Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

spendius wrote:

2-What is NAMBLA. Why did they refuse to be classed as sex offenders?

Enjoy

0 Replies

What is there to enjoy?

Two paragraphs were quite sufficient.

You lot know more about this stuff than I evidendly do or wish to do.

I'm an askesis man. I thought you knew.

I can't for the life of me imagine what there is in it that an evolotion theorist would object to though and there must be an "agenbite of inwit" somewhere deep to use it as a smear.

Perhaps you are unaware that a mature life is one of contemplation and simplicity. That is why science arose in monastic settings. I trust you don't think it arose in the sweat and grunt brigade. If it could have done that there is no reason why pigs don't have science or any of the other myriad species that the earth has seen.

Perhaps the Michigan authorities have a deep-sixer to drive as many parents as possible out of your public taxpayer funded system. It would certainly make a lot of sense judging by how many Americans I have read on these threads saying that your educational arrangements are failing the nation.

"Watch the parking meters."

0 Replies

wande wrote-

Quote:

The resolution of the controversy in Michigan means that my work is finished. I have obliterated the ID infestation here in the United States!

Well, all the best mate. Sorry to lose you off the thread. You have been a mine of information.

I'm sure other debaters on here will join me in my best wishes for the future.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

wande wrote-

Quote:
The resolution of the controversy in Michigan means that my work is finished. I have obliterated the ID infestation here in the United States!

Well, all the best mate. Sorry to lose you off the thread. You have been a mine of information.

I'm sure other debaters on here will join me in my best wishes for the future.

Thank you, spendi.

(I am very touched by the somber tone of your post.)

0 Replies

Well wande-

It's like this.

All my life I have admired America and Americans. An auntie bought me a subscription to Readers Digest when I was in short pants. Then I have seen hundreds, maybe thousands of American movies and read all your best authors. From Day-One I thought The Beatles were utter tripe compared to your lot out of which melting pot the great Bob Dylan emerged.

Now, thanks to your thread, I realise that as the assertion is embedded deep in the American psyche, it's pretty deep here too but we at least have some zones of sense, that all that artistic endevour I so innocently fell for in my youth was one long assertion and bore little or no relation to reality. Of course I exclude some from comments.

I have criticised Dylan in my time for going too far but your thread has taught me that, if anything, he has been quite polite.

I really have been Abled 2 Know. For which much thanks.

0 Replies

"Now he worships at an altar
Of a stagnant pool
And when he sees his reflection
He's fulfilled."

Bob Dylan. Licence To Kill.

I thought it was poetry wande. Now I know it as reportage which is what Larry Sloman said Bob did. I think his words were- "He brings the tribe the news of the hour."

You should have a look at that book Sloman wrote sometime.

On the Road Again with Bob Dylan.

0 Replies

(Draws up the strings on his capote and gets into his canoe)

See ya in the next rendesvous pilgrims.

(paddles off)

0 Replies

With no offer to answer the polite request for clarification of-

Quote:

I dont share the tenure track lifestyle anymore

notice.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

spendius wrote:
wande-

How does Michigan education answer points about origins and meaning to life because evolution science goes nowhere near doing so?

The resolution of the controversy in Michigan means that my work is finished. I have obliterated the ID infestation here in the United States!

hi wandeljw,

I think you'll find that the action has only just begun. Although free speech can be stifled from the top down, it is difficult, if not impossible, to silence it from the ground up.

With over 40% of scientists taking an ID position (now before timber gets bent out of shape and re-posts his articles for the umpteenth time, let's remind ourselves that over 40% of scientists are theistic evolutionists, an ID subcategory, and they do not believe that natural processes alone are sufficient to explain the diversity of life on Earth today), I don't think you've even turned the page to chapter 2 yet.

By misunderstanding the broad range of ID positions, from YEC to theistic evolutionist and everything in between and on the side, some folks might be surprised that ID isn't going away anytime in their lifetime. You'll be hearing about it from now on.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

hi wandeljw,

I think you'll find that the action has only just begun. Although free speech can be stifled from the top down, it is difficult, if not impossible, to silence it from the ground up.

Attempting to conflate foisting religious dogma on secular education with Free Speech is a bald-faced lie - nobody denies the ID-iots the right to speak, publish, or otherwise promulgate the claptrap they ignorantly endorse

Quote:

With over 40% of scientists taking an ID position (now before timber gets bent out of shape and re-posts his articles for the umpteenth time, let's remind ourselves that over 40% of scientists are theistic evolutionists, an ID subcategory, and they do not believe that natural processes alone are sufficient to explain the diversity of life on Earth today), I don't think you've even turned the page to chapter 2 yet.

And the last time you presented that lie, [url=http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2298323#2298323]timber[/url] wrote:

real life wrote:
The 40% I mentioned clearly refers to theistic evolutionists (IDers) , not creationists.

