97
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Fri 9 Feb, 2007 08:47 pm
The 2006 Everest climbing season, with a dozen deaths, is second in fatalities only to the disaster year of 1996, which saw 15 climbers die, 8 from 2 separate expeditions, on 2 different routes, in a single storm. The upshot is that the government of Nepal has announced stringent - and sharply more costly - new permitting requirements intended to make an Everest assault a less attractive way for amateur adventurists to kill themselves while favoring well-funded, broadly experienced, legitimately accredited scientific/academic team assaults with clearly defined objectives, meticulously detailed route plans and explicit provision for emergency contingencies. The amateur adventurists are upset.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Fri 9 Feb, 2007 10:59 pm
This thread has devolved into porpoise-less-ness, except perhaps as a dairy for spend's sundae a'musings.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 10 Feb, 2007 09:12 am
timber wrote-

Quote:
The 2006 Everest climbing season, with a dozen deaths, is second in fatalities only to the disaster year of 1996, which saw 15 climbers die, 8 from 2 separate expeditions, on 2 different routes, in a single storm. The upshot is that the government of Nepal has announced stringent - and sharply more costly - new permitting requirements intended to make an Everest assault a less attractive way for amateur adventurists well-funded, broadly experienced, legitimately accredited scientific/academic team assaults with clearly defined objectives, meticulously detailed route plans and explicit



Now lookee here timber--I merely constructed a satirical metaphor intending it to be used to derive a more general point. That certainty is boring and that the truly human soul, of all races seemingly, is both fearful and fascinated by uncertainty. All regular betting patterns are of this order. It is a certainty that the operators- the casino, bookies, stock markets etc- take a % for managing the process and if their game is played long enough the punter loses that %. Some skill comes in with bookies and stock markets but if the % is above a given point no skill is enough. And also,of course, luck in short play sequences. Large lotteries take about 50% on each spin but offer large winnings which depend on luck. If you play the lottery long enough (one ticket) you will win it if you discover how to asymptote longevity to the point where only bad luck will kill you. There are other factors with the stock market and with fixed horseracing which derive from human cunning which is an irreducibly complex phenomena which scientists haven't properly studied you because they prefer simpler tasks. One can invest $1000 on the Dow in 2007 and when the % is beaten by 2010 one is a winner except that living costs have increased and thus one is a loser. Good innit?

But your pedantic, (viz non-literary) interpretation is most interesting. Viewers will notice, especially as I am mentioning it, that the very laudable objective of "saving lives" has been used in the service of keeping the riff-raff out and of allowing the accredited, peer-reviewed, well-funded, broadly experienced, legitimately accredited scientific/academic team assaults with clearly defined objectives, meticulously detailed route plans a monopoly of a piece of land within what I suppose might be called "an area of outstanding national beauty" which any non-elitist considers should be open to all. And that this has your obvious approval which I presume is shared by AIDsers in general.

And yet it is people risking their necks and showing their bottoms which is what the public finds interesting as you must know at your advanced age. That, put slightly poetically, AIDsers are ambushing the rest of us with their agreed amongst themselves certainties and accredited, peer-reviewed, well-funded, broadly experienced, legitimately accredited scientific/academic teams running off with our heritage which they will then use to make movies of themselves in the "starlight" (no warts) so that more people will become enthused and sign up for their courses and push up the demand for accredited, peer-reviewed, well-funded, broadly experienced, legitimately accredited scientific/academic teams which, as is well known pushes up salaries and other perks such as trips to areas of scientific interest with the young secretaries for note-taking.

"Your Life In Their Hands". Was it Doctor Kildare or something.

I rather think that you underestimate your viewers, another rather distasteful feature of the AIDsers general mindset, if such it can be called seeing as it is a confused edifice of a multiplicity of things read in often contradictory sources and moods, if you have allowed yourself the complacency that we can't see you coming. You are actually as obvious as the tsunami coming in.

