Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

spendi

Quote:

One would be entitled to expect that those offering advice on how to organise education for a nation of 300 million people would start by learning how to use the language they speak properly and with scientific rigour.

. If you refer to the New Scientist article, you suffer from lack of understanding of the nuance of language in use by various disciplines. Itd be much easier that you should try to keep up, rather than make these dumb assertions that "scispeak" is incorrect The problem with many advanced disciplines is that communication is often a shibboleth understood by only a small audience. Its not meant for mass communication, and whenever it finally gets to the NY Times "Tuesday " or the National Geographic, its watered down a bit so that the true meaning is somewhat obscured.
Many workers have such an immersion in their own specialities that they dont communicate with colleagues a few offices over. Thats why Lee Smolin, Jerry Coyne, Robt Rude,TimWhite, and E O WIlson can speak eloquently for both sides while folks like Behe and Austen try to focus on the absurdly detailed and arcane to try to make their points by "fog factor" , not science.
Behe, for example, even after his entire "enzyme cascade" speeches have been debunked by many in mainstream molecular bio, still counts on making the occasional obfuscatory speech in East Buttcheek Nebraska, and , by presenting his pile of doo-doo, hopes to convert the tentful hes drawn together for that evenings entertainment.
Go after Behe's language skills spendi,the vey phrase "irreducible complexity" is but a game token, it has no scientific merit at all.But, of course, your goals are not to advance anything logical.

Like Flauberts "yelling room", you like to hear your stuff read aloud. I suggest that you read a neat little essay by Nick Humphreycalled .

Consciousness:the Achilles Heel of Darwinism? Thank God,Not Quite.

0 Replies

Bob Dylan singing about wasted words.

Now that's funny.

0 Replies

Dozie Dawg-

Have you ever read Veblen's remarks on dog owners?

What words of Dylan's have you in mind leaving out Ballad in Plain D which he has apologised for.

fm-I didn't criticise the scientific language apart from saying what you said about it.

It was the article's language I was referring to. It wasn't worth reading. I said nothing about the "sci-speak" being incorrect.

Quote:

Its not meant for mass communication, and whenever it finally gets to the NY Times "Tuesday " or the National Geographic, its watered down a bit so that the true meaning is somewhat obscured.

Well then- explain what the "mass" is supposed to do about that apart from taking the anti-IDers assertions as givens. And they win votes.

What "dumb assertions" did I make? Hasn't this thread been going long enough for the viewers to require a bit more than that in order to arrive at your conclusion with confidence?

I would be inclined to alter-

Quote:

its watered down a bit so that the true meaning is somewhat obscured.

to

Quote:

its watered down a lot so that the true meaning is obscured.

I don't rate Behe at all except as a clever manipulator and self publicist. It is a measure of the public's innocence that he is given a hearing.

0 Replies

Quote:

Russian Teen Sues School Over Theory Of Evolution
(Associated Press, December 14, 2006)

ST. PETERSBURG, Russia -- A Russian court on Wednesday held hearings in an unprecedented lawsuit brought by a 15-year-old student who says being taught the theory of evolution in school violates her rights and insults her religious beliefs.

Maria Shreiber sued the St. Petersburg city education committee, claiming the 10th-grade biology textbook used at the Cervantes Gymnasium was offensive to believers and that teachers should offer an alternative to Darwin's famous theory.

"The biology textbook generally refers to religion and the existence of God in a negative way. It infringes on believers' rights," she said in comments carried by Russian television stations.
Shreiber could not be immediately located for further comment.

Her father, Kiril Schreiber, who represented her in court Wednesday, said he wants the biology textbook revised. School officials, meanwhile, were dismissive of the suit.

Principal Andrei Polozov said he doubted Shreiber had "serious religions beliefs."

"It seems to everyone that this is stupid and serves no purpose," he said of the lawsuit in televised comments. "Pupils and teachers are more amused than concerned about it."

