Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

spendius wrote:

wolf-

I'm sorry but I can't make head or tail of your post.

Can anybody else make head or tail out of my post?

Quote:

I will ask you though what you mean by "cheat".And don't say please that it is breaking the rules. There are no rules in evolution. There's only destiny.

¬_¬

Actually, it's the opposite. There are rules in evolution (or at least the one). Fittest survives to reproduce. There is no destiny, as the mutation occurs by chance, it is not predetermined.

And of course, when I state cheat I mean breaking the rules. What else could I mean?

Doping is cheating. As you can't cheat in evolution, doping therefore must have nothing to do with evolution, as it does not increase or decrease your ability to reproduce. Actually, now that I think about it, it might decrease your ability to reproduce by damaging your body... so therefore doping goes against evolution. But that's a matter for the philosophers.

Quote:

It's the old story. Evolution principles held just for the style and not for the substance.

Now I can't make head nor tail out of your post.

Quote:

I'm not talking about the situation now in which there's a Christian tradition for you to fall back on. What have you got to offer when the Christian position has been eradicated to hold back the logic of nature?

What makes you think the Christian position will be annihilated by Evolution? Furthermore, have you forgot about Buddhism? Its rules have pretty much the same effect in "holding back the logic of nature".

You keep talking about eugenics, not evolution. Evolution is a fact. It is a process, not a belief. It happens whether you want it to happen or not. Eugenics is the misguided attempt to help it along. They are not the same thing.

Quote:

I don't think you understand the argument wolf. There's too much Christianity in you and you're only pretending otherwise. Perhaps you have not engaged with a source which has fully eradicated it and you would be wise to stay that way.

Wait, there's too much Christianity in me? But I'm not Christian. I refuse to believe that Christ rose from the grave. I refuse to believe in God. My position is more akin to Buddhism than Christianity. I don't know what to say to you people. I've been labelled almost everything. Right-wing, left-wing, Christian, atheist, agnostic, Gnostic, Satanist, homosexual scum, homophobic scum... Make up your freaking minds.

Once again, you're arguing against a strawman. You can't apply all scientific principles to every aspect of life and the Universe. Inanimate objects don't evolve! Individual people don't evolve! You can improve them, but you can't evolve them.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

KANSAS UPDATE

Quote:
Education board evolving
(By Tim Vandenack, The Hutchinson News, August 2, 2006)

Ken Willard, the conservative District 7 incumbent on the Kansas Board of Education, was on his way to victory Tuesday in the Republican primary for the post.
Meanwhile, moderates appeared headed to victory in the contests for two other board of education slots that have been held by conservatives. That bodes for an end to the 6-4 conservative majority on the body and possible reversal of changes to the state's science standards that had allowed for more classroom criticism of evolution, a hot-button issue that had generated national attention.
"The impact is great, you go from 6-4 to 4-6," said Burdett Loomis, a University of Kansas political scientist, alluding to the ideological shift.
With ballots counted from 85 percent of the District 7 precincts, Willard, a Hutchinson insurance company manager, led moderate Republican challenger Donna Viola of McPherson 9,995 votes to 6,937.
M.T. Liggett of Mullinville, another Republican hopeful, trailed with 1,709 votes.
"I'm feeling a lot more comfortable now than I was earlier in the evening," Willard said, alluding to returns early on that indicated a tighter contest. "I'm very appreciative of all the support I've received."
In the other contests:
Sally Cauble of Liberal, the moderate challenger in the District 5 Republican primary, appeared on her way to victory over Connie Morris, the controversial conservative incumbent from St. Francis.
With votes from 75 percent of the precincts in the western Kansas district counted, Cauble was winning 9,589 votes to 8,279.
Jana Shaver of Independence, the moderate Republican hopeful in the District 9 contest, held a sizable lead over the more conservative candidate, Brad Patzer of Neodesha, 12,182 votes to 8,870. District 9 covers southeast Kansas, and conservative Republican incumbent Iris Van Meter, Patzer's mother-in-law, did not seek re-election.
John Bacon, the conservative Republican incumbent in District 3 in northeastern Kansas, had things in hand there, with 10,148 votes to 8,269 for Harry McDonald, the moderate challenger.
Janet Waugh, the only moderate up for re-election this cycle, was headed to victory in the Democratic primary, leading challenger Jesse Hall 7,147 votes to 4,269.
At stake Tuesday was the makeup of the Kansas Board of Education.
Now, with a shift in favor of moderates, a reversal in course on the body is likely, notwithstanding results of the Nov. 7 general elections.
Reversal of the changes to the science standards is "almost a no-brainer," Loomis said.

