Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

I have worked out tonight in the pub, as I contemplated all the fools who had brought their wives out,at great expense, to show off their tits to other men, that assertivitis, in its fancier forms, Colt 44s at ten paces being the crude old fashioned version, is not solely a characteristic of timber's bombastic patriarchality,but it has also infused itself into the very essence, the bone marrow, of American sport and other areas of national outreach.

American sport is not a simple no-nonsense, tough alternative to cricket and football (soccer) but a system of illusions where poncy, over wieght little mummie's boys can, with the aid of every trick of the magical editing suite, the gymnasium, pharmaceuticals, cash imperitives, and dress design,posture and preen and give the appearence, to the slow of wit, an ever increasing component of advanced societies, of toughness, machismo, and general "don't you wish you were as good as me" syndrome.

It makes timber's efforts at assertivitis look like one of those drawings in the nursery school by which the proud parents claim scientific proof of the superiority of their forced together genetic combination in a breeding hutch at 26,153 Long Beach Avenue. Ca.

The outreach seems to be on a collision course if the new leaders of the legislative assemblies and the President's statements are anything to go by.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

if the new leaders of the legislative assemblies and the President's statements are anything to go by.

Never have they been such before, spendi, little reason to expect now might be different. The American People pretty much has gotten along just fine for more than 2 centuries despite the government they inflict upon themselves.

0 Replies

Yes I know timber but surely this is different.

One lot who have the voting power want to withdraw from Irag and the other lot with power over these things wants to pile in more troops.

And the two centuries were when the native assets of the land were under-exploited and there for the taking with a much smaller population making smaller demands on them than they do now.

Letting a bunch of kids loose in a candy warehouse is not the same as letting them loose at a party organised by health fanatical mums.

0 Replies

Ecellent!
Except for Timbers braggadocios apologetic pertaining to his unbridled faith in what he believes science has actually discovered, I enthusiastically concur with the sentiments expressed by both of you in the subsequent posts.

0 Replies

Re: Ecellent!

fisherman wrote:

Except for Timbers braggadocios apologetic pertaining to his unbridled faith in what he believes science has actually discovered

Demonstrate that my position pertaining to science and/or its discoveries proceeds from "Faith" of any sort, and/or that my observations, declarations, and/or assertions pertaining to that which has been discovered and accepted by science be other than accurate and factual.

0 Replies

timber-

You are the last person to expect anyone to validate their assertions.

But I may try tomorrow to accede to your demand.

0 Replies

Re: Ecellent!

timberlandko wrote:

fisherman wrote:
Except for Timbers braggadocios apologetic pertaining to his unbridled faith in what he believes science has actually discovered

Demonstrate that my position pertaining to science and/or its discoveries proceeds from "Faith" of any sort, and/or that my observations, declarations, and/or assertions pertaining to that which has been discovered and accepted by science be other than accurate and factual.

If you lack the objectivity to realize the basis for my reference to your faith, then i lack the enthusiasm to convince you.

0 Replies

Re: Ecellent!

fisherman wrote:

timberlandko wrote:
fisherman wrote:
Except for Timbers braggadocios apologetic pertaining to his unbridled faith in what he believes science has actually discovered

Demonstrate that my position pertaining to science and/or its discoveries proceeds from "Faith" of any sort, and/or that my observations, declarations, and/or assertions pertaining to that which has been discovered and accepted by science be other than accurate and factual.

If you lack the objectivity to realize the basis for my reference to your faith, then i lack the enthusiasm to convince you.

That may be taken only as implicit concession of the point you press and would feign defend - your assertions are found wanting through your own admission. While I staunchly and vigorously oppose Creationism/ID-iocy, I submit that position is founded in objectively, critically, logically examining the evidence as presented. Creationism/ID-iocy presents no evidence, provides no scientifically valid, academically sound support for its proposition, provides nothing to objectively, critically, logically examine; the proposition proceeds from the undemonstrated, undemonstrable, presuppositional, tautologic absurdity "It appears to me there must be a designer, therefore there is a designer". It just don't get no more circular than that.

0 Replies

tentativly
I will stand on my last two posts at this point.

btw...Timber, what authors have you read who are proponents of ID?

0 Replies

Stand on them if you wish, you'll not get anywhere with them nor will they go anywhere unless and until you pick them up and take them somewhere. With that said, I will again submit that you cannot demonstrate that which you allege to be the case in fact is the case.

