Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

I have seen the word "gibberish" bandied about a few times on here and invariably in sentences and expostulations at the pinnacle of gibberish excellence.

It is sometimes thought that this word derives from "Gerberish" which is a language of the followers of Gerber which no outsider has so far managed to understand.

This is not so for obvious reasons the main one being that I do understand the gibberish I see in the posts of AIDsers.

"Gibberish" derives from the use of onomatopoeia applied to the sound made by monkeys of those popular offshoots of the ape species that are commonly exhibited in zoos and other public places, when they want a banana, a tick removing or a shag. Mr Brown being a sufficiently useful example for this purpose although he may well have been lampooning his readers.

This language is easy to understand. In fact I employed it myself in the pub last night but, thankfully with hindsight, to no avail. Or not much at least.

The two sides in this debate might be said to be using their separate forms of Gerberish; AIDserish and ID-iotish, although the former is commonly associated with gibberish as well, presumably because it is felt it impresses as indeed it often does in areas of ill repute and deprivation.

The public will decide by a process far too complex to define, although some chancers will try and some even become famous at the expense of those they flatter and deceive into thinking they do understand it, between the merits of the two languages.

But, as I said, I do understand AIDserish. The body language renders it an easy task. Thus it is not, strictly speaking, an authentic Gerberish dialect whereas ID-iotish is not understood by speakers of AIDserish/Gibberish and remains inscrutable to outsiders.

One has only to think of the vast quantity of words, not to mention the vulgarities of syntax, which AIDsers habitually use which have no proper etymology to be immediately aware of the shallow roots AIDserish has so far put down into the soil of our culture and to realise how easily it might be blown away in extreme meteorological conditions.

Are we to pin all our hopes on a growth which has such a tenuous hold on reality and which displays a whole range of expressions and emotions one has come to expect from those of such fragility.

The mighty oak of ID-iotish can withstand any amount of buffeting until its life course is run and then it crashes down to provide fuel for others but not before it has sent forth a distribution of acorns in such profusion as to be scarcely creditable.

Why wande chose to emphasis only some of the gibberish up above, thus downplaying the rest, is a matter readers should take up with him.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Why wande chose to emphasis only some of the gibberish up above, thus downplaying the rest, is a matter readers should take up with him.

Yes, readers. Please do!

0 Replies

Most of us know that spendi isn't guilty of "gibberish."

Definition: "Noun 1. gibberish - unintelligible talking gibber hokum, meaninglessness, nonsense, nonsensicality, bunk - a message that seems to convey no meaning"

Maybe, just when he has a little bit too many pints. That's when he makes himself so endearing (funny) on these threads.

0 Replies

We would be "shooting the messenger" spendi. Do you understand what wandel's been posting? Theres really not much going on in the IDer side , and anyway, what a news vehicle deems fit to report is only governed by interest and editorial policies, not whether some bloke in Manchester is all flumoxed.

Wandel, Justice Scalia wrote the dissenting opinion in the 1987 Edwards(7-2) decision in which he seems to chide the majority of the court for "punishing" peoples rights to worship as they please (the Louisiana equal treatment law was , in his opinion, merely an example of "balanced treatment). Now that the USSC has decidedly been stacked with members of his leaning, any such cases that do make it (Dover ws, after all, never gonna make it any more than Scopes), I feel, have a pretty good chance of favorable decisions.

All I can say is that the ID "Wedge " policy document is a few years behind its schedule as proposed by Phil Johnson Smile

0 Replies

The Creationists/Iders have been victims of their own conflation of the meaty substance of language. Where guys like the legal staffers of the Discovery Institute have been searching for just the right case to forward their agendas, theyve incorrectly connected themselves to these religious zealot types who cannot see the differences between Creationism and ID.. Its funny that the IDers have gotten their own worst poundings from the many factions of their own stripe, and tyhe Discovery Institute hasnt been able to "shut the mouths" of the schoolboard members who go out and publically announce their wishes to "reinsert Christianity" into the many schools' curricula.

The "high water" years of the Creationists were actually the years between the Scopes trial and 1962 when the Biological Sciences Curriculum STudy finally got rid of "civil Biology" and revamped the Biology textbooks on behalf of a request by the NSF . During this intervening period, there were 3 states with solid "Anti-evolution laws" and for the rest of the states that didnt have them, there was almost a universal timorousness by the the textbook buying world to just keep evolution out of the printed resources, lest they get the wrath of the Evangelicals.In effect, the entire country was being pushed around by the fundamentalist dictates of a small vocal minority of the entire religious community

However, The rapid change in the direction of the biological science curricula was a result more of the Sputnik scare, than any "Great Awakening".Just like Mcarthyism , it took the outspoken appeals for sanity in the sciences by some very famous biologists like Dobzhansky and Mueller to stae empahtically that "100 years without Darwin is damn long enougfh". However, even after the textbook changes It still took the Epperson case and the Edwarrds case and a few District Court decisions(including Dover)(not to mention the passage of yet another 40 years) to get rid of "Anti Evolution" sentiment among the schoolboards, schools and textbooks. The present case in California, has more fundamental roots level questions (IMHO). It may ultimately get us involved with issues such as "should there be an assumed separation of church and state"., And Im not so sure about the outcomes. Even though the entire constitution is an agnostic document as compared to the Declaration of Independence. But thats another tale for another thread on another day.

