97
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
adeleg
 
  1  
Sun 28 Aug, 2005 08:23 am
blatham wrote:
The Parable of Jesus and the Rubber Chicken


This post was absolutely unnecessary! I fail to see the relevance to this forum and I am wholly unimpressed with the lack of respect which you are showing. It is not funny, nor is it in any way related to the debate between intelligent design and evolution. Please remove this post from the forum.

In fact, I am disgusted with more participants than just you,

steve as (41oo) wrote:
being religiously inclined, we could do what we have always done, and kill each other


cicerone imposter wrote:
Stoning is the choice of persecution - for christians and muslims


This forum is not a free-for-all place for you to make fun of christianity or to make remarks about people who are religiously inclined. If you cannot keep your rude remarks to yourself, then do not bother to post on this site.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Sun 28 Aug, 2005 08:25 am
This site does indeed admit of ridicule of the beliefs of others--get over it.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Sun 28 Aug, 2005 08:26 am
snood wrote:
Lola wrote:
snood wrote:
Yeah, that - or "we" could have individual experience that we individually consider significant, with powers higher than ourselves, and not give a piffle about what anyone thinks about our personal convictions. There are a lot of options "we" have, re what to 'do' about the God thing.


Hi Snood.........good to see you. Convictions and experience are personal and desirable, but they're not science. That's the very point.

How've you been? Haven't seen much of you lately.


I've been here - just not at the same discussions as you, I guess.
And as far as mine not being 'the' point - there have been many made on many levels here. This started as a question (leading and disingenuous maybe, but a question) about whether or not ID is science, or religion. Along the way, the same digs have been taken to ridicule and scoff as is the norm whenever the believers talk to the atheists and agnostics here. I have no conflict with either side - I believe ID has a place in schools and I couldn't care less what class it's taught in. Wrestling ad nauseum over whether it should be in science class or not seems silly to me. "It ain't science, you stupid creationists!" Fine. I don't happen to think a whole lot of things with the suffix '-ology' deserve scholarly treatment, but if we are all content and secure in whatever our philosophies or belief systems, why is there such friggin' angst over what category to put ID in? Are you all so afraid that the teenagers will become indoctrinated to some 'evil' cult, or something? I don't believe that, any more than I think sex education produces nymphomaniacs.
It's going to be taught in schools - it probably shouldn't be in a science class, but it's going to be taught - no one can stop it, anymore than we can go back to teaching there is only one 'normal' kind of nuclear family, or teaching history classes that exclude the contributions of all ethnicities.
I just don't get what the hullabaloo is all over.


No Snood, your's was the point. The hullabaloo is over whether "not science" can be taught as science in a science classroom. I'm glad to see you don't believe it should. You're a good example why we can't say this is a Christian/Atheist controversy. Those who have spent most of their adult lives getting a science education and working with the scientific method are concerned because it's what they do. The pursuit of good science is a legitimate endeavor. You may not think lots of "ologies" deserve scholarly treatment, but those of us whose work it is do.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Sun 28 Aug, 2005 08:29 am
Theology, too?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Sun 28 Aug, 2005 08:31 am
Of course, the "study of god" is pervasive in our nation. Do you contend otherwise?
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Sun 28 Aug, 2005 08:33 am
snood wrote:
Theology, too?


Absolutely.......as long as it's a religion course and equal time is given to all theologies.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Sun 28 Aug, 2005 08:35 am
adele_g wrote:
blatham wrote:
The Parable of Jesus and the Rubber Chicken


This post was absolutely unnecessary! I fail to see the relevance to this forum and I am wholly unimpressed with the lack of respect which you are showing. It is not funny, nor is it in any way related to the debate between intelligent design and evolution. Please remove this post from the forum.

In fact, I am disgusted with more participants than just you,

steve as (41oo) wrote:
being religiously inclined, we could do what we have always done, and kill each other


cicerone imposter wrote:
Stoning is the choice of persecution - for christians and muslims


This forum is not a free-for-all place for you to make fun of christianity or to make remarks about people who are religiously inclined. If you cannot keep your rude remarks to yourself, then do not bother to post on this site.