I've read many, many books, articles, lectures, and discussions authored by most of the prominent proponents of the absurdity, and much legal testimony, affidavits, and statements delivered by same, and that's been quite a bit of reading over many, many years. Additionally, I have attended lectures, seminars, and symposiums conducted under the auspices of assorted organizations and institutions affilliated or otherwise allied with the Creationist/IDS-iot movement. If one wishes to debate effectively, one is well advised to remain current with what the other side is thinking - perhaps especially so when that other side is not thinking clearly.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

If one wishes to debate effectively, one is well advised to remain current with the other side is thinking.

Excellent. I agree. I have done the same. In fact I have not arrived at a solid conclusion on ID. As i indicated before, the concept is used by other disciplines of science which makes its application to biology at least tenable to my objective pov.

Your incessant use of pejoritives in driving home your point has the opposite effect. However, feel free to continue there use.

0 Replies

fisherman wrote:

Excellent. I agree. I have done the same. In fact I have not arrived at a solid conclusion on ID. As i indicated before, the concept is used by other disciplines of science which makes its application to biology at least tenable to my objective pov.

Sorry - I musta missed something - I'm lost at your reference "... the concept is used by other disciplines of science which makes its application to biology at least tenable ... " - I can't figure where you're coming from, or going to, with that.

Quote:

Your incessant use of pejoritives in driving home your point has the opposite effect.

I freely admit my use of the pejorative terms ID-iocy, ID-iot, and ID-iots amounts to engaging in a bit of mean-spirited fun at the expense of the proposition decscribed, its proponents, and adherents. On the other hand, it is singularly and most aptly descriptive both of the proposition so identified and the manner by which that proposition is forwarded, most particularly on these boards. The term and its cognates do connote emphatic rejection of, and disgust and contempt for, the proposition, its manner of presentation, and those who endorse and practice same, however it should not be construed as to entail disrespect - quite the contrary; it is unwise to ignore or to not respect the capabilities of a devious, wiley, crafty opponent. The lowest snake, the mangiest cur, the least significant of insects may do injury to the unwary.

Now, while I can accept and respect that you " ... have not arrived at a solid conclusion on ID ... " - your prerogative entirely - I cannot countenance in silence the balatant dishonesty, the scurilous misinformation, and the pre-Reformation mindset which typify ID-iocy and the manner by which presentations and defenses of that proposition and its absurdities are perpetrated by its proponents. It is at once bad science and bad theology - it is nought but appeal to ignorance, with no authority beyond its self-referenced, self-declared claim to same.

Quote:

However, feel free to continue there use.

Trust me, I do, and I will. You can count on that.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

fisherman wrote:
Excellent. I agree. I have done the same. In fact I have not arrived at a solid conclusion on ID. As i indicated before, the concept is used by other disciplines of science which makes its application to biology at least tenable to my objective pov.

Sorry - I musta missed something - I'm lost at your reference "... the concept is used by other disciplines of science which makes its application to biology at least tenable ... " - I can't figure where you're coming from, or going to, with that.

It was page 878

fisherman wrote:

The so called scientific community is very efficient at proclaiming what is scientifically acceptable and what is not. It's not that difficult really. They simply base their conclusions on a specific set of presuppositions. Imo this has been done at the cost of a certain amount of objectivity. It's not complicated really. The community removes design from the acceptable in the first place; therefore by fiat it's not scientific and should not be taught in school. It should be noted that ID is actually used by the so called scientific community already. Fossil records of ancient civilizations are categorized in part by the level of "design" apparent. ID simply seeks to extend this sound logic to other areas of scientific discovery and threatens to challenge the enshrined paradigms of today's scientific community.

Quote:
The problem isn't that Intelligent design cannot yet be proven. The problem is that it's not a refutable hypothesis. There is no conceiveable set of circumstances that would cause Mr. Demski to say "okay, this proves my theory wrong." A theory that can't be refuted is unscientific.

ID can easily be refuted. Would not the discovery of a mechanism that would provide for the "evolution" of a flagellum suffice?

Quote:

it is unwise to ignore or to not respect the capabilities of a devious, wiley, crafty opponent. The lowest snake, the mangiest cur, the least significant of insects may do injury to the unwary.

