Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Come, come now, Jock, you can do better than that, they are still laughing at you.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote-

Quote:

As between York and Lancaster, there is little to choose from my point of view. All of my ancestors were Celts, and none were Sassanach.

Who cares what the sodding ancestors were. You said you were a Lancastrian which means you were born in Lancashire and brought up there although not for long I would guess. It was the milk. Lancashire mill girl's breast milk is the finest substance known to man and they weren't eating Celtic food.

Lancashire was, about 20 years ago, and maybe still is, the most productive county in England for both agriculture and engineering. And you need plain speaking to get there. They do verbal wizardry down south and they are very good at it I must grant them. Look how they stole the Premiership last season because they allowed a Russian billionaire to salt his cash there.

Another Yank is buying Aston Villa now.
You Yanks can't have Russians winning our Premiership surely? And getting invited to FIFA's big do's and talking about you behind your backs.

They are mini-Summits.

I'm sorry wande. It was Setanta who got off topic not me. I just go where it goes. Anyway-there is a bit of science in this.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

You said you were a Lancastrian which means you were born in Lancashire and brought up there although not for long I would guess.

This is a lie. I expect no less from you. Sober up, and then come back to post.

0 Replies

I'm sorry Jock.

I see from checking that it was Mathos who said he was a Lancastrian and not yourself.

It wasn't a deliberate error made to provide an opportunity for some more aggravation of that deep nostalgic and aching yearning many Americans have for dear old England.

Honest.

0 Replies

My name is not Jock, you dipshit drunkard. Of my eight greatgrandparents, one and one only was Scots. What a brainless and blathering twit you are.

0 Replies

a snippet from Wandels post from the little nation of Arkansa

Quote:

Intelligent design teaches the ?scientific evidence of instantaneous creation,? DeLay said.

Of which there aint no "evidence" Seems like the pro -IDers suffer from the same lack of brain function that afflicts our dearest spendi. Im sure they try to fast step and shuffle away from presenting things like "evidence" or "hard facts" just like spendi. However, Im certain that their obfuscation means are a lot more entertaining and not the least sleep-inducing.

0 Replies

It is the more interesting in that the Supremes 1967 decision striking down the teaching of creationism resulted from a challenge of an Arkansas statute.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

spendi,

Do you and Mathos frequent the same pub?

I should be unsurprised were it to be the case the two not merely frequent but in fact inhabit the same physical abode, perhaps even the same corporeal entity.

0 Replies

7/8 Paddy 1/8 Jock wrote-

Quote:

My name is not Jock, you dipshit drunkard. Of my eight greatgrandparents, one and one only was Scots. What a brainless and blathering twit you are.

Mathos said you were a jock and I took his word for it like you took his word for it that I'm a Tyke.

Sincere apologies.

It is a terrible word though is Setanta. How did you come to choose that?
spendius flows off the tongue melodiously and conjures up depths of mystery don't you think?

0 Replies

Note to Set----Yet they keep reinventing themselves and swear up and down that "we aint really Creationists".

This ID issue will only be done for when the Supremes deal with it too, as in Epperson, Mclean, Edwards, Aguillard and finally Wiest and Dover in Pa, all the courts, both state and Supreme, (and State Supreme as in Wiest) stated, patiently and slowly so even the slow-brained like spendi could (at least) hear;basically they said this:

"The courts dont wanna have their time taken up by this bullshit, its just religious crap making believe that its some kind of science and we know its crap and we know that you know it's crap. You just want to blindly stroll along in the wake of the Rennaisance and you wish to make believe that what you believe from tyhe Bible is actually fact, and its NOT, and science has calmly been moving ahead while you slip further into the dumpster of time" (Ive sorta put my own paraphrasing there sinc.e most often these Court decisions are full of inflated reasoning and care less about communication than with setting precedent "in style".However, I must say that Judge Jones plea for estoppel was the most clear and plain speaking of them all

0 Replies

I am glad Judge Jones saw ID for what it was and explicated its creationist nature in a 138 page opinion. However, if the issue never reaches the U.S.S.C., that would be okay. As the public becomes better informed, school board elections are the best process to keep ID out of science class.

(It is discouraging to see so many uninformed politicians speak of ID as a scientific alternative to evolutionary theory. Many such politicians mischaracterize evolution as completely random. There is nothing random about natural environments favoring certain adaptations over others.)

0 Replies

fm my dear-

Quote:

we know that you know it's crap.

doesn't fit in my mind with-

Quote:

You just want to blindly stroll along

0 Replies

Shows you how uncritically you read spendi. I was paraphrasing some of the summary statements of the various courts that had already struck down Anti-evolution and pro-Creationist laws in states. As set had commented , it appears that the "fullcircleness" of ID lying in Arkansa would be rather like "Ozymandias" neh?

0 Replies

What does-

Quote:

ID lying in Arkansa

have to do with it. That's politics.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

I am glad Judge Jones saw ID for what it was and explicated its creationist nature in a 138 page opinion. However, if the issue never reaches the U.S.S.C., that would be okay. As the public becomes better informed, school board elections are the best process to keep ID out of science class.

(It is discouraging to see so many uninformed politicians speak of ID as a scientific alternative to evolutionary theory. Many such politicians mischaracterize evolution as completely random. There is nothing random about natural environments favoring certain adaptations over others.)

The politicians to whom you refer, Wandel, are very well-informed. With polling and focus groups, they know to the last decimal place precisely what the support is in their particular constiuency for creationism and ID. That they may or may not talk drivel about what is or is not science is completely beside the point--that they play to their audience very much is the point.

More than anything else, i think the expense which Dover was put to in this case will be the only thing to wake up the electorate. Even then, you will still have "stealth" fundamentalist candidates standing for school boards, with their agenda hidden until after the election.

0 Replies

Good point, setanta. I still have hope that school board elections can correct science curriculum problems.

0 Replies

I think the problem needs to be effectively tackled at both state and local levels, Wandel. The push for ID has been vigorous in Ohio, but for as long as i have been watching the Ohio Department of Education web site, they have only referred to "intelligent design" by noting that ODE does not require teachers to test for ID. That throws it back on the teachers, and to a limited extent, onto the local school board. But even if the local school board attempts to adopt ID, they cannot require teachers to test for it, so it does not rise to the level of evolution science, for which they are required to test.

Kansas is an example in which the state school board can succumb to the madness, but it also provides an example that the creationists truly are fighting in the last ditch, and that they are routed when ever confronted by a concerted offensive. I don't think this is going away any time soon, but Judge Jones provided the necessary relief for anyone who feels obliged by the local situation to take legal action.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

ros- I wouldn't attempt to solve the puzzle if I was you. I would get some serious reading done first. 10 years should get you started.

I've solved the puzzle many times. I know what's inside. And it's not worth it.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

What does-

Quote:
ID lying in Arkansa

have to do with it. That's politics.

Because ID is political, not scientific. In fact, there's no science behind ID. How can you prove that just because you can't believe that something came about naturally, that means there's an Intelligent Designer behind it?

Hm?

ID is religious, even political, but it's definitely not science.

0 Replies

I meant Wolf that it ought to be on the politics thread. The lying in Arkansa(s).

It's straight politics.

I'm not going over the other all over again. Stick with it Wolf. Stamp your foot if you want.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know