Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

I informed you all months back that the idea of intelligent design is anathema to mainstream fundamentalism. The commercial enterprise known as Intelligent Design is just another scam.

It is anathema to Darwinist fundamentalism also but for different reasons.

It is, like Tom Jones, a bastard and does not believe in the commandment--Thou Shalt Honour Thy Father and Thy Mother.

It simply seeks to avoid the obvious psychological and sociological problems associated with the other two alternatives although if asked to choose between Darwinist, Marxist, Sadian, atheistic materialism and literal Creationism it will favour the latter on a utilitarian principle whilst smiling indulgently at its further reaches. It is unable to see how the former can function without the use of chemicals, compulsory surgical intervention or terror and considers such things to be subversive of an orderly society as they are incapable, given human nature, of lasting more than a few years.

Anti-IDers are guilty of not facing up to the prospect of everybody converting to their ideology. As, I gather, 80% have not done they are in the comforting position of benefitting from that whilst seeking to undermine it.

One might suspect that if everybody did convert to anti-ID the current crop of anti-IDers would become Creationists, or something akin, because their need to be out of step with the mainstream is paramount to them. They cannot abide being thought of as a member of the lumpen proletariat which is, unfortunately, what they are.

We are talking out of our ass again spendi, that is perhaps, the lamest of your posts Ive intercepted. WHo precisely is your intended audience?

I hope spendi gives us some information about what's going on in his country, farmerman.

If you remember, the "Truth in Science" people tried to disseminate ID teaching material in British science classes. The education minister put a stop to this but apparently made a compromise to allow ID material to be disseminated in British religion classes. (Religion is a required subject in British schools.)

fm wrote-



"Lamest" implies a hierarchy of what egresses from my ass.

I don't recommend intercepting any of it from the lamest to the least lame inclusive.

Who knows who the audience is?

wande-

I have no idea what is going on here in this regard. Nobody ever mentions it. Everybody considers school to be a place to lock the kids up in to allow some peace and quiet. We believe in the concept of "loci parentis" and leave it at that. When parents have a serious input the cream doesn't rise to the top in a natural way. We consider it corrupt. What you get is the parent's cream rising to the top and if you know anything about parents you will know what a disastrous course that is to follow.

We allow teachers a fairly wide expression knowing that very little notice is taken of them.

As "expressum facit cessare tacitum" is a general rule followed by all men of education and science, ladies being exempt for the obvious reason that they are a law unto themselves, the statement by c.i.-



and timber's "wholehearted agreement with it

allows intellectual credibilty to be granted, and indeed approved, to those educations provided by Fagin, Goebells, Kim Il Sung Jnr, Madame de Merteuil, the Jesuits, Rasputin and the Marquis de Sade to name but a handful from the long and woeful history of pedagogical activity which could with but little effort be extended to include cannabalism, mass extermination and debaucheries not to be mentioned on such a delicate and refined thread such as this is and anything else which anyone might see fit to list.


The statement quoted fails the test of ordinary common sense on both the words "good" and "competitive" and "necessary" and "this world" are also somewhat fluid in their meaning possibilities.

spendi,

When timber and c.i. talk about education, they are speaking in a practical, everyday sense. You may be the only poster on this thread that makes sweeping historical generalizations.

Spendi is absent a "feedback neural path" wherein he can discern abstraction from "flight or fight" decisions. His irrelevant discussions and homage to specific characters and movements of history makes it a possibility that hes unable to engage in what is commonly called semasialogical discussion. Hes a bit like "Rain Man" in that respect. If, as hes said, that he ever taught physics, he probably stank at it because physics embodies short cuts, leaps, and abstraction. Hed be so busy discussing the texts Foreword , that the entire semester would be spent.

wande-

They could not have been speaking of anything else but what they themselves thought "good" and that is not something which everyone agrees with by a long shot.

One can say with certainty that the statements under scrutiny flag-up a bad education and one might assume that if the posters concerned were allowed to engineer education into the channels they are recommending all American children would receive a bad education.

I did not make sweeping historical generalisations. I simply pointed out what is perfectly obvious to any educated person in any age.

Which is that a law giver must set down plainly what he means in order to prevent anyone from making him mean anything they might please themselves he meant.

Hence the very great care taken in drafting legislation.

Everyone would vote for the "good". You would not need political parties.

Are you in favour of kangaroo courts wande?

My search produced this-



Perhaps you might explain fm. The word is not so common as you suggest. Without an explanation the Rain Man is inscrutable.

Still assertions, which constitute the whole of the rest of your last post, have no need to mean anything least of all on an American Science forum.

And I seem to be in good company on the "flight of fight" decisions. Your whole nation in fact.

From what I can gather you lot seem to have spent (?) a lot more than a semester on learning the techniques of pompous quacking with precedence going to the most ferocious quacker.

Your point blank refusal to accept correction means that you are uneducable.

semasiology--The significance of words Your point blank assumption that you are correct is pathological.

Clearly, spendi's intended audience is located between spendi's keyboard and spendi's chairback.

That is true, timber. Farmerman's analysis of spendi's communication problem is the best I have seen so far. We have all tried in vain to understand what goes on in spendi's unique mind.

Perhaps calming down might be in order boys and gritting your teeth a little in order to try to hold back this storm of assertions.

Let's keep it simple and go a bit at a time. Complex notions are evidently outside your kens.

Right.

Are you saying, any of you, that this-



means anything of practical value in a classroom setting or in any intellectual discussion?

Yes or no and if yes what apart from c.i.'s versions of "good" and "competitive" which I daresay varies from time to time as different sentiments overpower his consciousness.

A straight answer will suffice which has to do entirely with anyone prepared to provide one rather than childish distractions about my goodself.

A good education in my opinion is one where the whole nation is taught and becomes convinced that they have a duty to send me £10 on my birthday. That would make me a competitive bidder at an art auction for any painting you might mention.

And for the heart of most young ladies of virtue and renown.

"Complex" thought evidently is well within spendi's range of accomplishment. Coherent thought, on the other hand ....

Yes or no timber.

Knock off the bluster. It's as cliched as a blue shirt washed white.



Does that mean anything outside of the room it was typed in.

Be coherent.

Yes.

What?

You must be cleverer than me.

I came on A2K to ask experts.

What does-



mean to a scientist. It is a Science forum after all.

Clue me in timber. And all our other viewers who are, I'm sure, just as eager as I am to find out exactly what a "good education" consists of and what competition, in this world, such a thing will make us competitive at.

Is it having more poisons to flood our waters with than anybody else?
Or having more executioners with their faces well hidden?
Or making it rain harder?

New poster
Hello all. I came across this forum while seeking discussion on another matter. Since this subject (science or religion) is one of my passions, I have been following along a bit. I am reticent to post on the subject yet as I am still trying to ascertain the proficiency of those attending.

I will say at this point that, assuming I understand Spendia's last point, a "good education" is indeed a relative thing. One can memorize prodigious amounts of BS and still be considered well educated.