Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

This was a great article. Here's another choice selection...



His boss didn't like that, so he fired him (gave him the axe ) and said this instead...



But 'The Design Perspective' is just non-naturalism. So what Axe really said was exactly the same thing Weber said. Maybe he should fire himself next.

It's amazing to watch these people squirm. Instead of trying to use good science to demonstrate their theory, they are now suggesting that their philosophy, which they are calling "Design Perspective", will improve science itself.

One might say that if two American adults make those statements without any reference to what "good" means it might be time to scrap the American educational system and begin again.

Aside from the first statement being meaningless in the absence of a definition of "good" it may not be true even with a good education were it to be agreed.

Repression of the working class, judging from the influx of foreign goods, could well be a much more important factor.

The last post is posited on what "seems to show" means.

And a "computer code that ran undisturbed to "recreate" the conditions on earth " doesn't come anywhere near saying that it did actually recreate the conditions on earth.

Simple spin I'm afraid.

It probably created some funding though.

"Undisturbed" looks odd.



Again the "seem" fulfills the same function.

There are articles in posh newspapers here and TV programmes (one just last night) about non-religious, ambituous parents pretending to convert to Catholicism, even getting baptised and attending church, simply in order to get their children into Catholic schools. Even signing forms which tell lies. Some are claiming it is fraud.

I am nowhere near the "only" person concerned with a definition of what good means but I can well understand that some people don't care and are content to define good for themselves. The danger is, of course, when they start preaching their own version of good and laying it on the population and rejecting, often with insults, any scrutiny of it.

There is no awareness here of the differences between education, indoctrination and conditioning.

Mr Blair used to chant-"Education, education, education."

Now he chants, not so loudly, "Education, education, life skills."

You can only afford to educate a small elite.The Jesuits and Pavlov laid
down the ground rules for the lump.

Here, here, spends.

Nice post.

x

ros quoted-



What is naturalism?

If the postulates of religious and metaphysical dogma have been undermined by empirical methods could not the search for a meaningful pattern in the realm of social and historical phenomena be pursued by the selfsame methods science has applied to nature. Human life and thus social activity are obviously a part of nature.

To assume a purposeless sequence of events, as must follow logically from the assumption of "no design" would make such a search pointless as it would only be studying a flux of fortuitous happenings.

Is there a science of man outside of brute evolutionary determinism?

Condorcet thought so and predicted the possibility in his Sketch for the Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind of not only explaining human history but of forecasting developments and thus facilitating the promotion of cultural advantages. Hence sociology and economics.

Is this debate merely an excresence of inter-departmental battles over funds and status with megaphones and blurted assertions.

That would be anti-intellectualism in its pig-stye.

It isn't a question of whether there is an intelligent designer or not because that is also pointless as we can never know. It is a question of the social consequences of not thinking so which can only be a survival of the fittest doctrine.

The science of man is at a very early stage and thus subject to competing ideas just as the science of nature was in its earliest stages. That is no reason to dismiss it. To do so is dogmatic. The anti-ID side here is suffering from hubris. And on shallow postulates.

The GOD LAB looks like IDers taking a dive again to me. Playing into anti-IDers grasping and grateful hands. I can't imagine such a thing in Europe.

One assumes the forceful assertions have stilled the laughter. That is to be expected when people themselves live by assertions.



That is a reasonable position.

smorgs wrote-



Take care smorgs. They will assert that you are barmy if you keep that up. They will actually believe that their assertion is scientific evidence that you are barmy. Men too. Who are seeking to determine the future education of tens of millions of innocent American children.

Are you affected by assertions of that nature? You won't have a nervous breakdown if they assert you are barmy will you?

There's no need. Such things have less effect on me that a gentle breeze off the coast of Taiwan.

I have started to develop a theory that American movies are pure propaganda designed to present the American male in a passable light.

No wonder the French keep them out. Maybe we should consider it.

I consider barmy a compliment.

x

It seems pretty humorous to try and use science in the aid of the supernatural. Even more humorous is trying to use the supernatural in the aid of science.

That's not to say science cannot and should not investigate the supernatural nor is it to say that the proponents of the supernatural cannot and should use science.

It seems pretty humorous to try and use science in the aid of the supernatural. Even more humorous is trying to use the supernatural in the aid of science.

That's not to say science cannot and should not investigate the supernatural nor is it to say that the proponents of the supernatural cannot and should not use science.

Question: Just how widespread a global threat is the ID movement (perceived or actual) being that I (try and) consider myself more a citizen of the world than a northernmost addendum of the US?

Chum wrote-



Those are not the same things.

A "design perspective" is a mental state. As most of the scientists who discovered the principles of science, rather than those who follow, had a "design perspective" it doesn't seem to have caused much harm.

There is no need for such a person to try to use science in the aid of the supernatural. In fact he is the least likeliest person to ever think such a thing. And it is quite the same with the idea of using the supernatural, which he knows cannot be used, in the aid of science.

What Mr Axe seems to me to be saying is that a man imbued with some sense of religious feeling will become a better scientist than a man who isn't. By better I mean of more use to the human race.

Scientific ideas are a product of the human race as a whole and for its use.

They are not free agents on a superior level to humanity. They would be crushed out of existence if they were to ever threaten humanity as some people think they are now in danger of doing.

A man's superstitious views are wholly irrelevant to the disciplines of science, such is the beauty and universality of science.

I would think about coming to live in Europe if I was you Chum.

Assertivitis is a nasty disease which doesn't finish you off too quickly. If this thread, and others, are anything to go by it is endemic in north America where the divorce rate is 50% and murders are almost uncountable.

Its chronic condition involves living in isolation for which the palliatives of sending out hundreds of Christmas cards and having dozens of very dear friends is like a snake-oil remedy.

The pound has been appreciating too.

Interesting Google that Chum.

Thanks.

I think Ben Johnson should be given his medal back.

UK UPDATE

I just did the same…..that is funny!

Uh-oh, taxpayer dollars should not be used to promote superstition. This brings to mind an interesting point; irrelative of a religion's good samaritan activities, I'm against religions having special tax status in light of considerations such as ID.

Chumly,
I thought it was funny that even religion teachers are unhappy about teaching ID. The news article quoted a Church of England Canon saying: "I don't see why religious education should be a dumping ground for fantasies."

Hahahaha, that's so twisted

I missed that, as I just browsed, very funny indeed, I just about shot a mouthful of food as I'm in bed with a cold, eating a late night snack.

It would seem that while ID-iocy would like to style itself the neglected, cast-off, disavowed child of Mainstream Science, Mainstream Religion emphatically repudiates paternity ... which pretty much makes ID-iocy a bastard child all around.