The percentage is quoted in the article you referenced as well.

You should read more carefully.

Read and comment on what's there, rl, as opposed to your common practice of twisting what is said, thereby playing the twit and exposing your proposition and the manner in which you forward that proposition to the ridicule they merit. Nowhere is it stated that 40% of scientists support or endorse any form of ID-iocy. What is said is:

Quote:
... Scientists almost unanimously accept Darwinian evolution over millions of years as the source of human origins. But 40%...include God in the process.

Only 5 percent of the scientists agreed [with] the biblical view that God created humans "pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years."

... The survey was a separate but parallel study to one reported in Nature (1997 Apr 3; 386:435-6) in which 40 percent of the same scientists reported a belief in a God who answers prayers and in immortality.

Now, "including God in the process" and expressing a belief in a "God who answers prayers and in immortality" hardly puts the scientists at discussion anywhere near where you would have them be - whether you recognize or understand that or not. The persistantly ignorant, mendacious manner of your discourse confirms the academic and philosophic bankruptcy of your proposition.

Quote:

By misunderstanding the broad range of ID positions, from YEC to theistic evolutionist and everything in between and on the side, some folks might be surprised that ID isn't going away anytime in their lifetime. You'll be hearing about it from now on.

The ID-iots behind ID haven't the wherewithal to do more than embarrass themselves every time they manage to drag their silliness into judicial or legislative forums. However, its quite probable the fool pool will provide ID-iots for generations to come; there's always a market for snake oil, however its packaged.

0 Replies

rl wrote-

Quote:

By misunderstanding the broad range of ID positions, from YEC to theistic evolutionist and everything in between and on the side, some folks might be surprised that ID isn't going away anytime in their lifetime. You'll be hearing about it from now on.

Which is no surprise to me. It's been going 2000+ years already and will continue so long as human beings are curious about origins, destinations, meanings to life, explanations of natural processes which science can't ever answer and orderly government.

These minor decisions in places like Dover and Michigan are neither here nor there and could well have perfectly rational explanations in the political and economic field. To draw the conclusion the ID-iots have been routed from them is premature to put it mildly.

The anti-ID position is basically a pose although there are rare exceptions who do actually live the debauched lifestyle it entails.

0 Replies

rl says

Quote:

By misunderstanding the broad range of ID positions, from YEC to theistic evolutionist and everything in between and on the side, some folks might be surprised that ID isn't going away anytime in their lifetime. You'll be hearing about it from now on.

.. I dont think that anyone would expect less. The real problem is that theres no valid core theory behind all the forms of ID. There is merely an argument from incredulity, "Life is so complex it must have been designed". When the IDers do manage to wrap ther mind about a core theory, then we talk. I think that looking for elements of design is always a good start and while The Design Research Page is a decent attempt , right now its directed by religious "double speakers" and actually, its kinda thin as we see that there are very few publications that have any scientific merit, lets say that I didnt see ANY.

Some thoughts that I had about showing Design is at least a possibility would include some of the following:

1If two planets would show a similar line of life clades as earth, it would, to me, mean that there was a lim ited toolkit of possibilities in how life manifests itself. This would be an argument that would at least open the door to some further inquiry. (I understand that its down the road , but it should be in the planning stages in a fully secular fashion)

2 If all the nucleotide spectra throughout the universe could be linked to actual self assembly reactions, then many more scientists would be interested.(This can be easily done with an orbiting spectrometer and a computer)

3If sef assembly and self organization were inherent within all molecular reactions, then ID would be more of a valid area of research.(Is it locked within the crystal lattice to develop a certain way) (Im gonna say no from my years of screwing around with crystals, but I was looking FOR something else entirely,. However, wed had discussions on the greatsimilarity between cell spacings in phyllosilicates and fatty acids)

I dont think that science people only dismiss ID from its connection to religion. Its because the LEADERS of the ID movement cynically USE some elements of science to push their adgenda of "Jesusization" of the world, and by doing so, actually thumb their noses at hard working scientists while doing nothing themselves.. It appears to me that a few scientists like mike Beheare about the onlyones who attempts to bridge the gaps . But even Mike uses the personal incredulity schtick too heavily. I look at resarch ID periodically to see whether there are any sub assemblies of thought evident but, Im never surprised at how the underpinning of religious dogma drives the movement and its "research" . It may not be apparent from the web site , but the leaders speak out of both sides of their mouths and this taints their credibility as dispassionate scientists.

The IDers feeble attempts to try to discredit recent scientific discoveries is another arena. TheIDers have no backlog of data and evidence of their own, which to me, is a fatal flaw of any disciplined inquiry. You cannot build a wall of evidence from negative spins on data and claim partial ownership, because youve not had any input or testing points from which to darw some of your own conclusions. The short lived study of "irreducible complexity" while ultimately dismissed, was at least a good attempt at basing some plan of action on an inchoate but universal structural element that, if correct, could have been shhown to be an indespensible element of the assembly of life. Too bad it wasnt succesful.