I thought these posts were hilarious. They add a comic relief. You don't agree with them? Crack your own jokes.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Sun 28 Aug, 2005 08:43 am
I missed Jesus and the Rubber Chicken. I was busy on the other thread learning how dinosaur teeth were on"assigned vegetarian Duty" prior to the flood. Bet they had a lot of spinach showing between their teeth, requiring constant flossing.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Sun 28 Aug, 2005 08:49 am
adele-g. As a longer term member of these kinds of threads, let me say that, in the past, the numbers of snotty references about the "brain dead" evolutionists and the perpetuation of rote lies have made some people touchy and others, whove achieved yet another level, (like blatham), merely learned to have fun with all this.

No harm is meant, its just his attempt at humor ( a post that, now, I shall be sure to not overlook again). Blatham is quite an iconoclast, at last roll call, I think that he didnt have a good word to be said
for anything. So cut some slack and just do your best on the subjects at hand.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Sun 28 Aug, 2005 09:04 am
Setanta wrote:
Of course, the "study of god" is pervasive in our nation. Do you contend otherwise?


"Contend" with someone else, Setanta. For someone as brilliant as you seem to believe you are, you can't seem to grasp that I have no dog in your fight.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Sun 28 Aug, 2005 09:17 am
Since you've gotten back, you've run from thread to thread taking cheap shots at those whom you contend disparage all christians.

You've got a dog in every religious fight at this site, even when there's no fight going on.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Sun 28 Aug, 2005 09:18 am
Adele-G
Perhaps if you were not so intent on demanding that people join you in your religious beliefs, you would not get the reactions of which you complain. No one likes to have someone try to force their religious beliefs on them. That includes those who want you to accept their right to believe differently than you do.

What people are objecting to is not your spiritualism, it's the religious dogma you demand they accept and respect. Many religious impose dogma compliance as a condition of membership and they try to impose this on others who believe differently. I personally can respect your spiritualism but I will not accept nor tolerate the imposition of your dogma. There is a big difference. Once you understand that you can have more quality and informative discussions on A2K.

BBB
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Sun 28 Aug, 2005 09:53 am
farmerman wrote:
Lola, the "Time line"that you provided, actually goes back to just after 1989. Its interesting that the Id movement had coalesced more publically about the time of publication of Mike Behes book and the "contract documents" were already in place . Im certain that the original source data for all the above links youve presented are being processed into a series of neat graphics FOR THE APPEAL. The Kitzmiller case about Teaching ID in the Dover schools will probably be more a record building event for the appeal.
The really strong argument will be whether the Creationists, whove already lost big time in court, are really the supra group under which ID is merely a subparagraph. As I understand from discussing this with colleagues, certain of the above documents especially stuff from websites have already been declared inadmissible. What seems evident to us , does not necessarily fly in the court. The forensic link is , as set stated , an exercise in tying a document or a publication to a movement and that the movement is directly linked to ID. ITS GONNA BE TOUGH

The real action in the chain of evidence is that which is available from the period immediately post Edwards v Aguillard to the establishment of the Center for Creation Research in 88 or 89 (The Institute for Creation Research, the iCR) and its follow on organizations. ICR was originally begun as part of Liberty College in Lynchburg, and it still is an accredited college with a Creation Science program that accredits teachers in Va.


Thanks Farmerman for this lead.....I'll follow it later when I have a little time.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Sun 28 Aug, 2005 11:24 am
Lola and the guys.

The case of Kitzmiller V Dover will be foughton 2 bases.

I Creationism and ID are "joined at the hip"

2The "scientific" bases of ID are " clearly religious" and are therefore out as per the "establishment clause of Amendment 1"

Theres been 2 things happen recently and , since they are on a public website (Ive been told) they are open for discussion.


