Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Same old tired method.

"Get a life". "Keep taking the tablets." type of thing. A seemingly permanent blizzard of blurted assertion without style or meaning.

Not to put too fine a point on it fm it's pathetic. And the thing that is so striking is that it seems to be the only form of discourse known to anti-IDers when they are not in control of a situation.

It suggests that if anti-IDers get any serious input into the educational system the whole nation will end up barking at each other.

0 Replies

thats all nice , but you didnt answer my question.

0 Replies

I didn't think it was a real question fm.

I thought is was just another cheap smear intended to suggest an invidious distinction between representitives of the anti-ID conspiracy and myself. A unifying rallying call so to speak.

It surprises me that I haven't been recommended a brain transplant yet. Most children know that one.

Loaded with what? Money, narcotics, food, brains, adversity, bling.

And how much of each constitutes being loaded?It is a relative word.

The "dangerous" might prove dangerous after all. Anti-IDer's credibilty looks in danger if the jury is at all intelligent.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Loaded with what? Money, narcotics, food, brains, adversity, bling.

loaded with pseudo-sociological mush

0 Replies

Provide an example wande then we can examine it under the light.

Assertions are difficult to study apart from the expression of them and what they signify.

0 Replies

Recent example of pseudo-sociological mush:

Quote:

I am aware that in the US it is the other way round and that public schools there are places where all the kids are locked up all day to try to reduce the mischief they are naturally inclined towards making.

The distinction hardly matters in relation to the point I was making and which JJ made. He might just as easily have said- " that faith and science should not be intermingled in the school. " and presumably for the reasons I have given many times in the foggy ruins of this thread.

No offense, spendi. There are many of your posts like this. I know how this type of thinking comes about. There are many books promoting abstract sociological theories. To me they are "mush". I do not blame you personally.

0 Replies

wande wrote-

Quote:

To me they are "mush".

speaking of sociological theories.

He also signs his posts with-

hypothesis: a proposed explanation that can be verified, modified or refuted.

A hypothesis is surely mush until it is verified and a refuted one never reaches any other status.

Is is very common to hear sociology refered to by such a label. It usually comes from those who don't like it's conclusions.

But it is an assertion. To say "loaded with pseudo-sociological mush" and then justify it with "To me they are "mush" is to be piling up assertions.

"pseudo" also being an assertion.

All they mean is that wande is pontificating.

I'll admit to giving the well known child-minding function of schools a bit of fancy colouring but the function remains true and is still present. In locking out potential dangers the kids are, essentially, locked in to a certain extent. There's nothing pseudo or mushy about the idea. It's a fact. Education doesn't look much of a runner from where I'm sitting.

I don't mind being blamed for anything I'm at fault with.

But I stand by what I said in the quote you gave as an example of mush.

timber's post resting on the assertion "dangerous" was mush as has been all the mushy attempts to find wriggle room on that, none of which have touched the issue.

0 Replies

I was only speaking for myself in describing sociology as "mush", spendi. If anyone wants to respond to your sociological hypotheses, I am sure they will.

0 Replies

Sociology is a science wande. How can it be mush. Some people pretend they are sociologists just like some people pretend they are scientists in other areas of study or in general.

Sociology is at an early stage. Anti-ID must be stopped before sociology gets round to more advanced ideas which the population are not ready for.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Sociology is a science wande. How can it be mush. Some people pretend they are sociologists just like some people pretend they are scientists in other areas of study or in general.

Sociology is at an early stage. Anti-ID must be stopped before sociology gets round to more advanced ideas which the population are not ready for.

Though interdisciplinary subjects do occur, it is not the fault of the scientists whose expertise fall into the more physical sciences if a sociologist creates an idea based on Evolution.

Furthermore, just because a sociologist creates an idea, does not necessarily mean it will be adopted.

0 Replies

Quote:

Anti-ID must be stopped before sociology gets round to more advanced ideas which the population are not ready for.

Couldn't the notion that life was intelligently designed to end up where it is -- complete with human inequalities and all -- be at least as dangerous as the notion that it ended up there by chance?

0 Replies

Wolf wrote-

Quote:

Though interdisciplinary subjects do occur, it is not the fault of the scientists whose expertise fall into the more physical sciences if a sociologist creates an idea based on Evolution.

Don't worry Wolf. It is never the fault of the scientist. The scientist takes no responsibility.

That's the problem.

