not to have a religious practice to which he objects forced upon him.

Were PERA enacted, only those with substantial resources would likely be willing and able to exercise their constitutional rights. Is that what we are about?

Proponents of PERA would have us believe that it's all about the right of public officials to express their religious beliefs in public. It isn't. No one is denied the right of religious expression. We are prohibited only from using an official public position to impose our religious practices on others.

The Religious Right and its legal allies seem to believe that the establishment clause of the First Amendment is a mere corollary of the free exercise clause. On the contrary, it is an equally important and distinct foundation of our constitutional framework. Together they have ensured that our nation not become a theocracy.

Our freedom to practice religion and our right not to have those in power impose their religion on us have enriched our religious and public lives. Those freedoms should be celebrated, not discouraged by misguided measures such as PERA.

0 Replies

Most members of congress are ready to defile our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The only power we have as citizens is to remove all of them during the next election.

If we don't, we deserve everything they throw at us in the destruction of our democracy and freedoms.

0 Replies

c.i. wrote-

Quote:

The only power we have as citizens is to remove all of them during the next election.

This should be good. Alert the BBC. Exciting and dramatic footage of the outcome of c.i.'s wisdom will see football off quickstyle.

0 Replies

There is a significant "throw the bums out" groundswell that is approaching the beach in US. We have Senators an Congress men whove been in office too long and are more beholden to their big cash domors than to the citizens.

As we discussed before wandel, you feel that the HR wont be passed. I say, on the outside chance that it is, 2 things will happen
1There will be an immediate court test of the conflict that this legislation would present to the very foundation of ID seeing itself as "science " rather than religion.

2If, to comply with the protection afforded by the HR, the ID esr and Creqtionists have to admit that they are , in reality a religious based case then they are directly conflicting with the establishment clause and would immediately be something that the USSC would have to become entangled again. Whish would shake the foundation of the legality of this HR.

In that respect, Id love to see this get its day in court, its so loaded with internal confluicts that Id probably say itd default back to your initial position that, unless Congress were full of fools Shocked

Then they (hopefully) would be sharp enough not to futz with such a proposal

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know