It is but a short step in geological time, if your project succeeds, for fm, or a member of his posterity, to become Emeritus Professor of Bat Fossil Knuckle Bones at the UNESCO University of Katmandu. After all, as your power has grown, **** shifters have now become Metropolitan Sanitation Engineers which allows one such to live next door without it affecting the price of your house. Which is fair enough considering that in metropolitan areas the **** remains unseen by human eye from the nipsy moment until the point where the compressed sludge egresses the pipe positioned where it is for obvious reasons into the farmer's trailer to be spread on the fields to make the grass grow so that the cows will be well fed and make plenty of rich creamy milk for the megalopolitan to stir into his tea to reduce the bitterness of neat tea infusions. Unless of course you are one of those people who examines it for indications of your health or as a means of predicting future events. The Dalai Lama shows it to his followers. It has religious significance in those areas it seems. We take fundamentalists like that to the shrink.

Chum wrote-

Quote:
This thread has devolved into porpoise-less-ness, except perhaps as a dairy for spend's sundae a'musings.


Not at all Chum. Astute viewers will recognise that I am trying to help them decide which side in this debate they are on rather than which side they think they are on. It is very confusing as few even know the meanings of the words they use, to illuminate their favourite concepts with labels on them which are posh to drop in salubrious cocktail parties and suchlike settings. It is quite easy in any dumbed-down milieux to become known as the intellectual or the "brain box" simply by lavishly garnishing one's spoutings with these labels and without the slightest necessity to know what one is talking about. It's a form of mumbo-jumbo like that in religious ceremonies or witch-doctoring sales techniques. People then ask your advice which provides opportunities to give it and thus to appear even more godlike.

Don't ask them about anything to do with ladies though. They seem to have a mental block on that topic to fit with the one they have on irreducible complexity. Consult the various authors I've mentioned on the matter of ladies. They are not very expert I'll agree but they are the best we have.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Sat 10 Feb, 2007 09:19 am
anybody read that? could you please provide me an executive summary and a table of contents
0 Replies
 
Heliotrope
 
  1  
Sat 10 Feb, 2007 09:22 am
spendius wrote:
Astute viewers will recognise that I am trying to help them decide which side in this debate they are on...


Debate ?
What debate ?
There is no debate.
ID is based upon a logical fallacy : the Argument From Personal Incredulity and is therefore nothing to do with science at all.

Case closed.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 10 Feb, 2007 09:32 am
It is a very short step in geological time to arrive at Mt Everest being fenced off with a security gate patrolled by uniformed officers on which is a notice saying- ONLY well-funded, broadly experienced, legitimately accredited scientific/academic team assaults with clearly defined objectives, meticulously detailed route plans and explicit provision for emergency contingencies ALLOWED past this point. By order of the Management Committee of the Amalgamated Union of well-funded, broadly experienced, legitimately accredited scientific/academic team assaults with clearly defined objectives, meticulously detailed route plans and explicit provision for emergency contingencies.

The sharply increased costs are of no account to the individuals involved as they are met by the taxpayers in a circuitous route which isn't difficult to follow and in a variety of ways and means.

One could hardly think of a better way to stifle Science and the free play of the imaginitive intelligence on which it rests.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 10 Feb, 2007 09:47 am
Helio-

Confucius he say- "He who sits in middle of road gets run over by traffic going in both directions."

fm wrote-

Quote:
anybody read that? could you please provide me an executive summary and a table of contents


Surely it was simple enough fm.

Ain't it hard to stumble?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 10 Feb, 2007 03:34 pm
I saw Modern Times and The Gold Rush today on Artsworld and two discussion programmes about Chaplin's work in one of which someone described how the modern movie industry had been taken over by an inner circle consisting mainly of money and peer reviewed "favour do-ers" and that the result was the exclusion of the riff-raff. He went on to say that the riff-raff should only watch old movies which must explain why they are the only ones I ever watch.

Such ideas lend a certain credence to my tentative theory that American science is doomed for reasons of a like nature and it is putting up an AIDser's argument as a snow machine.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 10 Feb, 2007 04:06 pm
The problem with spendi is the simple fact that those two-way traffic that he's standing in the middle of can't be observed by spendi, because he thinks he's the traffic controller, but nobody is paying attention to his directives.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 10 Feb, 2007 06:20 pm
I see self-satisfying assertions are still all the rage.