Every election is an opportunity for citizens to correct the behavior of public officials.

When the newly configured Kansas education board meets for the first time in December, the anti-evolution science standards will be repealed.

0 Replies

wolf wrote-

Quote:

I've been labelled almost everything. Right-wing, left-wing, Christian, atheist, agnostic, Gnostic, Satanist, homosexual scum, homophobic scum...

Sounds like you've been aggravating a whole stadium full.

I didn't label you at all. I simply said that there's a residue of Christian thinking in your position.

There's really no meeting point here. You seem to be talking about yourself. I'm not. I'm talking about a future society. It has nothing to do with me either. I follow the logic, as best I can, of a de-Christianised, atheistic materialism laid onto capitalism which I presume is what you favour. A sort of destruction of the super-ego. A conscienceless society where order is maintained by laws enforced with greater rigour as the necessity arises.

Quote:

Doping is cheating. As you can't cheat in evolution, doping therefore must have nothing to do with evolution, as it does not increase or decrease your ability to reproduce. Actually, now that I think about it, it might decrease your ability to reproduce by damaging your body... so therefore doping goes against evolution.

I find that incoherent I'm afraid. It would take 10,000 words to try to deal with it. So I'll just make notes.

Both "doping" and "cheating" are rule bound concepts.

Is make-up cheating?

Winning at sport self evidently increases mating opportunities.

Doping only damages the body in the long run by which time plenty of mating can take place.

I can't for the life of me see how an evolutionist could have the slightest objection to doping except in regard to themselves.

You can cheat in evolution if you are human.

You are very unlikely to be in the medals if you don't do doping. Everybody knows that. Are you defining doping as being caught doping.
If they all stopped doping the present world records would stand for centuries.

Is training cheating? You never see animals training.

Quote:

What makes you think the Christian position will be annihilated by Evolution?

By the exclusive teaching of evolution not by evolution itself. But don't worry wolf- it won't be in your time. You want later generations to have it from the luxury position you don't have to face. You can have it both ways. You can be different and live in a society which allows you to be so long as the majority isn't different. You're a trend setter eh? Ahead of the game. Smarter than the average.

I thought Buddhism involved resignation. A "who cares" attitude. Is that not the case?

I'm not sure you are well advised to pursue this discussion. I have the curtains drawn here.

0 Replies

Buddhism does not involve resignation. Where in the world did you get that idea?

0 Replies

Quote:

Evolution Opponents Lose In Kansas Primary
(Associated Press, August 2, 2006)

TOPEKA, Kan. -- Conservative Republicans who pushed anti-evolution standards back into Kansas schools last year have lost control of the state Board of Education once again.
The most closely watched race was in western Kansas, where incumbent conservative Connie Morris lost her GOP primary Tuesday. The former teacher had described evolution as "an age-old fairy tale" and "a nice bedtime story" unsupported by science.
As a result of Tuesday's vote, board members and candidates who believe evolution is well-supported by evidence will have a 6-4 majority.
************************************
Three incumbent conservatives faced primary foes Tuesday, and there was a contested GOP race for the seat held by a retiring conservative. A pro-evolution Democratic incumbent also had a challenger.
With almost all the votes counted early Wednesday, pro-evolution Republican Jana Shaver picked off a conservative incumbent and won the primary for the open seat.
Conservative Republican John Bacon kept his seat by besting two pro-evolution challengers, as did another conservative incumbent, Ken Willard. Janet Waugh, a Kansas City Democrat who opposed the new standards, easily defeated a more conservative Democrat who favored the anti-evolution language.

0 Replies

wande wrote-

Quote:

When the newly configured Kansas education board meets for the first time in December, the anti-evolution science standards will be repealed.

What happens in the classrooms when these abstractions have ceased to be vehicles for self promotion and are applied?

That's easy.The population, having taken due note of the potential for self promotion in these matters, from either side, won't the application of the flavour of the month standards spawn a vocal opposition?

And so on and so on.