Deputy Principal Olga Makarova told The Associated Press that the biology teacher had mentioned alternative theories to evolution.

"When starting the course on the matter, the biology teacher said that there are other versions of humanity's origin," she said.

The suit is the first of its kind in Russia.

In the United States, several lawsuits challenging the theory that says humans descended from apes have been filed in courts, with many anti-evolution groups pushing an idea known as "intelligent design" which holds that living organisms are so complex they must have been created by some kind of higher force.

0 Replies

One assumes that Principal Andrei Polozov and Deputy Principal Olga Makarova are ex Party members and they look to be in unison with anti-IDers everywhere.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

Quote:
Russian Teen Sues School Over Theory Of Evolution
(Associated Press, December 14, 2006)

"It seems to everyone that this is stupid and serves no purpose," he said of the lawsuit in televised comments. "Pupils and teachers are more amused than concerned about it."

An interesting reaction. It'll be fun to see what the russians do with this.

0 Replies

As I understand from my limited knowledge of recent history of the old USSR, they took the concept of "separation of church and state" to laughable levels.

0 Replies

Well the Supreme Soviet recognised no higher power that itself.

"How many divisions has the Pope? ", Stalin is supposed to have said and Winston Churchill advised not going up against the Catholic Church and the National Union of Mineworkers.

Polarisation I suppose.

And Confucius said- "He who sits in middle of road gets run over by traffic going in both directions."

0 Replies

Evolution ruling a 1-sided copy,think tank says
Lancaster New Era, Dec 15, 2006.
Martha Raffaele (AP)

Quote:

HARRISBURG_ A federal judge who barred a York County school district from teaching "Intelligent Design" virtually copied findings of fact from the winning side in a key section of the landmark ruling, according to a "think tank" that promotes the concept and criticizes the decision.
The Discovery Institute released a study in which it compared the December 2005 ruling by US District Judge John E. Jones III with findings proposed by lawyers for the eight families who sued to have ID removed from the Dover Area school's biology curriculum. The decision equated ID, which attributes the complexity of living organisms to an unidentified intelligent cause, with creationism. The Seattle based institute determined that about 90% of a section of the ruling that found that ID was not science was copied"nearly verbatim" from the plaintiffs proposed findings of fact submitted with their post trial brief, said John G. West, a Discovery Institute senior fellow and associate director for the institutes Center for Science and Culture....
"Its a masterpiece of Cut and paste",West said. Jones, whose ruling was not appealed, had no comment on the study. ID holds that living organisms are so complex that they nust have been created by some kind of higher being.
In his ruling, Jones called ID religion and accused the school board of "breathtaking inanity" by trying to teach it as science.The school board, through its own attornies , had argued that it hoped to expose students to alternatives to Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection.However, most of the school board was ousted in November 0f 2005 by voters, even before the trial was complete, and the newly elected school board rescinded the initial board decision in January 2006.
Judges who preside over non-jury trialsin civil court routinely ask both sides to propose these findings of fact before their rulings, so said University of Pennsylvania law professorGeoffreyC. Hazard Jr.

"You could take the findings of fact as written, if theyre done really well"said Hazard

Looks like the Discovery Institute cant recognize what is a "non-compelling argument' The fact that the defendants proposed findings of fact were also quoted throughout the decision, was not addressed by the Discovery Institute"s authors.
Usually the losers just say "shut up and deal"

0 Replies

That's "breathtaking inanity" for you - the ID-iots likewise are incapable of recognizing, let alone formulating, an actual compelling argument. This is just one more example of "The hurrier they go, the behinder they get". These clowns not only are set on destroying their own agenda, by extension, they're a clear-and-present-danger to Evangelical Fundamentalist Christianity itself. With freinds such as their champions and most active supporters, the ID-iots have little need of external enemies. Way cool.

0 Replies

I told you that months ago timber. It is why I distinguished Intelligent Design (a label) from intelligent design (an idea). People who have sympathy with intelligent design don't go on about flagella, blood cascades and bat's knuckle bones.