I actually doze on the grassy embakment watching the both when my eyelids don't close.

Controlling the traffic is the last thing on my mind on the sound principle that I couldn't even if I wanted to which I don't anyway. It makes a sort of music which Pythagoras heard when he went past the blacksmith's workshops and heard the notes of the clanging hammers. It was easy for him though. Half a dozen anvils is a piece of cake.

Nobody pays any attention to my directives because they don't exist and why would anybody pay any attention to something that doesn't exist. To suggest otherwise is to fabricate a literary conceit for no other reason than that it gives you a kick to then have a **** on it.

I don't feel qualified to tell anybody how much salt to put in their porrige.


You're projecting c.i.. It's quite common though. I wouldn't worry about it.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 10 Feb, 2007 06:40 pm
The only things I project are what is obvious to most observers. The observed can't fathom their own environment.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 10 Feb, 2007 06:51 pm
It isn't obvious to me than I'm in the middle of the road or that I can't observe the traffic or that I control anything significant or that nobody is paying any attention.

Why any of those are obvious to most observers must have something to do with the observers rather than myself just as what happened to fossilised bat knuckle bones is only obvious to observers and not the bat which ended up being observed in order that the observer could feel better about himself.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Sat 10 Feb, 2007 10:53 pm
Hey big spenda,

If as you say, you only watch old movies, it would follow you are aware of new movies; given that movies have "evolved", would it be a fair assessment of your character to say you are an ID'er, when it comes to media formats?

If so, when from a biblical timetable standpoint, did god create black and white film versus DVD's?

Is that why you don't watch newer movies, because it represents a biblical timetable that has yet to occur?

Would you be sinning to rent a DVD, or simply moving into a biblical timetable that would then be occurring?
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Sun 11 Feb, 2007 08:25 am
KANSAS UPDATE

Quote:
Education board to revisit debate over evolution
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Sun 11 Feb, 2007 10:59 am
Wandel. That was one of the most poorly written articles Ive ever read. (Its almost presented in a style that the writer is letting us know that hes just got a pile of stats in his head with no idea in hell how to create a news story ).
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Sun 11 Feb, 2007 11:50 am
Quote:
Christian faith in the other good book


Flocks of the Christian faithful in the US will this Sunday hold special services celebrating Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. The idea is to stand up to creationism, which claims the biblical account of creation is literally true, and which is increasingly being promoted under the guise of "intelligent design". Proponents of ID say the universe is so complex it must have been created by some unnamed designer.

Support for "Evolution Sunday" has grown 13 per cent to 530 congregations this year, from the 467 that celebrated the inaugural event last year. Organisers see it as increasing proof that Christians are comfortable with evolution.

"For far too long, strident voices, in the name of Christianity, have been claiming that people must choose between religion and modern science," says Michael Zimmerman, founder of Evolution Sunday and dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at Butler University in Indianapolis. "We're saying you can have your faith, and you can also have science."

Zimmerman and his backers believe the biblical account of creation is allegorical. "Creationists fear that if you believe evolution, you're an atheist," he says. But for Zimmerman, attempts to try and "ratify God's existence" through intelligent design signify lack of faith. "If you have enough faith, you don't need science to prove God exists, and science can't prove this anyway," he says.

The event arose from the Clergy Letter Project, a pro-evolution letter signed in 2004 by 10,500 Christian clergy. It is spreading internationally, and this year will also be celebrated in Australia, the UK, Canada and Nigeria. Seven publishers are donating material for the services.


Quote:
Happy Darwin Day

The calendar boasts plenty of religious holidays, but how many scientific holidays can you name? One of the red-letter days is coming up on Monday, when more than 850 events around the globe will mark Darwin Day, the 198th anniversary of the evolutionary theorist's birth. You can hear about Charles Darwin and the revolution he sparked from hundreds of church pulpits this weekend, as part of a program called Evolution Sunday.

Are those godless secularists trying to take on the trappings of religion? Not at all, says Robert Stephens, one of the organizers behind Darwin Day. "We're not trying to make a saint out of Darwin," he said. "We're just using him as a symbol." Stephens and his colleagues say this long holiday weekend is as good a time as any to turn science into a cause for celebration.