Do you medicate for such paranoia Timber?

Quote:

balatant dishonesty, the scurilous misinformation,

I'm sure that such an accusation could never be proved in your opinion of the so called scientific community you so faithfully defend.

0 Replies

fisherman wrote:

It was page 878
fisherman wrote:
The so called scientific community is very efficient at proclaiming what is scientifically acceptable and what is not. It's not that difficult really. They simply base their conclusions on a specific set of presuppositions. Imo this has been done at the cost of a certain amount of objectivity. It's not complicated really. The community removes design from the acceptable in the first place; therefore by fiat it's not scientific and should not be taught in school. It should be noted that ID is actually used by the so called scientific community already. Fossil records of ancient civilizations are categorized in part by the level of "design" apparent. ID simply seeks to extend this sound logic to other areas of scientific discovery and threatens to challenge the enshrined paradigms of today's scientific community.

Quote:
The problem isn't that Intelligent design cannot yet be proven. The problem is that it's not a refutable hypothesis. There is no conceiveable set of circumstances that would cause Mr. Demski to say "okay, this proves my theory wrong." A theory that can't be refuted is unscientific.

ID can easily be refuted. Would not the discovery of a mechanism that would provide for the "evolution" of a flagellum suffice?

Yeah, I guess I musta missed that. OK, since its here now, I'll play with it.

First, you say "The so called scientific community is very efficient at proclaiming what is scientifically acceptable and what is not. It's not that difficult really. They simply base their conclusions on a specific set of presuppositions
I submit that statement reveals a flawed understanding of science, of what it is, what it does, what it says. That which the scientific community deems "Accepted" is not so regarded because it is "Acceptable", but rather because, given current understanding, it is "Accepted" for the FACT it is the best currently available explanation for observed phenomena, fully consistent with and cross-corroborated by all other known laws, basic principles, and accepted theories, absent substantive evidence to the contrary, and has been multiply, independently, rigorously tested and consistently has been found to be accurate, explanatory, and without contradiction. The "Presupposition" foundational to science is that "We should be able to figure this out". The next step pretty much invariably is along the lines of "Lets see what happens if we suppose (or do) {whatever}". Most generally, a whole lotta "Lets see what happens ... " precedes any "Hmmmm ... this looks interesting", and a whole lotta stuff that appeared to be interesting fails to make it through the next phases of "Lets see what happens". Eventually, with hard work, a bit of luck, and lotsa confirmation, there may emerge a "This looks pretty good". Another few rounds of "Lets see what happens" may move "looks pretty good" to "Lets see if we have it down well enough to publish". In the event "looks pretty good" makes it to "Published", its almost as though the game starts all over again - other, independent, not infrequently very skeptical, even competing, researchers and/or professionals will put "Published" through all sortsa hoops to determine whether or not "This works - every time". Lotsa "Published" never makes through that gauntlet, but that which does make it through stands a fairly good chance of becomming "Accepted". In effect, the heart of the scientific method is to determine "What works" by determining "What doesn't work - and why". Science is all about "What Works and Why It Works As It Does" - science is probable-to-the-smallest-achievable-degree-of-uncertainty explanations with confirmed-valid reasons for according whatever certainty is merited thereby. Postulates, propositions, hypotheses, and theories compete with one another - often energetically, sometimes even bitterly - and for something to become a generally accepted scientific theory is quite an accomplishment; that means it works - every time its tested or employed; it is the best currently available explanation.

You say "...The community removes design from the acceptable in the first place; therefore by fiat it's not scientific and should not be taught in school."
It is not by fiat that science rejects design, it is because there is no unambiguous evidence for design, much compelling evidence to the contrary, proponents of design have produced no science supportive of the proposition, and the proposition is forwarded in dishonest, decietful, illogical, and otherwise invalid manner. While there may be room for discussion in the question of whether design is religion, design simply, foundationally, and functionally is not science.

Quote:

Quote:
it is unwise to ignore or to not respect the capabilities of a devious, wiley, crafty opponent. The lowest snake, the mangiest cur, the least significant of insects may do injury to the unwary.

Do you medicate for such paranoia Timber?