0 Replies

pd wrote-

Quote:

Couldn't the notion that life was intelligently designed to end up where it is -- complete with human inequalities and all -- be at least as dangerous as the notion that it ended up there by chance?

That's the second time recently that the word "dangerous" has been used here.

What on earth do you mean by "dangerous"?

0 Replies

spendi

Quote:

Some people pretend they are sociologists just like some people pretend they are scientists in other areas of study or in general.

Im not really a sociologist but I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night.

Pretending that one is a sociologist requires a lot of effort, and it probably doesnt get you laid as much as pretending youre a scientist.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

pd wrote-

Quote:
Couldn't the notion that life was intelligently designed to end up where it is -- complete with human inequalities and all -- be at least as dangerous as the notion that it ended up there by chance?

That's the second time recently that the word "dangerous" has been used here.

What on earth do you mean by "dangerous"?

Harking back to statements I remember you making in the past about the effect of an amoral worldview on the general populace. Of course, I could misrecomember, but I seem to remember you putting forth something along those lines in re: removal of religious teachings from schools.

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

Pretending that one is a sociologist requires a lot of effort, and it probably doesnt get you laid as much as pretending youre a scientist.

Now there's an interesting subject.

And I see you are learning to be more tricky.

Truth to tell fm that's a very male chauvinist remark. It fails to take into account the nature of the jackage. It's almost as crude as saying that they are all the same with a bag over their heads. The expression "get you laid" reinforces the conceit.

Being able to accomplish both allows one to bamboozle most targets from the lower echelons of society such as shopgirls and fruit packers but where more refinement is called for the well endowed artist has it by miles because he has an understanding of the nature of the beast and the words to convey the promise without compromising expected standards of decency which inordinately flatters a true Lady's sense of superiority.

Rankings above Dames, Duchesses or Countesses for example, need a more supple approach still for which anti-IDers are ill-suited as they tend to place too high a value on personal characteristics such as appearence and manners and suchlike and are seemingly unaware of the inappropriateness of furbishments normally associated with cheap dives like motels and Holiday Inns where novelties are presumably very hard to find of the type common in stables, potting sheds, haystacks,roof gardens and reception rooms designed for purpose.

The principle disadvantage of the anti-ID position is this total absence of novelty and surprise which explains why it soon runs out of steam and why refined Ladies treat it with the disdain they unfortunately do. Artists of the ID stamp, being versed in the allusions to be found in such works as The White Goddess, are not burdened with such a handicap providing they are maintained in prime physical condition and banish the thought of getting laid from their mental furniture.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Wolf wrote-

Quote:
Though interdisciplinary subjects do occur, it is not the fault of the scientists whose expertise fall into the more physical sciences if a sociologist creates an idea based on Evolution.

Don't worry Wolf. It is never the fault of the scientist. The scientist takes no responsibility.

That's the problem.

Wrong. The scientist takes responsibility. They have to prove their research is ethical.

Let's go back in time and look at the scientist (well, inventor actually) that invented the car. He invented the car, right? Well, it's not his responsibility to ensure people drive it safely. It's those of the people driving it and inevitably the Government to enforce rules that make sure they safely drive it.

If the scientist designs something and clearly states what it's used for, and then the user misuses it, whose fault is that?

If God wrote the Bible and somebody else twists the meaning of its words, whose fault is that?

0 Replies

spendi

Quote:

The principle disadvantage of the anti-ID position is this total absence of novelty and surprise which explains why it soon runs out of steam and why refined Ladies treat it with the disdain they unfortunately do. Artists of the ID stamp, being versed in the allusions to be found in such works as The White Goddess, are not burdened with such a handicap providing they are maintained in prime physical condition and banish the thought of getting laid from their mental furniture.

Im not sure which is sadder

1That you try to foist this upon us as if you know what you speak, or

2The fact that you believe it yourself

0 Replies

Religion dumbing down America.

Quote:

Acceptance and rejection of evolution by countries.

http://www.livescience.com/images/060810_evo_rank_02.jpg

0 Replies

fm wrote:

Im not sure which is sadder

1That you try to foist this upon us as if you know what you speak, or

2The fact that you believe it yourself

I gotta go with #1 there, fm; no way anybody - not even spendi - actually might take seriously, let alone really believe, the sorta twaddle he peddles here.

I figure he's just having us on, and enjoying immensely the attention he gets thereby.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know