By the time the big 2-0-0 rolls around in 2009, Stephens hopes Darwin Day will be a day to remember - not only for the most ardent supporters in the cultural debate over evolution, but for everyone who uses the scientific method. And that should take in everyone, period.

"Our long-term goal is to establish a new international tradition ... an annual secular celebration of Darwin, science and humanity," Stephens told me.

The way Stephens sees it, the scientific method is coded right into our DNA. It's even evident in other species - for example, when chimpanzees turn twigs into tools to fish termites out of their mounds.

"To me, science is an international language, and it's a language that transcends tribalism, sectarianism, denominationalism and even nationalism. ... I'd like to think that it could play a role in building a world without war," he said. "I tell people that it's a 1,000-year project, but someone had to get it started."

Stephens rejected the claim that Darwin Day was somehow aimed at deifying the man himself.

"I think of Darwin as being a very good symbol for what we're doing," Stephens replied. "He did give us an alternative to mythological origins ... and going forward from that, we have solidified the knowledge that we have about evolution, all the way to the human genome."

But the ideas outlined in "The Origin of Species" and Darwin's other works shouldn't be taken as received wisdom. Since Darwin's day, fresh discoveries have led to deeper insights into how organisms change over time and transmit those changes to succeeding generations. It should come as no surprise that evolutionary theory is incomplete - even though Darwin's present-day detractors try to make a big deal over that.

The current cultural clash between science and religion isn't anything new, Stephens noted. "The argument that's going on right now in this country is really a duplication of the argument that went on in Darwin's day," he said. But Stephens sees no reason why a celebration of science should necessarily cut into religious faith.

"I'm very pleased to support everybody's individual religious beliefs," Stephens said. "Where we have a problem is with religious fundamentalists."

The effort to bridge the gap between science and faith is what Evolution Sunday is all about. The chief organizer of the Evolution Sunday project, Butler University's Michael Zimmerman, provided a progress report in an e-mail:

"We have expanded by over 27 percent from last year. Last year we had 467 congregations participating, and right now we have 595. Interest is coming from all over, urban and rural, red states and blue. Check out the specific congregations participating by going to [this Web page].

"The majority of places that participated last year are doing so again. The ones who explained why they are not have simply said that this isn't an issue for their congregation because everyone there is comfortable with the compatibility of religion and science.

"There are three major goals for Evolution Sunday.

"First, we want to demonstrate to the American people that religion and science need not be at war. We want people to understand that, unlike what some fundamentalists are saying, they don't have to choose between religion and science. They can have their faith and modern science.

"Second, we want to significantly elevate the debate about this topic. This is going to be done by having meaningful dialogue in small groups around the country and around the world - rather than having biblical literalists screaming that people believing in evolution are going to hell.

"Third, we want the world to recognize that those loud fundamentalists who say folks have to choose between religion and science are not speaking for thousands upon thousands of Christian clergy members. Indeed, The Clergy Letter itself has now been signed by more than 10,500 Christian clergy members.

"You asked about ways to bridge the gap between religion and science. I have two answers. First, the premise of The Clergy Letter Project and Evolution Sunday is that there doesn't have to be a gap. The gap is the artificial creation of biblical literalists. Second, as an educator, I have to believe that education matters. Therefore, the more we talk about this topic in reasoned ways, in more than sound bites, the greater the likelihood that people will begin to understand our message."


Quote:
The Clergy Letter Project

Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible - the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark - convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as "one theory among others" is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God's good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God's loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sun 11 Feb, 2007 01:48 pm
Chum wrote-

Quote:
Hey big spenda,

If as you say, you only watch old movies, it would follow you are aware of new movies; given that movies have "evolved", would it be a fair assessment of your character to say you are an ID'er, when it comes to media formats?


Media is media Chum. There is real life in it if you know how to see it. Movies are the most difficult to see into. The movie scene perfected in 20 takes is the opposite end to pulling Saddam's statue down or, to be more prosaic, in a European soccer match. But essentially, in its general effects on social consequences, it is artificial and bears no resemblance to real life experience. Even a potentially £50 million pound hotly disputed penalty decision such as the one less than an hour ago is seen over and over by the viewer and in slo-mo from four or five angles whereas in real life the spectators see it the once and often from a long distance as is to some extent the case with the referee.

