Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

spendius wrote:

The matter of

Quote:
"Is ID a science or religion?"

was settled before views to this thread had reached double figures. They are now approaching 100,000.

Yes, I was making a point. Your posts were irrelevant to the original topic when you first made them, and I also stated that the posts were irrelevant to the topic you then came up with to replace the original, which you have not disputed yet.

Quote:

You don't even know what religion or science or intelligent design concepts actually are. They are simply labels you use for things in your own head. It's an Anti-IDarian mindset which has nothing to do with anybody else.

An assertion without proof. You still haven't come up with anything to prove that resisting the teaching of ID will do any harm to society, which you have constantly ranted about.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

wandeljw wrote:
One factor that may balance the absence of an establishment clause is that Germany allows less "freedom of speech" than the United States.

I'm afraid I don't understand your point here. In what sense does it balance it? It is true that the German constitution gives the government greater power to restrict speech than the American constitution does. But how do you think those restrictions make it harder for German governments to favor some religions over others? If they make any difference at all, I would say they make it easier.

I am not sure how the "balancing" actually works, but you indicated that the German government puts restrictions on cults. In the United States cults have more freedom of expression than in Germany (in my opinion).

My line of thinking was that Germany has a different way of preventing religion from exerting too much influence in public affairs. (Sorry, I have not really thought this through.)

0 Replies

wande wrote-

Quote:

(Sorry, I have not really thought this through.)

Anything else wande that you haven't thought through? Anti-IDarians are supposed to think things through before they start thinking about turning the schools into regimented barracks.

Could that be why Anti-IDarians never want to talk about social consequences? They didn't want to mention the regimented barracks because it won't come in their lifetimes because the weight of religious tradition is slowing down the drift of the tone enough to last them out.

Would you say schools have drifted towards a regimented barracks scenario over your time. The roads are a right regimented barracks right now if you ask me. In urban areas I mean. It's a bit more easy going in the countryside. A benign regimented barracks of course for the ones who behave themselves or don't fall victim to something or other.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

I am not sure how the "balancing" actually works, but you indicated that the German government puts restrictions on cults. In the United States cults have more freedom of expression than in Germany (in my opinion).

I agree -- but that means the German government is establishing non-cult religions ovre cult religions. You may be for this or against this, depending on whether you like cults or not. But in any case, by curbing freedom of expression the German government compounds its establishment of some religions; it does not balance it.

wandeljw wrote:

My line of thinking was that Germany has a different way of preventing religion from exerting too much influence in public affairs. (Sorry, I have not really thought this through.)

Arguably the German government isn't preventing religion from exerting too much influence in public affairs. Let me count the ways ....

(1) Our constitution requires public schools to offer religious instruction as an elective. (2) In the elementary school I attended, pupils could show up early for voluntary prayer and bible classes (which I did, believe it or not). (3) Abortion is illegal except to save the mother's life and health. (On certain conditions, it is not prosecuted during the first trimester.) (4) Stem cell research, except on pre-existing lines, isn't only deprived of federal subsidies as it is in America -- we have a federal law that prohibits it. (5) Usury is illegal in Germany; the philosophical foundation of this tradition goes right back to Martin Luther and Thomas Aquinas, and probably on to the Bible itself. (6) As I already mentioned, our government has let some churches outsource to it the collection of their member fees. And the list goes on ...

I am pretty sure that the laicistic Americans in this thread would consider any item on my list "too much religious influence". So I'm not sure in what sense the German government is preventing such influence.

0 Replies

That is interesting, Thomas. Your assessment is much better than the one that I attempted.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote in reply to wande-

Quote:

You may be for this or against this, depending on whether you like cults or not.

What difference does it make what wande likes or doesn't like. Or anybody else for that matter.

This debate concerns how best to proceed from here and if "not liking cults" can be read as cults are a danger, which it has to be to make sense, then we need an explanation of why they are a danger and of what we'll get if we banish them assuming it is proved they are a danger.