Never felt any need to - I don't get bit, stung, or scratched much either, but I'm in the fray - one fray or another - all the time. I like frays - political, philosophical, technical, academic, whatever; get me started, and I'm in there - with enthusiastic determination. In as much as you're relatively new to these boards, and, if I may assume, know of me little if anything more than you've gleaned through this and few closely related discussions, it might surprise you to learn for instance that politically, I'm way, way, way to the right of the median for these boards - its almost not quite a joke that I have some reservations about the Magna Carta.

Quote:

Quote:
balatant dishonesty, the scurilous misinformation,

I'm sure that such an accusation could never be proved in your opinion of the so called scientific community you so faithfully defend.

Nonsense - examples such as Piltdown Man, The Hitler Diaries, cold fusion claims, and even more recently the Korean clone research scandals pop up all the time. The scientific and academic communities are as succeptable to fraud and duplicity as are any other communities. The difference between Science and ID-iocy is that Science discovers, exposes, discredits, repudiates, and casts out its frauds, it doesn't proceed from and celebrate them.

0 Replies

fisherman, in quoting his own earlier post to Timber said

Quote:

It should be noted that ID is actually used by the so called scientific community already. Fossil records of ancient civilizations are categorized in part by the level of ?design? apparent. ID simply seeks to extend this sound logic to other areas of scientific discovery and threatens to challenge the enshrined paradigms of today?s scientific community.

First the misuse of terms needs to be corrected. There is no "fossil record" of ancient civilizations. This presupposes a human habitation level achieved. A fossil record is reserved for the remains and molds and casts of allorganisms excluding humans.
Design in the context of human artifacts, relates to levels of common artifact features which can help date or gather such artifacts into a "typology". For example, the design of PAleo Amerind blades and points is entirely different than Woodland Culture artifacts. This "design" is a common fluted projectile point tht allows us to date it somewhere before 8000BP. The use of "design" for human artifacts is therefore a given feature and implies an intelligent designer. (namely us) In evolution of life from its lower to higher forms and the deviations the lifetypes and bauplans that make up the organic fossil record are subject to the rule of adaptation to new environments or the occupation of available niches post some extinction event.

WE have no evidence of a conscious design or implied direction of life. If you look carefully at the fossil record, it is haphazard in its advance and fortunate that some animals and plants made it past extinction boundaries. If you look carefully, you will note that the biggest jumps in morphological innovation are associated with available empty nichesthat resulted after some world wide catastrophy (That occurs so regularly that we lump these events into a Uniformitarian scale of return).

0 Replies

timber wrote-

Quote:

timberlandko wrote:
If one wishes to debate effectively, one is well advised to remain current with the other side is thinking.

You need to define the "other side" timber.

There is a feeling that you choose your own "other side" because it is easy to discredit in respect of its statements and its procedures. I can well understand that you refuse to accept that the ID side at Dover didn't take a dive because it undermines your self respect to beat an opponent who has done that.

But they did take a dive. I can assure you of that.

You are addressing the soft underbelly of ID. Anybody who hints at the real thing is simply declared to be off topic, irrelevant or stupid or somesuch. You confuse form for substance and appearence for reality.

You fail the most elementary test of real debate which is that you needs must be ready to face up to everybody being converted to the position you go into bat for. And why wouldn't they be converted if your arguments are sensible? Yes- again- it's because they are stupid. Of course.

Hence you must face up to everybody accepting your wisdom and becoming anti-IDers. Yes- everybody.

300 million atheists and flat out materialists and the social consequences which result.

That is what you are arguing for and that is why you refuse to discuss the social consequences of such a circumstance or the conclusions of those scientists and philosophers who have faced up to the task, a few of whose names I have mentioned.

If you are not arguing for that I can't see what it is you are arguing for.
To argue a case whilst basking in the luxury of it not winning the population over and taking advantage of it not doing so in your social life seems to me to be fatuous and self-indulgent which is understandable in the case of the little boy who pointed out that the Emperor wore no clothes when none of the adults did so.

The argument, to be taken seriously at all, is about anti-ID. There are many positions which could come under ID or which spring from the idea of intelligent desisn. There is only one atheist, materialist position.

How do people know what to think if you hide from describing the social effects of it which I think you yourself would find unacceptable. It is not an abstract discussion. A triumph for anti-ID would have real, comprehensive and felt results which it is a pure gamble to say would be beneficial and for which I don't think the population are ready to put their money where your mouth is quite yet.

