Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

I should've said tumor anyhow. Because, you know, teste tumors are funny.

That's a bit below the belt, patiodog.

Come on folks- this is a class thread.

fm- I was referring to what is known as the "Christian Unconscious" and linking its possible disappearance to a long term time scale. And also trying to consider whether science only in schools would lead to this debate moving to other aspects of the general educational process such as media, art and traditional practices.

If you wish to call that "incorrect 'junque' " that is your affair but doing so is hardly a debating point. It's another A.

When large scale campaigns are successful the organisation doesn't usually pack up its gear and leave. They move on to the next thing.

I agree with patiodog that scientists have a tendency to be oddballs. I think that is because the academic effort required is difficult for young people who are able to enjoy such things as sport and socialising and the others with some intelligence take up with difficult subjects as a strategy to combat their disadvantages. High income being their only attractive aspect generally.

It is a difficult area to discuss.

It can apply to top sports people as well due to the rigours of the training. But not in all cases. Psychologists have been known to discuss the matter.

It is similar to the idea that short men are often aggressive and plain ladies become socially active in troublemaking areas. I have met hygiene issues but they are a minority.

One thing such scientists have is an obsession with the scientific method and a bigoted approach to frail humanity which cannot live according to its strictures. But there is a problem with the Christian Unconscious.

My attitude to assertions is the result of exposure to the scientific method which I embraced fully until I realised its inadequacy in the social organisation of a population as a whole. Scientists tend to live in their own world which leads to elitism. And they have a very defensive attitude and thus are easily angered at any questioning of their professionalism.

They are also rendered a bit strange by the ordinary person treating them as if they were shamans of some sort which is probably unavoidable. The public don't have the conception of the mad scientist for nothing.

This debate is in danger of politicising them and driving them into a corner. The two most prominent features of the anti-ID side are the tendencies to be easily angered and the seeming reflexivity of the assertion to deal with difficult questions.

One question I have asked three times in the last week and no answer has yet been given. Does the use of assertions empower others to do the same unless only the asserters assertions have validity?

As Dylan said -"You can't look at much can you man?"

.
read my sig line

Are you saying fm that it was an improper question?

That's another A.

It isn't an A to say that once again you have failed to answer the question. That's a fact. I would address it if I was you because otherwise your credibility quotient is sinking fast.

As competitive assertions constitute a breakdown in communication, as any marriage guidance counsellor will tell you, the impression might get about that you are in favour of that. A judge will tell you that when they are delivered under oath the law itself is in some disarray.

There is a sort of jury on here and I'm content to allow them to judge whether it was an improper question or not.

Stop the whale poop and ask a question in a sense that is not sounding like some poll where you want the desired outcome to be answer number 1.

Youre devious but fortunately youre not that good . Like who the hell is SANCHO PANCHEZ?

The character Cervantes put himself into in Don Quixote which is the character who reminds one most of anti-IDers. The vehicle for the ironic treatment of the passe and the world it represents. The spelling varies but the one I used is the most common I think. Cervantes is thought by some experts (asserters all) to have invented the novel in the writing of it.
Such an assertion allows them the luxury of ceasing to think.



That's a Double A. (Possibly a triple). It grants me permission to say that you are a slimy double-dyed snivelling little runt of questionable parentage and barely literate with it. And that's tame by my standards.

And where does that go except breakdown of communication and resort to fisticuffs.

Not that I would say that of course. I only suggested it to make the point.

Assertions are all very well between rival football supporters because they don't really mean anything and are quite good fun. But this debate concerns the future educational policy of both our countries and that does mean something.

spendi OHHH, then you mean Sancho Panza.

Only a fool grades themselves, you only hear your own brain buzz. Thats not learning, thats obsession.

Setting up fake rules for a fake game are we? Calling out derisve names is questionable etiquette and possibly in violation of rules of good manners.(Something that you frequently swear that you bide by).
I may be all the above but, you blinked first with the name calling.





nyah nyah.
Ill not sink to those unkind depths that you "christian" saints always do. You cry about how the other guys are not as virtuous as you, yet when things go south, you engage in whining like a red fox in heat.

Your knitting assertions now fm.

Of all the variations of the name I've seen I prefer the one I used for some reason. I suppose your choice is intended to demonstrate a knowledge of the original language.

I don't remember grading myself except possibly in my first ever contribution to A2K which is my member profile.

I didn't call you any names at all. All I said was that you had granted me permission to do so by calling me one. Or a few hundred actually. I simply gave a trite example of the sort of thing you had granted me permission to say if I had it in mind which I stressed I didn't.

It was an attempt to show you what a stupid activity name calling, and assertion in general, actually is and to persuade you to desist from the activity.

You seem to have missed the point entirely.

I'm afraid I have no experience of a red fox in heat. Is it any good?

Really? you think? Your writing is the prose style of the way Quentin Tarantino scripts a movie. He writes a script, then he throws it into the air and picks it up in no specific order. Then he puts the movie together.

At least he can pull it off. You, Im afraid, need some more remedial creative writing classes.

Regale us with whatever scrambled logic you have next to offer.

Hereafter I shall try to only respond to ID (religion or not) and leave the spume to spendi.

fm wrote-



Okay.

When Micheal throws Lucifer out of heaven it symbolises the rejection (still incomplete) of our animal nature as represented by the seven deadly sins and their ubiquity in the Pagan world.

To attempt to make out that Christian theologians actually believe an other-world Micheal actually ejected an other-world Lucifer out of some divine swing doors and then attack the notion on that basis (setting up your own target) displays a naivety akin to that of those who do believe it.

What is achieved by the idea of Mick giving Old Nick the heave-ho is that it provides a basis for conditioning the difference between good and evil and science can't do that.

The children enact the tale in their daydreams and play and when they get older they realise that the tale is mumbo-jumbo and they forget it but the difference between good and evil has been implanted in them. To some extent at least. Science can only do that with carrots and sticks. And there are no carrots for kids. Maybe prize money in exams would do the trick. And there are few sticks either these days.

Evolution teaches that what we consider evil is actually an advantage. What disadvantages are there in pride, covetousness, lust, anger, gluttony, envy and sloth for scientific theories outside those dealing with social consequences?

The idea that the tale will be retained into adulthood is fanciful as is the idea that science has a better method of inculcating agreed values than such a tale which is told the world over in different forms and always has been.

As I quoted Joyce having Bloom think- "There's a big idea behind it" or somesuch.

anything else?

Be there relevant thought behind it, the spendi style and manner of exposition provides for that thought the perfect safety of invisibility.

I used to get that way only when I drank tequila

KANSAS UPDATE

Didn't you do something similar with Popeye to get the kids to eat their spinach?

Was that "invisible"?

Try your style and expostion on that. Any fool can take a reading off a carbon dating machine, add a few big words only the chosen know the meaning of and assert that they gave a clear exposition.

The Micheal/Lucifer story is still extant. Suggest a scientific way of teaching good from evil then.

I thought my exposition quite visible, fairly stylish and pretty clear. With more time I could have done a lot better.

What grounds have you for your remarks fm?

I never touch a drop before about 10.40 pm. And you know it.

More than stylish, it ws over the top. assertions, I know no such thing. You are a line of type to me.

spendi, We can't discern the difference in your posts between fiction, imagination, poetry, self-delusion, assertions without evidence, and whether you are inebriated when you write. The persona we know as spendi on a2k is all over the map; rather difficult to know who spendi is.

I've only arrived at one conclusion; you love attention.

Did the rose survive selective evolution because of it's thorns or because of it's beauty?

Rex, You can figure that one out all by your lonesome.