Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

To put the question as simply as I can does a society embracing a mild system of religious observance and feeling have a better chance of taking us successfully into the future than one which rejects such things.

Its an old and tired attempt at an argument for Creation

What Behe has done, in effect, is to purposely stop further work when he got to one of his Irreducible complexity nodes.

Quote:
To put the question as simply as I can does a society embracing a mild system of religious observance and feeling have a better chance of taking us successfully into the future than one which rejects such things.
No. We have only to look upon recent historical regimes who had embraced a more materialistic foundation and applied it to government.

Chumly wrote:

fisherman wrote:

........cells to man is an ideological jump.......

The human body is cellular in nature, thus your claim of a requisite so-called "ideological jump" is absurd.

fisherman wrote:

So because man is made of cells, therfore he evolved from one?

All evolutionary evidence aside (and the weight of the evidence is overwhelming):

As per your claim here

fisherman wrote:

As I have conceded before, natural selection has been well proven by much evidence.

you are thus claiming it's not an "ideological jump" to argue evolutionary forces are behind single cellular life, but it's an "ideological jump" to argue evolutionary forces are behind multi-cellular life! If that's not the foundation for an absurdity in basic logic (let alone the weight of evolutionary evidence) I'll fry up a whack o' blastoplasts!

Fisherman, all evolutionary evidence aside (and the weight of the evidence is overwhelming) precisely why would it not be an "ideological jump" to argue evolutionary forces are behind single cellular life, but it must be an "ideological jump" to argue evolutionary forces are behind multi-cellular life?

Precisely what "ideological jump" must be required to have single cellular organisms evolve into multi cellular organisms such that the full weight of the evolutionary evidence of single cellular organisms evolving into multi cellular organisms is negated?

I should have answered ; Yes. We have only to look upon recent historical regimes who had embraced a more materialistic foundation and applied it to government.

Regarding c.i's NOVA post.

There's a well known Latin phrase that poseurs often use to designate an oversimplification to the point of absurdity.

If any scientific researcher needs a unit to measure degrees of absurdity he might choose the ci, who has heretofore pioneered a journey into the reaches of the asymptote previously unexplored by posters in a scientific milieux.

The NOVA post might register, say, depending where we place the decimal point, 6.9 x 10 to the power of 13 cis.

In a materialist future one might envisage a ci counter built in to the TV to tell us when to laugh.

The explanation given moves us nearer to an explanation of how non-life became life in the same way one might become nearer to the sun on turning over in bed.

spendius wrote:

Regarding c.i's NOVA post.

There's a well known Latin phrase that poseurs often use to designate an oversimplification to the point of absurdity.

If any scientific researcher needs a unit to measure degrees of absurdity he might choose the ci, who has heretofore pioneered a journey into the reaches of the asymptote previously unexplored by posters in a scientific milieux.

The NOVA post might register, say, depending where we place the decimal point, 6.9 x 10 to the power of 13 cis.

In a materialist future one might envisage a ci counter built in to the TV to tell us when to laugh.

The explanation given moves us nearer to an explanation of how non-life became life in the same way one might become nearer to the sun on turning over in bed.

How about a precise and to the point counter based on actual chemistry.

That's like askin' a skunk not to stink

Jesus' message is still present

Maybe the real message is that boat-rockers get crucified.

That's like askin' a skunk not to stink

Science would better serve itself by taking such action on its own and admitting that irreducible complexity is a frustration to the current model rather than producing marginal hypothesis that while they may prove to be very substantive to the model eventually, but for now hardly explain the gap in the model before it without the requisite "faith" and presuppositions of the student.

There is a place called Providence in the US. Maybe a few. One of them is the place the bus is heading at the beginning of Renaldo and Clara.

Bernie-

A boat-rocker is someone who seeks to disturb the settled order of things by such acts as overturning the money-changer's tables.

A debate is about areas where a settled state hasn't arisen although from the 80 % figure I've seen for American belief in something the settled state is the ID one.

Arguing with you does not consitute boat-rocking for example although I fear you might be in favour of circumstances in which it did. Most AIDsers have a tendency that way it seems to me and others are quite capable of making their own minds up on the matter from the evidence we see before us.

The habitual asserter often ends up like that. It must be terribly frustrating.

spendius wrote:

There is a place called Providence in the US. Maybe a few. One of them is the place the bus is heading at the beginning of Renaldo and Clara.

"Renaldo and Clara" was another attempt by Bob Dylan to make a movie. (I decided to mention this in case spendi is again accused of not making a specific scientific argument.)