Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

All of the faults laid at the door of Religion should, with a little thought, be laid instead at the door of human beings acting according to strict evolutionary guidelines.

Given that only Religion has the slightest chance of eradicating such principles wouldn't it be meet to wonder how these humans would behave operating scientific principles.

How pure Science would proceed without any inhibiting factors to contend with is pure speculation as it has never been tried yet but it is a fair bet that the same human propensities would come to the fore.

Man has created the human world about 10,000 years ago. What happened in the previous 4.567 billion years (?- facile number) is dead to human life.

Man has done that by transforming himself into society through thought and by re-creating his own creations. He traverses the same ground over and over and what he has made, society, is the only thing he truly knows precisely because he has made it like the watchmaker knows his watch long before he knows the atomic structure of the components.

To study biology without reference to psychosomatic functions is to place a blindfold on the student and to do that simply because the teacher knows no different and has only a limited expertise is to place the teacher above the student.

The students are going to grow up into society not into some jungle or marine existence where it is a continuous and merciless war of all against all driven by hunger and sex - the opposite of society.

Has the strengths of immune systems ever been studied in religious and anti-religious samples?

It is odd how Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome has appeared in secular scientific societies where anomie and alienation are rife.

Spendius, I stand corrected again.
I should have known you were not trying. You don't need to try; for trolls like you aggression seems to come as a reflexive compulsion, perhaps as a personality trait. You should do something about it.

JLN-


As I understand it I am arguing against aggression.

Perhaps you haven't read Lorenz and don't understand how evolutionary theory supports aggressive success.

I don't understand your point.

Why am I a troll? Is that just an assertion?

Wikipedia says-



I have been on this thread as an active participant in the debate for a long time. It seems to me that your interjection fits the definition. I am a member of an established community here in case you haven't noticed.

Does "intentionally tries to cause disruption" mean being in disagreement with you. You are insulting. You are off topic in relation to where the thread has got to and inappropriate in the sense that you haven't bothered keeping up and are still at the position of the first page.

Aroint thee thou rump fed ronyon.

I notice you have nothing to say about my previous post. What you have said is juvenile and exhibits aggression.

I rest my case.

Actually, it might be the case, Spendus, that I am confusing you with someone else--with regard to the troll charge. If that is so, you have my apology.

Sensible decision I would say.

JNL, dont doubt your first impressions. Spendi has been pretty much a testosterone- troll by trying to force this thread to proceed in a direction that apparently he becomes the sole participant.
The fact that hes been on this thread for so long merely demonstrates our patience( and sense of humor).

He forgets that teaching science has nothing to do with his socio-religious babble.However, once in a while spendi will stay on topic, but I believe that he uses these infrequent interludes as "bait" to engender responses to feed his ego.

fm-

Such a belief, and I thought you didn't do belief, is an idea you have. It must have been for you to have stated it.

It wouldn't enter my head to say the same thing about you and I don't see that I have done anything other than try to deal with posts on their merits and have not impugned anyone's motives despite a constant barrage of people impugning mine for some reason of their own.

Would not your statement apply to everyone on A2K?

In what way have I shown a desire to be the "sole paticipant"? It's as if you treat any opposition to your position in this offhand and insulting manner. Have not others sought to take the thread in a direction they wish. Isn't that what a debate is. It looks like you don't want to debate but to impose your will.

Besides, the "apparently" renders the sentence in which it appears meaningless

I don't understand what you mean by your "patience". Are you suggesting I'm a nuisance and should depart leaving you to to bestride the field without opposition. Your argument, if such it can be called, seems to me to be a call to close down A2K. Isn't "feeding" the ego perfectly natural under evolutionary theory. Why do you have a problem of that nature? Does the word "ego" have a negative magical effect on you? It isn't the first time you have used the psychological category as an invidious comparison with yourself as a shining beacon of pure selflessness.

Are you not feeding your ego? I don't indulge mine all that much compared to those who think their daily doings are of interest to everybody and, indeed, only those daily doings which are calculated to show them in a superior light.

I think your post is extremely foolish and the more so in light of JLN's apology and your seeming incapacity to apologise for anything despite having plenty to apologise for as anyone who has read your intemperate posts will readily recognise.

It seems so odd to me that someone holding a senior academic position in American education could have written your last post that it calls into question the veracity of your claims to hold such a position. Your whole position is built upon self serving assertions such as-

.

I forget no such thing and I disagree with the disrespectful use of the word "babble" although I am aware that such methods seem to be ingrained in anti-IDers and that is quite a sufficient reason on its own to oppose anti-ID.

I challenge anyone to read this thread and then hand over American education exclusively to anti-IDers.