Anyway-I'll bet most of the swing votes cast for the "moderates" were an expression of dissatisfaction with Mr Bush and, as such, a fleeting zephyr.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

wande wrote-

Quote:
When the newly configured Kansas education board meets for the first time in December, the anti-evolution science standards will be repealed.

What happens in the classrooms when these abstractions have ceased to be vehicles for self promotion and are applied?

Luckily, the controversial science standards would not have gone into effect until 2007. Now, with a newly configured board, the revisions will be annulled before they are ever able to affect any student.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

There's really no meeting point here. You seem to be talking about yourself.

And your assumptions are based on your viewpoints, as well. You assume that an atheistic, de-Christianised society will be without conscience. Where is the proof? Buddhists are atheistic and not Christian, yet they are not nihilistic and neither do they see evolution as an excuse to commit eugenics.

Quote:

I follow the logic, as best I can, of a de-Christianised, atheistic materialism laid onto capitalism which I presume is what you favour.

First you state there's too much Christianity in me, now you state I favour no Christianity? Have you started drinking again, Spendi? If you think I favoured a de-Christianised society, do you really think I would have so much Christianity in me? If you do, I suggest you need your head checked.

Quote:

I find that incoherent I'm afraid. It would take 10,000 words to try to deal with it. So I'll just make notes.

Both "doping" and "cheating" are rule bound concepts.

Is make-up cheating?

You're comparing make-up to taking testosterone or steroids?

Quote:

Winning at sport self evidently increases mating opportunities.

Doping only damages the body in the long run by which time plenty of mating can take place.

I can't for the life of me see how an evolutionist could have the slightest objection to doping except in regard to themselves.

You can cheat in evolution if you are human.

Because it wasn't the genes that made you faster, it was the drugs. If that person couldn't have won if they didn't take the drugs, then clearly they are genetically inferior to the person that won through natural ability alone.

Besides, you fail to comprehend that in our society, as long as you know how to not break the laws and know how to earn money, you are fit for survival. Heck, scratch that. Thanks to welfare and the NHS nearly everyone is fit for survival.

It is the environment that determines what is the fittest, not the individual, and we have sculpted our environment to redefine what it means to be fit. You name one person you know that isn't fit to survive. Chances are they are fit to survive because they're still alive now.

Quote:

You are very unlikely to be in the medals if you don't do doping.
Everybody knows that. Are you defining doping as being caught doping.
If they all stopped doping the present world records would stand for centuries.

Rubbish. You briefly mention in the next sentence about training. Training will get you medals without the need for doping.

Quote:

Is training cheating? You never see animals training.

So? You never see animals building aeroplanes, automobiles or trains either.

Besides, how can training be cheating? It's all natural ability, unlike doping.

Quote:

Wolf wrote:
What makes you think the Christian position will be annihilated by Evolution?

By the exclusive teaching of evolution not by evolution itself.

In other words, in an imaginary world, in your head, where the only subject ever taught in schools is evolution. Good luck seeing that world ever appear, Spendi.

Quote:

But don't worry wolf- it won't be in your time. You want later generations to have it from the luxury position you don't have to face.

It won't ever freaking happen, Spendius, because the moment people try to get rid of religious education, there'll be a horrendous outcry. And to that I say, good for them.

Besides, so what if Christianity isn't taught in schools anymore?

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2005-11.pdf

The above research article I showed you before, which you ignored, shows that religion is not necessary for a healthy, moral society.

Quote:

I thought Buddhism involved resignation. A "who cares" attitude. Is that not the case?

No. Buddhism involves doing good deeds to better oneself. That requires caring for people who are poorer than you, giving to the needy etc. etc.

Quote:

I'm not sure you are well advised to pursue this discussion. I have the curtains drawn here.

Oh, because I don't agree with you and because I can't see eye to eye, that means I'm not well-advised to pursue this discussion. Jawohl, mein Commandant, Fuhrer Spendius. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Spendi wrote:

Quote:

Anyway-I'll bet most of the swing votes cast for the "moderates" were an expression of dissatisfaction with Mr Bush and, as such, a fleeting zephyr.