What wande likes is neither here nor there. Neither is what I like. This isn't a wine tasting session.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote-

Quote:

Usury is illegal in Germany;

That's amazing. What is classed as "usury"?

0 Replies

Thomas-

It struck me reading your last post that you superbly highlight the cultural tectonic drift which independence set in motion. It was almost like reading it off a dial.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Thomas-

It struck me reading your last post that you superbly highlight the cultural tectonic drift which independence set in motion.

Is this part of your social consequences argument, spendi? What kind of independence are you afraid of? You once mentioned that you would like to see a reunification of all "sects" under the Roman Catholic Church.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Thomas wrote-

Quote:
Usury is illegal in Germany;

That's amazing. What is classed as "usury"?

Here is what Germany's Civil Code has to say on the issue.

[b]§ 138. [Legal transaction against public policy; usury][/b] (1) A legal transaction which is against public policy is void. (2) A legal transaction is also void whereby a person exploiting the need, carelessness or inexperience of another, causes to be promised or granted to himself or to a third party in exchange for a performance, pecuniary advantages which exceed the value of the performance to such an extent that, under the circumstances, the pecuniary advantages are in obvious disproportion to the performance.Source

0 Replies

Thanks Thomas.

How do they define "obvious disproportion"?

Wande- what on earth are you talking about?

Afraid of independence? Do you really think I'm as subjective as you are and think in such terms. None of this is going to affect any of us. There are other little lads to come you know. I grew up in a literary tradition which cares for the future.

I wouldn't want Dylan singing

Now you see this one-eyed midget
Shouting the word "NOW!"

in my direction.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Anything else wande that you haven't thought through? Anti-IDarians are supposed to think things through before they start thinking about turning the schools into regimented barracks.

What barracks? How do you go from being against teaching ID in schools to army barracks? What is the logical connection and how can you prove that one will lead to the other?

Quote:

Could that be why Anti-IDarians never want to talk about social consequences? They didn't want to mention the regimented barracks because it won't come in their lifetimes because the weight of religious tradition is slowing down the drift of the tone enough to last them out.

You keep talking about the social consequences of anti-ID, but you never prove that these social consequences really are a result of anti-ID. You keep jumping to illogical conclusions.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

How do they define "obvious disproportion"?

Sorry, I have no answer to this. I would have to go to a library and look up the relevant case law, and that's more effort than I'm willing to invest in this thread.

0 Replies

Wolf wrote-

Quote:

What barracks? How do you go from being against teaching ID in schools to army barracks? What is the logical connection and how can you prove that one will lead to the other?

Did you not see the news yesterday about the government's policy to inject itself into family life even before birth to prevent "at risk" Mums from bringing up children who would be unfit to reside in the leafy suburbs where the tart's knickers curtains mask some right goings on I can tell you.

The obvious outcome of an atheistic, secular ,scientific materialism is the barracks setting for all. Not just the kids. Such a society can only aim at its own perpetuation and conquest and thus the most efficient way will be quasi-military. Compare the number of uniforms today with those of a previous era. The barmaids have to wear uniforms now and they are designed to prevent them showing off their charms as they used to a mere two years ago.

Is that not a shift in the direction of the barracks? We have to have a "fresh" pint glass for every drink now to make sure we don't get or pass on any diseases. We just get three more doses of soap than we used to. I think its soap.

And surely an atheistic, materialistic, secular scientific society couldn't allow all this unmethodical and disorganised mating when rigorous method and organisation are its supreme values in the service of mechanised efficiency.

Who said I was against teaching ID. It's not a teachable thing. It's a feeling generated out of long exposure to fanciful notions. We don't expect the Spocks of this world to understand it.

0 Replies

Thomas-

I don't blame you. But without it your previous post in which the phrase occured is a bit insipid.

I suppose individual judges or other officials will decide which will inevitably lead to all sorts of theatricalities in the courtroom.

A $1000 whore is going to have some explaining to do I fear.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

spendius wrote:
How do they define "obvious disproportion"?

Sorry, I have no answer to this. I would have to go to a library and look up the relevant case law, and that's more effort than I'm willing to invest in this thread.

