97
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 10 Aug, 2006 07:28 am
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
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Thu 10 Aug, 2006 08:00 am
thats all nice , but you didnt answer my question.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 10 Aug, 2006 08:21 am
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
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Thu 10 Aug, 2006 08:33 am
spendius wrote:
Loaded with what? Money, narcotics, food, brains, adversity, bling.


loaded with pseudo-sociological mush
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 10 Aug, 2006 08:48 am
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
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Thu 10 Aug, 2006 08:56 am
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
 
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 10 Aug, 2006 11:02 am
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
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Thu 10 Aug, 2006 11:18 am
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
 
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 10 Aug, 2006 11:37 am
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
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Thu 10 Aug, 2006 02:56 pm
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
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Thu 10 Aug, 2006 03:13 pm
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
 
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 10 Aug, 2006 05:12 pm
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
 
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 10 Aug, 2006 05:15 pm
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
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Thu 10 Aug, 2006 06:47 pm
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
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Thu 10 Aug, 2006 08:32 pm
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
 
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 11 Aug, 2006 03:52 am
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
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Fri 11 Aug, 2006 04:38 am
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
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Fri 11 Aug, 2006 05:12 am
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
 
xingu
 
  1  
Fri 11 Aug, 2006 05:15 am
Religion dumbing down America.

Quote:
U.S. Lags World in Grasp of Genetics and Acceptance of Evolution
By Ker Than
LiveScience Staff Writer

A comparison of peoples' views in 34 countries finds that the United States ranks near the bottom when it comes to public acceptance of evolution. Only Turkey ranked lower.

Among the factors contributing to America's low score are poor understanding of biology, especially genetics, the politicization of science and the literal interpretation of the Bible by a small but vocal group of American Christians, the researchers say.

"American Protestantism is more fundamentalist than anybody except perhaps the Islamic fundamentalist, which is why Turkey and we are so close," said study co-author Jon Miller of Michigan State University.

The researchers combined data from public surveys on evolution collected from 32 European countries, the United States and Japan between 1985 and 2005. Adults in each country were asked whether they thought the statement "Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals," was true, false, or if they were unsure.

The study found that over the past 20 years:
The percentage of U.S. adults who accept evolution declined from 45 to 40 percent.

The percentage overtly rejecting evolution declined from 48 to 39 percent, however.

And the percentage of adults who were unsure increased, from 7 to 21 percent.

Of the other countries surveyed, only Turkey ranked lower, with about 25 percent of the population accepting evolution and 75 percent rejecting it. In Iceland, Denmark, Sweden and France, 80 percent or more of adults accepted evolution; in Japan, 78 percent of adults did.

The findings are detailed in the Aug. 11 issue of the journal Science.

Religion belief and evolution
The researchers also compared 10 independent variables?-including religious belief, political ideology and understanding of concepts from genetics, or "genetic literacy"?-between adults in America and nine European countries to determine whether these factors could predict attitudes toward evolution.

The analysis found that Americans with fundamentalist religious beliefs?-defined as belief in substantial divine control and frequent prayer?-were more likely to reject evolution than Europeans with similar beliefs. The researchers attribute the discrepancy to differences in how American Christian fundamentalist and other forms of Christianity interpret the Bible.

While American fundamentalists tend to interpret the Bible literally and to view Genesis as a true and accurate account of creation, mainstream Protestants in both the United States and Europe instead treat Genesis as metaphorical, the researchers say.

"Whether it's the Bible or the Koran, there are some people who think it's everything you need to know," Miller said. "Other people say these are very interesting metaphorical stories in that they give us guidance, but they're not science books."

This latter view is also shared by the Catholic Church.

Politics and the Flat Earth
Politics is also contributing to America's widespread confusion about evolution, the researchers say. Major political parties in the United States are more willing to make opposition to evolution a prominent part of their campaigns to garner conservative votes?-something that does not happen in Europe or Japan.

Miller says that it makes about as much sense for politicians to oppose evolution in their campaigns as it is for them to advocate that the Earth is flat and promise to pass legislation saying so if elected to office.

"You can pass any law you want but it won't change the shape of the Earth," Miller told LiveScience.

Paul Meyers, a biologist at the University of Minnesota who was not involved in the study, says that what politicians should be doing is saying, 'We ought to defer these questions to qualified authorities and we should have committees of scientists and engineers who we will approach for the right answers."

The researchers also single out the poor grasp of biological concepts, especially genetics, by American adults as an important contributor to the country's low confidence in evolution.

"The more you understand about genetics, the more you understand about the unity of life and the relationship humans have to other forms of life," Miller said.

The current study also analyzed the results from a 10-country survey in which adults were tested with 10 true or false statements about basic concepts from genetics. One of the statements was "All plants and animals have DNA." Americans had a median score of 4. (The correct answer is "yes.")

Science alone is not enough
But the problem is more than one of education?-it goes deeper, and is a function of our country's culture and history, said study co-author Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education in California.

"The rejection of evolution is not something that will be solved by throwing science at it," Scott said in a telephone interview.

Myers expressed a similar sentiment. About the recent trial in Dover, Pennsylvania which ruled against intelligent design, Myers said "it was a great victory for our side and it's done a lot to help ensure that we keep religion out of the classroom for a while longer, but it doesn't address the root causes. The creationists are still creationists?-they're not going to change because of a court decision."

Scott says one thing that will help is to have Catholics and mainstream Protestants speak up about their theologies' acceptance of evolution.

"There needs to be more addressing of creationism from these more moderate theological perspectives," Scott said. "The professional clergy and theologians whom I know tend to be very reluctant to engage in that type of ?'my theology versus your theology' discussion, but it matters because it's having a negative effect on American scientific literacy."

The latest packaging of creationism is intelligent design, or ID, a conjecture which claims that certain features of the natural world are so complex that they could only be the work of a Supreme Being. ID proponents say they do not deny that evolution is true, only that scientists should not rule out the possibility of supernatural intervention.

But scientists do not share doubts over evolution. They argue it is one of the most well tested theories around, supported by countless tests done in many different scientific fields. Scott says promoting uncertainty about evolution is just as bad as denying it outright and that ID and traditional creationism both spread the same message.

"Both are saying that evolution is bad science, that evolution is weak and inadequate science, and that it can't do the job so therefore God did it," she said.

Another view
Bruce Chapman, the president of the Discovery Institute, the primary backer of ID, has a different view of the study.

"A better explanation for the high percentage of doubters of Darwinism in America may be that this country's citizens are famously independent and are not given to being rolled by an ideological elite in any field," Chapman said. "In particular, the growing doubts about Darwinism undoubtedly reflect growing doubts among scientists about Darwinian theory. Over 640 have now signed a public dissent and the number keeps growing."

Nick Matzke of the National Center for Science Education in California points out, however, that most of the scientists Chapman refers to do not do research in the field of evolution.

"If you look at the list, you can't find anybody who's really a significant contributor to the field or anyone who's done recognizable work on evolution," Matzke said.

Scott says the news is not all bad. The number of American adults unsure about the validity of evolution has increased in recent years, from 7 to 21 percent, but growth in this demographic comes at the expense of the other two groups. The percentage of Americans accepting evolution has declined, but so has the percentage of those who overtly reject it.

"I was very surprised to see that. To me that means the glass is half full," Scott said. "That 21 percent we can educate."


Acceptance and rejection of evolution by countries.

http://www.livescience.com/images/060810_evo_rank_02.jpg
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Fri 11 Aug, 2006 05:28 am
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
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 03/12/2026 at 12:11:57