The fanatical Christians have been at this for a long time now.....nearly 30 years of organization hasn't gotten them very far (long term) on school boards. They started by stealth, running for school boards in the eighties without declaring their extremist views. But when the children's parents realized the problem, the sneaky politicians were easily voted out in the next election. Looks like the trend continues. Parents (many Christian as well as not) want their children taught science rather than religion in science class. Comparative religion class is a good place to teach about religions. Those who want their children taught religion as science will have to establish their own schools and pay from their own pockets. Of course these schools already exist, so why don't the fanatics let freedom of choice take place? The answer is that they're not content to teach their own children alone, they want to impose their outlandish ideas on everyone. They're doing missionary work, don't you know.

0 Replies

wolf wrote-

Quote:

You assume that an atheistic, de-Christianised society will be without conscience. Where is the proof?

Christianity (ours) manufactured conscience. We manufacture bread. If we stop there is none.

Buddhists are not in the game.

You can't help having Christianity in you. It's in your water. The "I" that favours not having it is a different thing from the "I" that has been dosed with it. (Assuming you are born and bred in England which I have done.)
The "I"s that have anorexia must be pure mental states not connected to the "I"s they grew up in.

I drink 3 1/2 pints of 3.8% everynight of every week.

I have had my head checked.

I would compare make-up to anabolics yes. Kit to give an advantage. The skin absorbs the chemicals in make-up and hair dye etc.

Quote:

Because it wasn't the genes that made you faster, it was the drugs. If that person couldn't have won if they didn't take the drugs, then clearly they are genetically inferior to the person that won through natural ability alone.

That's too tricky to explain. It has to dawn on you.

Quote:

Besides, you fail to comprehend that in our society, as long as you know how to not break the laws and know how to earn money, you are fit for survival. Heck, scratch that. Thanks to welfare and the NHS nearly everyone is fit for survival.

It isn't survival. People survive long periods in intensive care. We are talking about breeding. Is merely surviving enough to get chosen to breed with. You spoke of genetic survival earlier as if we are merely vehicles for the life of genes. The Selfish Gene and all that.

Training is like doping and make-up. It gives an advantage which isn't there naturally.If every young male embarked on the routines of the England football squad I'll bet you would have a completely different team.Plenty of talented people can't or won't take the training and the natural ability needs to be prodigious to win without it.

Again it is a complex idea to get across. You need to know a lot about competitive sport to see it.

Quote:

In other words, in an imaginary world, in your head, where the only subject ever taught in schools is evolution. Good luck seeing that world ever appear, Spendi.

I can't see how a curriculum can be devised with evolution and counter-evolution side by side. If evolution is on its own that world you think is my fantasy will inevitably appear. And I thought it was what you are arguing for but you don't need the good luck for it because of the saving grace of residual Christianity. It is future generations who need the good luck if your side wins too quickly.

Quote:

It won't ever freaking happen, Spendius, because the moment people try to get rid of religious education, there'll be a horrendous outcry.

We agree at last. There's no need for the outcry yet whilst it's only a few headbangers posturing as scientists for various reasons and 6 to 4 has turned into 4 to 6 in some small election in Kansas.

But you effectively concede the case there.

I'm not arguing to teach Christianity in schools. I'm saying that teaching evolution (properly I mean) shouldn't be taught either. It is an adult subject.

Quote:

No. Buddhism involves doing good deeds to better oneself. That requires caring for people who are poorer than you, giving to the needy etc. etc.

No wonder we had to show them how to grow food and get the lights on.

Quote:

Oh, because I don't agree with you and because I can't see eye to eye, that means I'm not well-advised to pursue this discussion. Jawohl, mein Commandant, Fuhrer Spendius.

That's not the reason at all. It's just that it gets a bit racy and you are probably a little sweetie-pie at bottom. Have you never heard a woman say that she wished she hadn't been told something. I have. Numerous times. Some men too.

0 Replies

Thanks Lola-

Yes I did know all that. But it is always a pleasure to hear it again especially when it is delivered with such style, which is a bit novel on here.

What is happening? No ladies all this time and then two come along at once. If only I could be sure no men were going to read here we could get down to basics. Two scientific ladies. Gulp!

"We drove that car as far as we could
Abandoned it out West
Splitting up on a dark sad night
Both agreeing it was the best
But later on when the crowd thinned out
An' I was getting ready to leave
She was standing there
Right beside my chair
Said "what's that up your sleeve."
I said, "It's nuthin' Babe
And that's for sure."
An' she leaned down into my face
I could feel the heat and the pulse of her
As she bent down to tie
The laces
Of my shoe.
Tangled up in blue."