I think that the first thing the Discovery Institute should do is to clean house of its "Christain Fundamental" core leadership and , instead put it in charge of scientists like Ken Miller or even Mike Behe who both, while professing their faiths, first have science in mind. Behe needs to be able to do this soon before he has any credibility left. Miller, who can take a naturalistic view and critique it and pose the elements of design that I mentioned above . Then he could project a research program to investigate these elements, unencumbered by any religious dogma.Just some thoughts at 7AM on a Saturday.

0 Replies

On careful reconsideration, Im sure Ken Miller would look at me and say"you want me to devote my career to Whaaat?"

0 Replies

That was a short paddle fm. Just around the landing stage eh?

You're missing the point. We know there's no evidence to prove a designer. That's the point. Why do you keep banging on about it?

The absence of proof opens the door for the deployment of Vico's eloquence. Rhetoric if you like. You should read my posts more carefully and think about the points which I don't stress because to do so underestimates my readers, lovely little darlings that they are.

Rhetoric is speaking (or even writing) appropriate to the purpose of persuading and that is to bend the spirit by the expression. To **** their heads off their shoulders in modern parlance. The ones who do it best become leaders and, as it is a very difficult and very competitive field in democratic systems of various sorts, only very intelligent people are chosen such as Mr Bush.

His feats of persuasion are legion. There's no arguing about that. With all the echelons in modern government it is another irreducible complexity and cannot be explained even though many have tried.

The leaders have to have a story of somesort and they tailor it as best they can to ground conditions outside bearing in mind that 3% growth is an important objective.

Over the years, though atheism was available to them, they never chose it until recently and even that was half-hearted and looking like it might not have worked unless exports of oil and gas had come to the rescue the situation at a critical juncture.

Basically atheism has been selected out.

All that stuff about "similar line of life clades" and "nucleotide spectra" is neither here nor there.

What might be of interest, if we were going to have a poke about in the irreducible complexity, is-

Quote:

but it should be in the planning stages in a fully secular fashion

With you at the helm maybe or riding on the coat tails of Mr Behe and Mr Miller, or both, in your restructured Discovery Institute when purged of "Christian Fundamentalists" after giving them a good plug.

Creating yourself a nice little job. No sooner does a head pop up on telly calling for more money to be spent on this or that that, if the money is made available, the talking head has his or her nose in the bottomless trough which isn't actually bottomless. It only seems like it to them.

The "story" itself, atheism not being a runner, runs along synergistically with everything else tautologically so to speak.

Thus the argument becomes one about having an argument and some people find it entertaining even after they have discovered girls. Some have to wait until they have become worn out with girls. The former tend to trouble-making and the latter to shrugging and a general tone of acceptance which seems reasonable to me at 3% year on year.

I am, of course, not impugning your motives. I only suggested a possibility which some evidence points towards and even if it was to be the case I find it a very laudable motive. There's nothing wrong in pushing your boat out on the serene surface of Lake Taxpayer. That is eminently justified by evolution theory.

0 Replies

Quote:

You're missing the point. We know there's no evidence to prove a designer. That's the point. Why do you keep banging on about it?

Obviously then, I have no idea where YOURE coming from, but its not what we normally accept as laden with reason.
If theres no proof or evidence, then the entire stand ofID falls on its own. How can you make a point that ID is science and then exclude your own craft from its rules? Then any point is open to profess, even the flying pastafarian thingy.
you dont have to answer, I think you know that youve made what we often call a "dumass statement"

0 Replies

The sole virtue the proponents and defenders of ID-iocy may claim is consistent quality of statement. That circumstance is inherent to the proposition from which proceeds the body of absurdities they construct and endorse.

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

If theres no proof or evidence, then the entire stand ofID falls on its own.

I went to some length to explain the point.

If you think the discussion can continue in a worthwhile manner in the absence of social consequences you will obviously come to that conclusion. So would I if I thought that.

Do you know the "agenbite of inwit" which Stephen Dedalus wrestles with at the beginning of Ulysses.

It is over his refusal to pray for his dying mother. She had begged him to kneel and pray for her and he refused.

As Frank Budgen says about that, and he knew Joyce during the writing-

"It is a good thing to renounce a corrupting and destroying doctrine, and a good thing to solace the last hours of a sick mother. There would be no conflict in life at all if the choice of action lay always between good and evil. Stephen chooses what seems to him to be the greatest good. If offered the choice again he would choose the same, but that he chose rightly fails to shield him against remorse of conscience-- his 'agenbite of inwit.' One brought up in an atmosphere of rationalist indifferentism might have prayed and come to no harm, but Stephen was an ardent believer and holds his freedom only by dint of constant combat."

