Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Quote:

When meaninglessness hijacks the threads we are really in the ****.

Youre lucky that Im kind and havent taken the obvious opportunity that your 30 has laid out..

Just consider that you had said it. Laughing

0 Replies

Be my guest. I'm already too lucky for my own good.

Take me down a peg or two. What's the "30"?

0 Replies

a closing

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

That's as maybe but it is a scientific fact that a new church of Scientology was opened yesterday in London with large crowds and some fanfare on TV, hoping, the voice-over said, for a glimpse of Tom Cruise and that dancer who is running to fat and also that the only church I have seen built recently (£800 million I was told by the office manager) is a Latter Day Saints job which can be seen from miles away.

What's your point?

0 Replies

http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/8048/lgn025ta1.jpg

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

I didn't say to ignore the problem. I don't think the problem should be ignored.

I'm saying that you cannot ask evangelicals to teach evolution. They don't understand it, they don't believe it.

Ok. I agree with that. Smile

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

[The issue is that, really, it is the concept of an evangelical school that needs to be abolished.

Ever heard of freedom of speech or freedom of religion?

0 Replies

stuh wrote-

Quote:

What's your point?

That if a vacuum is created all sorts of wierd and wonderful things will enter to fill it up. People in the main will not live with meaninglessness.

With your agenda and that of others these things follow auotmatically. If you don't recognise that people have a need for "something" you must have your head in the sand.

BTW- I left your question on another forum for reasons of discretion.

0 Replies

spendi

Quote:

Which "evangelicals" are anti-science?

According to the Evangelical Union in US, the Evanglicals are only lately coming to the table of such things as Environmentalism as they distance themselves from the present administration..
Case in point,--The popularity of the "Left Behind " books has had large numbers of Protestants , in the past, shunning the science behind such things as global Warming, Evolution, and many Earth Sciences .
These books have been wildly popular and are based upon an "end of days" prophecy.

I read one of them with the idea that it never hurts to understand the mindset of those you debate in schools. Ive had more fun at how the LAWS of science are manipulated by the authors. While much of science requires some knowledge involvement with scholarship. I found these books horribly simplistic and naive. Sort of readjusted science fiction for Evangelicals.

0 Replies

fm-

I wasn't referring to what a small number of self-publicists say. I was referring to what these supposed anti-science evangelicals actually do in large numbers in real life.

I don't consider "anti-science" to be negotiable. I presume it means the rejection of science and its uses. If it doesn't the way is open for it to mean anything anybody wants it to mean and thus, in discorse, meaningless.

From what you said about the Amish they are not anti-science.

We still need "bad things" and "good people" defining objectively. Objectivity is a principle of a Science forum isn't it?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

stuh505 wrote:
The issue is that, really, it is the concept of an evangelical school that needs to be abolished.

Ever heard of freedom of speech or freedom of religion?

I'm not sure what the laws are like in Canada.

Many countries have neither free speech or freedom of religion. I'm glad I live in a country which has both.

0 Replies

And I'm not sure why you are declining my invitation to define "bad things" and "good people".

You said them. They do need to be clarified for the post they were in to make sense.

0 Replies

Quote:

I don't consider "anti-science" to be negotiable. I presume it means the rejection of science and its uses

. iM NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN ABOUT "SELF PUBLICISTS" as the Evangelical Union is quite clouty. As far as whatever you mean by negotiable. Youre the one trying to counter what ros said. and Ive given an example. Now you want to trivialize the data.
The evangelicals that define themselves as "Gospel driven" have selectively bought , sold, traded , and otherwise ignored many basic laws of science. So, they certainly are attempting to negotiate their stance on science. They may buy into, say, Beers Law, but many wish to deny universal Gravitation or Atomic theory because these Theories deny the YEC/OEC age of the earth by standard geophysical and radiochemical processes (last time I looked, those were areas of science and theEvangelicals were ANTI geophysics and radiochemistry).

The AMish are also a bit hypocritical when it comes to science, but they getaway with it with the excuse that they dont even bother with education beyond the equivalent of our 8th grade. So , again, your comparison is without a sillplate, its apples and oranges.

0 Replies

Well fm- they don't sound "anti-science" to me. Any of them.

Book publishing uses science a lot.

It is another of those expressions which can mean anything anybody wants it to mean and is thus meaningless, especially on a science forum, and is used simply to create an impression ( a smear) without actually doing so if the reader has any nonce and thus its use implies the reader is a bit thick. It is a habit usually associated with those who are used to thick or over-polite company.

I know some science which ros can be garuanteed to be anti to.

It is not trivialising the data to stick up for proper language use. It is most important as I have pointed out a number of times and nowhere moreso than on the www.

It was actually a polite question. I did wonder which Evangelicals were anti-science. I assumed it was a group more extreme than the Amish who you admit are hypocritical. If there is such a group I would assume that they thought the Amish were pro-science.

Sounds to me like they all cherry-pick.

One might say, and quite properly, that loose language use is anti-science.

0 Replies

Quote:

It is another of those expressions which can mean anything anybody wants it to mean and is thus meaningless, especially on a science forum, and is used simply to create an impression ( a smear) without actually doing so if the reader has any nonce and thus its use implies the reader is a bit thick. It is a habit usually associated with those who are used to thick or over-polite company.

Im sorry spendi, but I lost my train of thought here, I was watching a great herd of pigs flying south for the winter

0 Replies

Oh-that's alright fm. I understand.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

And I'm not sure why you are declining my invitation to define "bad things" and "good people".

You said them. They do need to be clarified for the post they were in to make sense.

No they don't.

You're the only one who didn't understand. Nobody else asked for clarification, even though I asked.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Im sorry spendi, but I lost my train of thought here, I was watching a great herd of pigs flying south for the winter

I love it, "a great herd of pigs flying south".... What ever happened to the bunny with a pancake on its head. Spendi cornered the market in those a while back.

0 Replies

ros wrote-

Quote:

spendius wrote:
And I'm not sure why you are declining my invitation to define "bad things" and "good people".

You said them. They do need to be clarified for the post they were in to make sense.

No they don't.

Right fm. Decision time. Do you agree or don't you?

0 Replies

why are you addressing me? Lovely creatures the flying pig. Bye till next spring my porcine playmates.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know