But there is local democracy to consider in the face of city-based agendas.

0 Replies

Dossy dawg wrote-

Quote:

Bob Dylan singing about wasted words.

Now that's funny.

I guess he must be a Pink Floyd fan.

0 Replies

spendi

Quote:

It is why I distinguished Intelligent Design (a label) from intelligent design (an idea)

. I like the way you try to distinguish whatever it is that you are speaking about as compared to what the rest of the world is speaking about. However, Ill bet that It is kind of embarrasing aligning yourself with a bunch of Houyhnhnms, but yet not wanting to accept their "Books of logic".

Wahtever, If it works for you, I find it greatly entertaining watching you tap dance around, trying to convince us that you " really reminded us of this exact point" months ago, Very Happy

0 Replies

Well I did fm-

It might be you don't read too carefully. Too fast possibly. Or more too eager to get to your own stuff. I don't think it's because you're too thick but one never knows these days. There's some thick bastards at the top everybody on the Politics forum seems to think.

I more or less accused, in a roundabout way I'll admit, the defence at Dover of taking a dive. I should think wheeling Behe on is a sort of group suicide. All hell might have been let loose if JJ had found the other way. Nobody knew what the technical stuff meant anyway except those spouting it; the reporters reporting it certainly didn't. Even though their Mums might have thought otherwise. And some readers.

I like watching people squirm and huff and puff. Not when it's hurting them though unless it's self-inflicted. I used to laugh at the tug-of-war when I was a kid and sat safely on the right side of the rope at the fete licking an ice-cream. All those fatties heaving and straining with their eyes popping out. My father was sat in the beer tent with his feet up on a table smoking a fag and talking horses with a pal. The final was the best.
Cricket is five days of torture. Lying across the sofa watching the silly sods, sandwich board men, is bliss. When a batsman get smacked on the neck bone where the skin is thinnest with a Brett Lee fizzer and goes down in an ungainly heap of writhing pain I always think "good enough for you ". You wouldn't catch me guarding stumps with only a bat and Brett Lee running in snorting. I have too much respect for his bowling. I would be hiding behind the umpire obeying the laws of evolution.

It's a bit like that. The final is in the USSC.

Keep coming back to the "Books of logic" is exactly what I described de Sade doing in a recent post. He deployed all the arguments anti-IDers use only much more elaborately and more stylishly. He forgot social consequences as well. He may well have been a significant player in inventing a number of the sciences but he missed sociology. It was a blind spot. It usually is for egomaniacs. How can you see trends when you're only interested in yourself.

And it depends on what "us" means. If it is an imaginary set of viewers who read things your way that might constitute an assertion.

0 Replies

spendi, I am never certain whether your obtuseness is merely a joke shared by one, or whether its congenital. If you think that the Dover school board and the Moore Law center were not trying to win their case then you are a valued customer for my newest elixer "Hi Papa Low".
If you carry your own legal logic to its conclusion, then it would have to be stipulated that the Discovery Institute had a not so secret "death wish" by even entering the fray at Dover. At the outset, the Discovery Institute was as full of zeal as the First Crusade. They only later learned that, by the strength of their own arguments , when heard out loud, " that they were not compelling and were merely religion in another suit ofclothes"(to paraphrase the Judge). The DI did eventually want out, but that came later in the game only after Dr Behe was handed his lunch and Dr Rude made the plaintiffs eloquent points for the compatability of the scientific with the "sacred" and Ken Miller clearly trashed the "science of ID". Meanwhile, all the experts , pro bono and hired, were covered under the reuirements of the Daubert rule, so they were carefully voire dired up front , so your "taking a dive" argument is quite moist, if not fully soaked.
Obviously you are incorrect about the outcome to the "cults"
because the DI is still pushing its cart around and still polishing Mike Behe to talk to Evangelical groups (none of whom has any interest in any scientific affiliations).
What it was that you may have thought "you first brought to our attention months ago" was already old news by the time you caught up. I recall, that when this thread surrounded Dover, you were pretty much being tutored by various posters and one of our lawyers on the very issues concerning the case which you finally admitted that you were ignorant of, and not too interested in anyway. So any pats on the back that you wish to award yourself are merely coincidental and that reminds me of my Uncle Stanley, who once"harvested" a big buck deer with a 12 point rack, the only problem was that he did it with his Oldsmobile in a manner that was clearly a surprise to both he and the deer.
His story ultimately morphed from a car/ deer collision resulting freom a DUI incident into becoming a single shot score of a record Boone and Crockett deer taken in a foggy wood. We never called Uncle Stash on his minor adjustments of the facts, we just went along with it because the story was so good.