And you are running on the spot. Same stuff time after time. And the missing word in your statement quoted above proves a slipshod attitude for the respect you owe to fellow threaders. You could not possibly have bothered to check it before posting. We all make simple errors but posting them is another matter entirely. The very best authors proof read themselves almost comatose.

0 Replies

Science is a method which aims to describe the world in a way which depends upon no particular perspective and is independent of any observer.

In practice this is possibly never achieved; human nature being as it is.
Such an observer is an "ideal type" and if one such existed he would probably be ostracised from social discourse for his callousness.

Art, in contrast, produces concrete symbols of visions which are entirely dependent on human sensibilities and emotions for which the scientific method, ideally, has no time nor room for.

There is a case to be answered by science which is that it is riddled with non-theoretical interests and that reason alone is repressive, and is becoming more so, and inimical to individual freedom.

It is the old, old story of how many limits on individual freedom will people accept for the benefits which society gives in return for those limitations and whether those limits will be applied equally. There is also the problem that too many limits actually restrict science itself.

Weber's view that science should be value free and eschew judgements about the matters it studies can be seriously questioned and particularly with regard to social science, biology, nuclear science and psychology which can be seen, and often are, to be exploitative and frightening.

It can seriously be argued, for example, that science embodies a value-judgement in respect of its comforting and self-interested acceptance that technological domination of nature is a good thing. Such a value-judgement, and it cannot be anything other than that, is so deep-set within the hallowed portals of the scientific community that it has ceased to be thought of at all as such a judgement. It is a belief.

This complacency enables science to present itself as a simple, disinterested devotion to truth. Those who pretend that is the case in their own interests have at least a claim to be educated however cynical they might seem but those who actually believe it have simply been indoctrinated or, one might say, knocked on the head.

It is nowhere conceded within the dictates of the scientific method that the technological domination of nature is desireable and, indeed, more and more people are coming to think that not only is it not desireable but positively harmful to the species however useful for one section of it.

If global warming, and other pollutions of both the physical and psychological environments, is being caused by the increasing technological domination of nature then it is actually going to be seen as harmful by those sections of the species which are most likely to be harmed by it and which derive little or no benefit from it. Even other species have human spokespersons defending their natural habitats.

It is a short step for such peoples to perceive the technological drive to dominate nature as Satanic. And racist. And even within a technological society as class based. Elitist.

Common sense alone suggests that in the face of mighty nature man's puny efforts are pissing into the wind.

Despite bald assertions to the contrary.

The continuing popularity of songs such as Gone Fishin', Lucky Ol' Sun, Give Me the Simple Life and Lazybones and that whole emotional ambience they call forth which produces the "getting away from it all" holiday and daydream is a measure of the strength of the opposition to the strict notions of the scientific method. Even scientists take such holidays I believe.

The idea that science, in practice, is value free is preposterous but what such an idea does is allow the scientific community, and its dupes, to indulge itself in the complacency that it alone has a monopoly on the truth and the claim, specious as it is, deflects criticism and, allows science to think, self-interestedly, that other views are disqualified and can be safely categorised as "idiotic" with a smirk of superiority.

A good thing ceases to be a good thing when it goes beyond the surfeit point where it soon becomes nauseating.

0 Replies

timber wrote-

Quote:

The lowest snake, the mangiest cur, the least significant of insects may do injury to the unwary.

That is a smear called forth to give credence to-

Quote:

it is unwise to ignore or to not respect the capabilities of a devious, wiley, crafty opponent.

which is a bunch of assertions.

I trust most viewers have already noticed and I apologise for bringing such base methods to the attention of those viewers who may well be too young for such things.

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

WE have no evidence of a conscious design or implied direction of life.

And we have no evidence, and never will have, of there being no possibilty of design or of a directionless world.

We have an impression that there is something looking like design whereas there is little or no common sense impression of directionlessness. Having the former impression may well have utility for us but the latter can ultimately only destroy us from apathy and mindless destructiveness and anomie all of which are more prevalent in cities than in rural areas where the food is grown.

0 Replies

For once, spendi raises a valid point. I humbly acknowledge my unconscionable slander, and herewith apologize sincerely to low snakes, mangey curs and insignificant insects. I shall seek diligently some suitable means of providing adequate recompense to the injured.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know