Apparently, during depositions , its been disclosed that the word "Creationism as a favored teaching" was discussed by the board and taken up as a strategy , as early as 2002. This was later replaced with Intelligent Design


In early August, 2005, the plaintiffs (Kitzmiller et al) filed a motion opposing a summary judgement motion filed by Dover. The summary judgement pleaded that, "We all agree on the facts of this case and the judge should toss it out"
What Kitzmiller said was that based upon ALL the available data and testimony regarding the entire linkage between Creationism and ID, the plaintiffs have certainly earned their day in court . Everything that theyve forensically established with linkage between ID and Creationism, as well as what the history of rulings has been wrt Creationism, the entire basis of the ID movement at Dover is "religious"

Im enclosing a looong pdf which includes the basis for the opposition for summary judgement. In it is the vast (and half vast) literature regarding all this hoopla.OPPOSITION TO DOVER SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

PS , theres been a blog set up to provide daily data on the case. If anybody wants it I think I have to PM you. Ill give a hint, its a spot that maintains an org title based upon a Chinese bear with an evolved digit. which was also a book title familiar to the IDers. I dont wanna be screwing with the TOS by giving this out so, PM me. well do lunch.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Sun 28 Aug, 2005 11:27 am
PS, Craven , I aint doing anything illegal here because the summary judgement motion was already on the web for about a week now. Im just conveying it from one site to another.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Sun 28 Aug, 2005 11:38 am
Setanta wrote:
Since you've gotten back, you've run from thread to thread taking cheap shots at those whom you contend disparage all christians.

You've got a dog in every religious fight at this site, even when there's no fight going on.


Such hyperbole - is it hormone imbalance? You want to argue because you have a bone to pick against religious folks, and I don't want to argue with you, because I figure what's the point? And there have been 2 (count 'em) of "those" to whom you refer. And Setanta, I hadn't made any connection between you and the other yahoo.

You characterize what I do as "running from thread to thread" taking cheap shots. I could make the same statement about what you do, but I'll say this... In the past, you and I have found a way to live and let live, and I am willing to do the same now. It seemed to me as though you were baiting me with your question after I was answering Lola, which is why I answered as I did.

I have only one dog, that I'm aware of, in any fight about religion. It only bites when I think people are being unduly derisive toward people with faith in something higher than themselves. Period.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Sun 28 Aug, 2005 12:16 pm
You were willing to take a cheap shot at me quite a while ago, and when i suggested to you that we had always gotten along in the past, you had no response.

I wasn't offering to argue with you, and i have no bone to pick with religious folks. I asked you if you were willing to contend that theology is not pervasively studied in this country.

You got nasty with me for no damned good reason. When i pointed that out, you didn't respond. As far as i'm concerned, the gloves are off.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Sun 28 Aug, 2005 12:45 pm
I agree with Snood that this debate has excessively polarized most of the participants.

For Adele & Elsie T -- there are no doubt many potential gaps and even errors in some of the data concerning biological evolution. More indeed may appear as collateral measurement techniques and new data and knowledge emerge. However none of that overcomes the fact that the overwhelming central tendency of all that is known supports contemporary theory about the evolution of life forms and species. It is entirely conceivable that we may one day find that the complexity of advanced forms of life cannot fully be explained by evolutionary theory. However the weight of the available scientific evidence is very much against this possibility. By all of the standards which we usually apply to science, engineering, and everyday life, it is as truthful to say we know the process by which advanced life forms developed, as it is truthful for NASA engineers to confidently calculate the trajectories of space vehicles; biologists in pharmaceutical companies to develop updated flu vaccine formulas; or for you to predict that pressure on the brake pedal of your car will stop you in an emergency.

The proper role of science is to look for explanations for the observable processes of nature and their origins entirely within the context of basic scientific principles, and to revise the whole structure when contradictory observations or theories arise based on them. To default to extra-scientific, divine assumptions would be to forsake the basic principles of science themselves. If man is to find god, through his science, he will do so only by exhausting all the other possibilities - more or less as medical diagnosticians do in identifying certain diseases for which they lack definitive tests. This restriction is at once the reliable pillar of science and an expression of its inherent limitations. One can recognize those limitations without wishing to attack the method and discipline that has achieved so much for us all. The proper remedy that many advocates of ID in education seek is not to be found in the details of science education, but rather the context in which it is put and the correct expression of its limitations.