Your charges seem more applicable to yourself than to me. I wouldn't even come on the thread to chant those mantras.

Babble it is.
I would only direct the readers to your above insults at JNL, who is, one of a2k's more patient and polite posters. You attack people yet fail to recognize these impulses of your own, and you do it within the same page of posts. You ought to begin chewing yourself out before you preach about being insulting.

JLN apologised. Which I accepted. It was a misunderstanding and stated to be. I don't know why you are picking up on such a thing.

I only defended myself from the charge of being a troll and that I was aggressive.

Anyway fm- it's pointless really. You don't answer anything.

And you suck up to other members in a vain and cheap attempt to pick up supporters. If they fall for that so much the worse for them.

The use of "babble" (baby talk) is denigrating to a majority American view. I read it was 80% and includes some elected office holders.

Hi JLN, always a pleasure to hear from you.

Yes, the answer to the original question was arrived at fairly quickly, but this thread has become more of an experiment by Wandel to see how long he can keep it going (and on track), and a playground for others just to banter.

(By the way Wandel, you're doing a great job keeping things going, despite the slippery traction of the original question)

A signal development of this thread has been the concrete demonstration that if nothing else, spendi's press of his inane personal agenda is extremely trying.

And I have learned a great deal of stuff from my participation in it which I would probably have never done without it and I've enjoyed it too.

So thanks also from me wande.

Those with closed minds never learn anything. I can't think why they come on a site called Able To Know. Some of them are still singing the same hymns they have been singing from the beginning.

"ID is not science and shouldn't be taught in a science class" should be set to the inspiring music of the atonal school.

First verse suggestion

ID is not science and shouldn't be taught in a science class,
The scientific method we are going to shove it right up your ass,
Our lady friends are monkeys
On that we're all agreed,
A perfect match for us boys
It's written in the seed,
ID is bullshit and is holding us all back
The earthworm's gut's is numinous
Oh dear, alas, alack.

Scansion all clumsy to fit the purpose and wrong notes should be included to embellish the effect.

Even as I was writing-



timber has come in to underscore the point.

Disagreement with timber is now asserted to be an extremely trying personal agenda.

It certainly isn't a personal agenda and why go on a thread that is extremely trying.

Wandel, The California case that you quoted has interesting implications beyond the normal 1st Amendment area. It also includes freedom of speech, assembly and then the 10th and 14th amendments (as well as the Corwin amendment , still being considered for ratification :wink: )

The implications include such things as :

"Does the individual, having met the requirements set by tyhe State for testing and SAT's have to bear further exclusion because the State deems that certain texts are outside the boundaries of approval?"

This I find possibly interesting as an entire whole bag-o-**** that noone had thought of before.

I never thought of that angle, but the plaintiffs may use that to argue their case, farmerman.

What about the contention that students who were taught with non-approved textbooks have the option to take SAT "subject tests"?

I agree, the California case has a broader sweep of constitutional issues to deal with, and will be just that much harder to analyze.

I wonder how much the Pennsylvania case will be used as precident on the California case.

My understanding is that the plaintiff's case involves only one of several methods by which a student can be admitted to the University of California. The method that the Christian schools are focusing on is the most popular method by which new students can be admitted. However, there are other methods to qualify for admission. The most popular method (and the one addressed by the lawsuit) is admission based on courses that have been pre-approved by the UC system. Some private Christian schools have not had their biology courses pre-approved because they rely on textbooks where scriptural teachings have priority over empirical science.

wandel
I think that, if thats the case, a big vermid parcel will be opened. What about GED's who then take an SAT based upon self-teaching after they acquire their GED?. In Pa, the results are what counts. We teach to tests and although we require certain courses, a kid can get "his ticket punched" by demonstrated proficiency. If Im testing an applicant in the essay part of the entrance exam (assuming the kid aced the SAT's), and I ask kid
1How old is the earth

2 Give 3 points of evidence that demonstrate this?
Kid has to understand it for entrance to a program.
Yep, Im gonna watch this one reeeeal good. If Christian schools are being singled out for pre-approval of coursework, then there are some civil rights at issue here.

As I understand UC's stance, EITHER approved coursework OR satisfactory course-specific testing may be used to qualify a student for admission; if the coursework is not to standard, the student may demonstrate proficiency via examination, thereby avoiding exclusion on basis of coursework. That seems perfectly fair to me - whether the student learned it in school or learned it independently through whatever means, a student who lacks the approved coursework but demonstrates having learned the material well enough to pass the test qualifies. Much the same condition pertains to GED holders; they must pass entrance examinations, whereas a student presenting a satisfactory transcript consisting of approved courses taught by fully accreditted schools need not undergo the entrancve exam.