0 Replies

Hey-dear viewers-

Listen to this for bullshit.

Quote:

At the outset, the Discovery Institute was as full of zeal as the First Crusade.

Zeal is measured by pain and suffering fm. The fat cats at the DI are having boiling oil poured down on them are they after three days without food or water.

If that was in an article I would turn over the page on reading a sentence like that.

It's the same with "trying to win the case". No suffering. No challenges to any sacred shibbolets. Just expenses for being sat down at the centre of attention in the Sunday best and stirring up the ****.

Just assertions. Did you not think my suggestion that JJ couldn't find the other way due to the ructions he perhaps saw ahead if he didn't strike you as worth having a dig at.

The ID side went in with their hands tied due to their own squeamishness.
If they didn't know they were fools, which might well be the case, and if they did they took a dive. I was assuming they were not fools due to my general respect for the other fellow. I knew the bind they were in.

In the event JJ came down for the side that says his dear wife is a chimpanzee in a frock and high heels and a nice line in chattering. Has he any daughters? His seeking to undermine the Patriarchy might be explained if he has. Was it made plain to him?

It was a good story about Uncle Stan. Obviously bullshitting runs in the family. Is he on the your father's side of the genetic message passed on in that most fateful of moments? Or was he found under a gooseberry bush?

0 Replies

Quote:

I recall, that when this thread surrounded Dover, you were pretty much being tutored by various posters and one of our lawyers on the very issues concerning the case which you finally admitted that you were ignorant of, and not too interested in anyway. So any pats on the back that you wish to award yourself are merely coincidental

. Its an assertion , sure, but its factual nonetheless.
You are indeed, the master of the bleedin obvious (paraphrasing John Cleese)

0 Replies

That's science ain't it?

I bet most even-handed viewers don't think I'm a master of the obvious. I might even hold out the hope that some of them have been startled by my inventiveness, my ingenuity and my wit.

You lot only have one tune. The social consequences argument has so surprised you that you still don't know what it means.

Reading the measurement of a fossilised bat's ankle bone and saying it is longer or shorter than another one is pretty bleedin' obvious.

Have you ever counted the miracles in Homer's Odyssey. You don't think Homer actually believed they had happened do you you silly moo. He tells a better tale that Richard Dawkins though. 400 pages of Dawkins might be useful for knocking people out for operations. Or having on your coffee table to display your scientific credentials. But it won't be around in 3000 years.

Can science explain the chains Homer pulled? And those his legion of imitators also have done.

0 Replies

You said it yourself fm-

Quote:

we just went along with it because the story was so good.

Science has no sex, murder and mayhem. It's boring.

0 Replies

Quote:

Science has no sex, murder and mayhem. It's boring.

Only to those with no childlike sense of wonder . If I have only one song, I wish to be able to sing it well, not be a scatter brain AADHD sufferer.

The problem with your social implications and its prose, it just leads to more irrelevant prose. Try finishing an entire thought with something compelling besides your self congratulatory crap.

Quote:

Science has no sex, murder and mayhem. It's boring.

, what a stupid remark, even from you.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know