On the other side of the argument, it is wrong for Blatham to fault you for a lack of objectivity, while implicitly claiming it for himself, as he did in this rather elegant sentence.
blatham wrote:
If you hold, as does Adele, that certain elements of your faith are true a priori and true absolutely (God created the universe, Jesus is divine and the Bible is the Revealed Word) then you immediately forfeit any claim to epistemological objectivity. Only one conclusion is available to you - there was a Designer and He is God. All other conclusions and all hypotheses/evidences pointing elsewhere MUST BE false, ipso facto. The universe WILL and MUST, inevitably, demonstrate the truth of your assumption regarding this Creator.


Atheism is just as much a faith in an a priori and absolute principle as is evangelical Protestantism, and its effects on the presumed objectivity of the holders, the same.

It is also true that, because the mantle of science properly confers a degree of credibility to any body of thought, there is a good deal of cant and opinion out there masquerading as science. Here I would include a good deal of what passes for Sociology, behavior science and the like. Many conclusions which can properly be made about the central tendencies in a large population, based on observation and statistical inference, are too often mindlessly (and unscientifically) applied to the prediction of individual behavior or to the development of very unscientific constructs about human nature. I believe this sort of thing excites some of the controversy surrounding ID.

If one supposes that science will one day run into limits about what it can explain, then I think it far more likely that this will involve the origins of the cosmos and the remarkable fine tuning of the basic physical constants so evident in our scientific understanding. Even there, however, it is proper for science to continue its search for explanations, models, and predictions within the confines of its basic principles - modifying them as may be necessary as understanding grows.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Sun 28 Aug, 2005 01:00 pm
This is no violation of the TOS, FM:

The Panda's Thumb, Steven Jay Gould, 1980, was a launching pad for "arguments from design" in our times. The theological William Paley had first articulated the argument from design in 1802 with his analogy about finding a watch in a field, and inferring an intelligence behind the device. This thesis was not seen as terribly remarkable at that time, as there were few people who would have taken issue with it. However, with the publication of the work of Darwin and Wallace more than half a century later, Paley's thesis was taken up again and used as a bludgeon against those espousing Darwin's view, largely out the desparation of those who denied the Darwinian thesis, as his argument for descent with modification was but poorly understood by much of the devoutly religious community. Scholars of science in that day, including many men of religious conviction, were not notably critical of Darwin's thesis, although some disputed the details of his observations, particuarly as they were made from a morphological basis.

The argument from designed rested silent then for more than a century, as evolutionary biological investigation moved from one triumphant demonstration of the predictive ability of a theory of descent with modification to another. The opposition to a theory of evolution centered in charismatic and fundamentalist christian sects and demagogues who exploited them. Such sects being then unrecognized as sources either of exploited cash or electoral exploitation, no scientific claims for the argument from design were advanced, and they were the object only of the exploitation of the eternal theocratic demagogues.

But the publication of Gould's book seemed to particularly stir up critics of evolution, and i believe they saw an opportunity to revive Paley's argument from design. In 1989, Of Panda's and People: the Central Question of Biological Origins was published by The Foundation for Thought and Ethics (of which, more in a moment). This could be said to be the contemporary starting point for the "intelligent design" movement. This is significant, because it antedates the several Federal court and Supreme Court decisions which struck down the teaching of creationism. This is of course, why, as FM points out, it is crucial to a successful defense of the religionist assault on science education to demonstrate forensically the connection between creationism and intelligent design.

Snood is one of many here who has made the reasonable suggestion that ID can be taught in classes other than science classes. That is fine as far as it goes, but the IDers don't want it taught in other classes, because they have an agenda to destroy "Darwinism," and they specifically intend to supplant the teaching of evolution in science classes. The first step is to get ID accepted on an equal footing, despite the lack of scientific evidence for ID. ID is principly concerned with demonstrating that a theory of evolution is "wrong," or that the supporting data were obtained in a faulty or knowingly false manner. The one thing with which ID is very definitely not concerned, is offering an alternative theory which accounts for all of the data now available, and which would be successfully predictive.

If one does a web search for "panda+intelligent design," one can find a wealth of information, including links to blog sites, on this controversy. The Panda's Thumb seemed to have really honked off religious people for some reason, and that explains why an otherwise humble (and sometimes internally silly) book has become the center of so much attention. Another good product of such a web search is a number of papers which shoot down Demski and Behe, the principle villains in this piece.