Whether a Dedalus type is justified in referring to the rational indifferentist as a "dumass" is a matter of another debate. It is certainly just an assertion and assumes that the correctness of your rationalism, your emotional investment in scientific logic being at stake, which is not in dispute, is somehow superior to the social consequences which also take other forms besides that of the sick mother.

Without some vestigials of religious belief all the mothers will die without that sort of solace and be entirely in the hands of the pharmaceutical industries and that may well be the favoured option of some.

Women are not much given to the severe logic you bring to bear. Nor are a lot of men.

Maybe that will change but I think it is a long way off.

Your position is in default of the social consequences as it has been throughout this debate and is, by definition, iconoclastic.

You cannot respect ID-iots and so you have peer anti-IDers for company who, being good evolutionists, step on necks to climb another rung up the ladder to prove their superiority in the struggle of all against all.

Pure megalopolitanism. Which is where media lurks with its slanted reports on these matters.

When it ends up referring to the other position as "dumass" it forfeits the respect for its own position. Which might be labelled "utopian".

0 Replies

spendi, I call to your attention the title of this thread, the question central to this discussion: "Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?.

I submit the following:

1) The Intelligent Design proposition does not qualify even for consideration as theory in any scientific or forensic sense; it in fact is antithetical to the concept of science and proceeds from an illicit premise (that being the insurmountable absurdity of its foundational self-proclaimed assertion it self-evidently MUST be true).

2) The sophistic protestations of those who would obscure the indivorceable nature of the purely religious creationism mythology and the therefrom descendent ID-iot proposition serve but to confirm the heterogenity of the concept.

3) The "Social Consequences" construct you persistently attempt to overlay on the matter at discussion, apart from itself being wholly bullshit, is inconsequential in that it is entirely irrelevant.

4) None of the above may be expected in any way to affect your practice in this and related discussion, as your contributions thereto demonstrate, conclusively so, complete lack of philosophic integrity, evidencing nought but the intellectual bankruptcy of the specious point of view expressed thereby.

5) It may be expected only that you will continue in such manner as has been your practice, thus ever more concretely rendering your contributions worthy of the contempt and ridicule they on their own presents merit and which to this point they have gained.

0 Replies

Ive never heard one who takes up so much space to offer so little and yet retain such an inflated view of his convoluted offerings as our spendi.

Quote:

I went to some length to explain the point.

You go to some great lengths to "recite" not communicate. There is a huuge difference..

Quote:

If you think the discussion can continue in a worthwhile manner in the absence of social consequences you will obviously come to that conclusion

NOT. Your not drinking now are you? go see kicky's thread and see what a real drunk can offer

0 Replies

fm-

You go see kicky's thread.

A public debate is not conducted between people who agree with each other. It is the audience that is of prime importance.

That you two continually castigate your opponents in the ungentlemanly manner you do, which obviously implies self-praise for your own position, will be noted by anybody with a degree of perspicacity, as will your continuous repetitive tone, constant use of smear tactics and total refusal to answer any point raised.

The debate can only be about social consequences as the science is obvious, simple and irrefutable as has been readily conceded.

The science, for example, a minor one chosen for discretion, is supposed to give insurance companies the power to determine the approximate age of death of those whose lives it insures. Were that science to be fully exploited insurance premiums would be no different from a money box with storage charges.

There are many areas of science which legislation has seen fit to mitigate for no other reason than the fear of the social consequences and I can tell from your contributions that you have no knowledge of those of them which have not been mentioned in the literature you have read.

That many people fear science, and especially its rigid applications, is amply justified by the general tone of those on here who supposedly speak for it, which they don't. One would be sensible to have grave reservations about the future if you two bombastic poltroons were in charge of it and your principles were put into practice.

You are supposed to serve the nation by getting on with your science and leaving the decisions on its uses to those elected to that responsibilty.

Meredith wrote-

"The sentimentalist is he who would enjoy without incurring the immense debtorship for a thing done."

You have no responsibility in the matter and thus no right to preach on it.

And don't say I preach because I don't. I simply defend the status quo and accept any changes those who are responsible set in train.

Not 1% of the population would buy into your position if it was taken within a 1000 miles of where it logically leads and with nothing to stop it it would go the whole hog inexorably. You are dipping your toe into it.

It would be a singular blessing to me, and I should think others, if you would be so kind as to refrain from repeating your trite mantras.

We have them off by heart. They are emanations from an insulated box of abstract thought. The only purpose they serve at this stage is as a vehicle on which to hang a similarly trite set of insults. If others are drawn to such things so be it but they are repellant to most people, especially me, particularly on the thousandth circuit.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know