Intelligence has designed all that including the partisan anger generated.

But I was reading A History of Mathematics which is surprisingly loaded up with Jesuits and other believers.

I came across this from the 1711 publication of a 1669 account of the analysis of the infinite by Sir Isaac Newton.

Quote:
And whatever the common Analysis (that is,aljebra) performs by Means of Equations of a finite number of Terms (providing that can be done) this new method can always perform the same by Means of infinite Equations. Sothat I have not made any Question of giving this the name of Analysis (in italics) likewise. For the Reasonings in this are no less certain than in the other; not the Equations less exact; albeit we Mortals whose reasoning powers are confined within narrow Limits, can neither express, nor so conceive all the Terms of these Equations as to know exactly from thence the Quantities we want. . . . To conclude, we may justly reckon that to belong to the Analytic Art (in italics) by the help of which the Areas and Lengths, etc, of Curves may be exactly and geometrically determined.


Prof. Boyer of Brooklyn College comments-

Quote:
From then on, encouraged by Newton, men no longer tried to avoid the infinite processes, as had the Greeks, for these now were regarded as legitimate in mathematics.


I don't think the quasi-scientific jargon I have seen on here belongs to the same intellectual project as the quote.

Talking about gradual physical changes in response to environmental pressures over incomprehensible periods of time using selectable material from the fossil records is on a par intellectually with knowing that grass grows lusher if you spread **** on it. Using big words and dropping big names gives it a semblence of science to the under 12s but don't let it kid you Chum.

But notice Sir Isaac's use of the phrase "we Mortals". I wonder if he thought of saying "we mere Mortals". Either way he presents an invidious comparison with something not mortal.

Evolution theory is like collecting stamps as an investment. Perhaps talking about evolution theory provides an opportunity to pose as a scientist. Modern scientists start industrial revolutions. They don't measure the length of bones in dead forms and draw conclusions with which to jump all over, and stamp on, our cultural traditions. That's akin to banging on a pan with a rolling pin which is an activity I have had to put up with for a while today.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Sun 11 Feb, 2007 04:13 pm
spendi
Quote:
Talking about gradual physical changes in response to environmental pressures over incomprehensible periods of time using selectable material from the fossil records is on a par intellectually with knowing that grass grows lusher if you spread **** on it.


Its been said that the obvious is the most difficult concept to explain.
Do I sense a bit of peevishness in the spendi speak? Could it be that his attempts at dismissal of the natural sciences have grown from one frustrated as a child?

AWWWWWW, big hug fo widdle spendi.. If you would have payed better attention in math you would have understood what Newton was talking about, and realized that the outgrowth of infinite series analyses is nothing more than tools like calculus and statistics with which much of the "gradual physical changes...over ...time" are analyzed.
Please quit leading with your noggin.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sun 11 Feb, 2007 04:34 pm
Hey fm- I got you going there goodstyle.

Was it my ****-spreading joke.

The gradual physical changes over time in evolution's determined and boringly predictable processes has nothing to do with mathematics physiognomically although there maybe features within the atomic structures of the organisms to which mathematics does apply. To what extent those latter motions influence the reaction of the organism to its environment is, I should think, an irreducibly complex problem.

Suppose, for example, that God was the infinite aggregate of quarks or pi-mesons or any of the other multitude of bits and things whizzing around inside each atom of an organic living body all in balance in a healthy organism.

Prove that proposition incorrect.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Sun 11 Feb, 2007 07:43 pm
farmerman wrote:
Wandel. That was one of the most poorly written articles Ive ever read. (Its almost presented in a style that the writer is letting us know that hes just got a pile of stats in his head with no idea in hell how to create a news story ).


The same writer has been the regular Associated Press reporter for most of the anti-evolution news stories in the past few years. The writers for the New York Times science section obviously do a better job.

Also, that was an Associated Press piece intended for Sunday editions. Sunday papers like to use long items that give a lot of background information.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.14 seconds on 09/28/2024 at 09:41:23