The Foundation for Thought and Ethics is the front organization of Demski's wing of the ID movement. When, earlier in this thread, it was suggested that i read one of Johnson's books, and i did the basic sort of search i would on any book which is recommended to me, i stumbled across FTE, and then reported here on what it says on their website's "about us" page:

FTE wrote:
The Foundation for Thought and Ethics is working to restore the freedom to know to young people in the classroom, especially in matters of worldview, morality, and conscience, and to return the right of informed consent to families in the education of their children.

To do this, FTE has organized several influenctial scientific symposia, produced major publishing breakthroughs on the subject of origins, helped to inspire the robust and exciting international movement of Intelligent Design, and launched an enriching series of high school textbooks now used in both public and private schools.


I then observed that i wouldn't spend my money on a book which obviously had propagandizing a dogma as its purpose. I was roundly assailed for that, with the attackers notably ignoring that i had offered to read an online version, but refusing to buy the book. As the thread has developed to this point, i wouldn't even read the tripe now. Using the "panda" search parameter will provide a host of links to sites which shoot down the ID nonsense, and a good many of them are pages maintained by respectable universities.

Do the "panda" search sometime, it is most revealing.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Sun 28 Aug, 2005 01:05 pm
adele_g wrote:
blatham wrote:
The Parable of Jesus and the Rubber Chicken

This post was absolutely unnecessary! I fail to see the relevance to this forum and I am wholly unimpressed with the lack of respect which you are showing. It is not funny, nor is it in any way related to the debate between intelligent design and evolution. Please remove this post from the forum.

In fact, I am disgusted with more participants than just you,

steve as (41oo) wrote:
being religiously inclined, we could do what we have always done, and kill each other


cicerone imposter wrote:
Stoning is the choice of persecution - for christians and muslims


This forum is not a free-for-all place for you to make fun of christianity or to make remarks about people who are religiously inclined. If you cannot keep your rude remarks to yourself, then do not bother to post on this site.


Welcome to the marketplace of ideas, to critical analysis of truth claims and, most particularly, to free speech.

Quite aside from your presumptions regarding how this site has been managed, is managed and ought to be managed (you might note the disparity between your history here and mine) you get so much wrong above that it begs the question of just where you've spent the previous portion of your intellectual life. Philosophy courses, for example, look about as unlikely as science courses in whatever curricula you've scurried through.

But I'll take you to task on just one issue...the apparently axiomatic belief that religious ideas are somehow exempt from questioning or from satirization. As Thomas Jefferson has it...
Quote:
Nothing but free argument, raillery and even ridicule will preserve the purity of religion.
-- Letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush. 21 April 1803


Rather clearly, Jefferson isn't on your side here. Why not?
Quote:
I am for freedom of religion, & against all maneuvres to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.
-- Letter to Elbridge Gerry, 1799


In a free state, your right to believe as you wish must be considered absolute, equally, your right to worship as you choose, and your right to speak your beliefs. Of course, for such rights to remain in place, they must be applied equally to all others besides yourself and those who belong to your particular religious sect.

Where you (or anyone else) might insist that a particular belief is ascendent over all others, or uniquely sacred, and that it ought to be therefore awarded some special status placing it exempt from criticsm or ridicule, then you ask for that which cannot be afforded in a free state.

Consider, for example, your own response if it were mandated here on this site - or broadly by law in America - that no negative comments might be made regarding the principles and practices of the Muslim faith, or of any Muslim sect, or of, to give other examples, Scientology or Satanism. Rather obviously, such laws or rules would work a grave disservice on the principle of freedom of speech.

But perhaps you consider this a matter of simple manners...that folks ought not to satirize religious ideas of any sort. If so, I'd have some sympathy for your notion. Except for one very important point. Where a particular religious faith moves out into the community, and seeks to operate as a political agency - determining policies and laws upon which all citizens are to follow, then it forfeits any exemption as a merely religious or personal matter, and becomes the functional equal of any political party.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 03/14/2025 at 06:24:37