May your aunt Hettie get blackbug.

Keep checking NY Review of books. The new issue (not online yet) has a typically wonderful piece by Ronald Dworkin including an address to the very subject of this thread.

0 Replies

Don't forget to put the link up Bernie when you get it. Maybe something from the Manhattan intellectual frenzy will be something to study.

Then again--maybe not.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Did you not see the news yesterday about the government's policy to inject itself into family life even before birth to prevent "at risk" Mums from bringing up children who would be unfit to reside in the leafy suburbs where the tart's knickers curtains mask some right goings on I can tell you.

The obvious outcome of an atheistic, secular ,scientific materialism is the barracks setting for all. Not just the kids. Such a society can only aim at its own perpetuation and conquest and thus the most efficient way will be quasi-military.

Oh yeah... and it must have nothing to do with bad parenting. Once again, how does ID help to put a brake on this stuff, exactly? What does it teach in terms of morals?

You also fail to prove that anti-ID is atheistic, Spendi. Ever heard of theistic Evolution? People who believe in that are also against ID, but they believe in God.

You're equating anti-ID with atheism now, which is just as foolish as equating anti-ID with anti-morals, which is what you seem to be doing.

Now you'll be saying I don't understand and that I should shut my mouth, right? Is that right? Well, excuse me for thinking about things rationally and not jumping the gun.

Let us also not forget that the person that came up with it was Blair, one of our most religiously-inclined Prime Ministers. So, this is more along the lines of proof that the more religious the Prime Minister, the worse things would be.

Quote:

Compare the number of uniforms today with those of a previous era. The barmaids have to wear uniforms now and they are designed to prevent them showing off their charms as they used to a mere two years ago.

That's irrelevant. Lots of school children here were uniforms too, whereas the majority of children in say Cuba don't. Does that mean we are in a dictatorship?

Quote:

Is that not a shift in the direction of the barracks? We have to have a "fresh" pint glass for every drink now to make sure we don't get or pass on any diseases. We just get three more doses of soap than we used to. I think its soap.

Yeah, that's called taking things too far, just like what you're doing in the next paragraph.

Quote:

And surely an atheistic, materialistic, secular scientific society couldn't allow all this unmethodical and disorganised mating when rigorous method and organisation are its supreme values in the service of mechanised efficiency.

If we use your same flawed logic, then we can infer that a theistic, religious society will be filled with people who reject scientific principles, think illnesses are caused by Demons and pray to God instead of taking medicines or doing surgery.

Quote:

Who said I was against teaching ID. It's not a teachable thing. It's a feeling generated out of long exposure to fanciful notions. We don't expect the Spocks of this world to understand it.

So, you despise people who don't want ID to be taught in science classes, but agree that it isn't science?

0 Replies

I get an impression that spendi is some out-of the way stationed, parish priest, who's ego doesnt react well to challenging and who actually believes that whatever he says is important, when its more-than-not, quite sad.

Showing how hes inconsistent , irrelevant, and misinformed, doesnt strike him in the least. Hes like a vampire that feeds on attention.When hes passed over his assertions get more strident, just a few keystrokes short of flaming.

If hed be funny or an original wit, that, at least, would make him useful. As it is, I believe that we're just stuck with his verbal masturbation for the near future.
Ilike when he cuts and pastes some snippet from a bio journal without comment and has us believe he understands its content. Like the post Molecular Bio quotes on Calcium ion transmittal across cell walls. He had nothing to say other than "here read this".

I sincerely believe that hes the budgie to which we are trying to explain the LAws of Thermodynamics.

0 Replies

fm-

You'll never explain the LAws of Thermodynamics to that lot I have just left in the pub. Never! The LAws you refer to, if an attempt was made to explain it to them, would result in " well thermodynamically get the drinks in sunshine if you want to get in tight with me" type of thing.

I know they are coarse and common but what can I do about that? I take it as a given. I'm no accolyte of Canute. I don't rate ivory towers.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know