From memory. Seen it live.

0 Replies

These lyrics are intelligently designed

She lit a burner on the stove and offered me a pipe
"I thought you'd never say hello," she said
"You look like the silent type."
Then she opened up a book of poems
And handed it to me
Written by an Italian poet
From the thirteenth century.

And about conscence being a product of religion.........now spendi, you know I'll have to disagree with you there. Speaking of science...........I'll be with you in a moment. (searching for my psychoanalytic hat) Now where did I put that thing?

0 Replies

.....lola and spendi writing poems to each other

doesn't anybody want to talk about kansas? Smile

0 Replies

Ill bite on the Kansas apple there Wandel. I think the slimmest of margins presented the popular view. It was stated that only 40% of the electorate even bothered to leave home, so those that voted were at least passionate . It was easy to see through the Conservative Christian's ploy. They wished to present a counter offer to how science has been done . When in reality, they ultimately wanted to ram a Biblical Christian worldview down the throats of the curriculum advisors. They can post any"ID is really science" or"We must teach the controversy"or "give our kids a dose of critical thinking" arguments they wish, they just failed to be sufficiently convincing with the electorate.

0 Replies

I will add that I hope it sends a message to other states contemplating something similar.

0 Replies

So about slightly over half of 40% in one state are deciding whether America will fall behind in the scientific race or not as the case may be. That's 20%. And most of them haven't a scientific bone in their bodies. It's a good job for the wisdom of large groups.

A hard fought near draw is good for the hackles.

I should think every state will be following suit when they see how easy it is to take the voters minds off other issues and clean up as well.

Lola- I know the rest of it well enough as you no doubt guessed. Do you know the alternative versions from 1984.

I'm not sure all that many would be "passionate" about this one issue you anti-IDers have managed to insinuate was the only issue. Some vote because they are bored or because it's a habit or because they feel it a duty because our forefathers fought for it. There's a lot like that here. If they are off Mr Blair they vote to stuff him. There would sure be enough in a close run thing of those who are off Mr Bush and will vote for the one
they don't associate him with. I guess with that and the other reasons you might get to 30%.

0 Replies

According to current psychoanalytic theory, (which is more scientific than religion of any kind) conscience is developed in an early stage of life in what has come to be known as the Oedipal period of childhood development (ages 3 to 5 for most of us). As the theory goes, children of either gender fall romantically in love with the parent of the opposite sex (usually....sometimes it's the same sex, but that matters not at all in terms of the development of conscence......or the apparent lack thereof). If all goes well, this romantic attachment results in a profound sense of guilt because of the obvious conflict it creates in the young child's mind. If a girl, for instance, is to have Daddy to herself, that means she's in direct competition with her beloved mother, the person she depends on for comfort and nurture. You can see the young girl's dilemma. The same applies for the young boy.

Guilt, again.....if all goes well, gives way to an eventual relinquishment of the hope of having Daddy to a goal of one day, when she is grown up, finding "Daddy" (like Daddy in those aspects which are important to the child) in a young man from her own generational pool. This compromise does not come with any ease. It's a struggle that requires both parents being consistently helpful (not too competitive from Mom and not to gratifying from Dad and not too punitive or shaming from both parents). The end result is a stable flexible and non-punitive conscience that withstands temptation.

In society, this process is represented in many ways, not the least of which is in religion. But just as the family can fail to help the child, so can punitive, concrete-thinking religions (fundamentalism) fail. A benevolent conscence is represented in benevolent religion, etc.

Conscience comes about through a maturational process and religion is one of the ways in which we carry it out, not the other way around. There are many vehicles for the practice of conscience, religion being only one. Non-Christians, atheists, agnostics alike can, obviously be in possession of a workable conscience, just as they may have the most punishing, dogmatic, rule-bound conscence you can find. Also, psychopathy comes in all flavors as well. I know many psychopathic religion freaks.......George Bush being only one of them.

0 Replies

Bunkum!

0 Replies

Do you know, Wande how these school board members were elected? That is, did they fail to reveal their anti-science ideas in their campaigns? In any case, we should all be grateful to those voters who cared enough to vote and clap our hands in appreciation.

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know