0 Replies

wande wrote-

Quote:

Yes, readers. Please do!

Well wande- I raised the issue at Dover if you remember about the marking of exam papers and nobody on your side even attempted an answer so I don't suppose there will be one in the case you brought up.

What there will be is a decision based on a number of factors. Jury selection might take a while. The swings of the voters and other stuff I didn't ought to mention on a family forum.

It's the same problem writ a bit larger. Extended say. AIDsers are extenders. Size matters.

Why can't you put headmasters in charge of schools and let them do what they want. Put it on a proper business footing like driving and trade skill schools.

For what it's worth there a rush to get into religious schools here and property values are soaring in their vicinty. Some atheists are pretending to be catholics to get their little monsters in hoping they'll get a better education and thus prove the superiority of their DNA.

They have got so mixed up in Brighton that they are having a raffle. It's government by the people dontcha know.

I hope they don't end up raffling the bread.

0 Replies

spendi,

I emphasized 2 paragraphs in the news item, only to show the case's relevance to science education. Other parts of the news item dealt with different educational issues.

0 Replies

Dream on wande.

0 Replies

Quote:

Well wande- I raised the issue at Dover if you remember about the marking of exam papers and nobody on your side even attempted an answer so I don't suppose there will be one in the case you brought up.

(ALways a glutton for punishment he will ask, what the hell ya talking about spendi?)

0 Replies

I knew you didn't pay attention fm.

0 Replies

I usually judge a bowl of soup by the first spoonful. If it sucks, I dont bother with the rest, so yes you are probably correct in that I ignored one of your self -congratulatory, circular missives in which you often argue with yourself.

0 Replies

There was no self -congratulatory, circular missive in which I argued with myself. That is a figment of your imagination in which your specious remarks are rooted.

What there was was a question relating to the marking of exam papers. This was ignored as is usually the case when AIDsers have no answers or. if they have, refrain from providing them for propsagenda reasons.

It is such an obvious problem that many other have raised it besides myself not least the case wande has briefed us on in Russia. It applies to other things besides religious issues. Marxist theory for example.

We have the impression that AIDsers seek to award a D Minus to any ideas which call into question the social efficacy of the scientific method. And please note not the scientific method itself which ids accept. Just its bid for supreme power. It is but a tool in the service of higher things not a task master.

I would never seek to make you look as foolish as you have yourself managed to do with that last post. You confirm the suspicion that you either don't read the posts of others or you refrain from noticing anything inconvenient to your case. Which alternative calls forth condemnation the most I'm not sure.

0 Replies

you couldnt have made my point more eloquently spendi. Was the burning question in your last post?
What claim on the scientific method are you trying to establish? Your style is often (and Im not alone in this reminder) quite circular.

0 Replies

I cannot answer the assertion that "Your style is often (and Im not alone in this reminder) quite circular." unless it is explained. Saying it is circular does not really pose a question. Not being alone is neither here nor there.

I would like to know how as I am always willing to correct any faults I might have.

I make no claims about the scientific method. It is a perfectly respectable and highly valuable line of action providing it confines itself to what it does best or, if it seeks to invade the social field, accepts its own logic. As soon as it inhibits that logic it accepts aspects of morality which can only be supported by some sort of religious viewpoint.

Maybe you have only a slight knowledge of SM applied in the social field with rigour and without rigour you have inhibition.

0 Replies

spendiQuote1

Quote:

We have the impression that AIDsers seek to award a D Minus to any ideas which call into question the social efficacy of the scientific method. And please note not the scientific method itself which ids accept. Just its bid for supreme power. It is but a tool in the service of higher things not a task master.

Quote2

Quote:

I make no claims about the scientific method. It is a perfectly respectable and highly valuable line of action providing it confines itself to what it does best or, if it seeks to invade the social field, accepts its own logic. As soon as it inhibits that logic it accepts aspects of morality which can only be supported by some sort of religious viewpoint.

Heres an example just 2 posts apart.Yet everything you say is an assumption by you alone. Please back up your own assertions. Where have you found it "invading the social field"?

0 Replies

Where the sailors all come in.

Where what are banned in real life (mock auctions) are allowed on TV for pickpocketing the poor.

Dover.

The use of frightening names for illnesses which were once "distempers" and Acts of God.

The flashing of billions across the globe in a fraction of a second which is a facility which may well do for the lot of us.

The use of psychological techniques for persuasion which thus admit that the policy cannot stand on its own.

Techniques in biology which scare the **** out of lots of ordinary people.

The creation of an elite which thinks it knows how we should all live and the natural tendency of such an elite to seek hegemony and the obvious contempt in which such an elite holds the uninitiated.

I could go on all day fm.

Can you think of any area where the SM has not invaded the social field. And, I must add, often to our advantage.

It is simply necessary, in my opinion, to keep a sense of proportion about the SM. Politics is the art of the possible not of the ideal.

Do you think that the extraordinary population growth in the US has taken place naturally? If you do you need to explain those societies where population stability has lasted for very long periods and where the SM has been absent.

0 Replies

Quote:

The creation of an elite which thinks it knows how we should all live and the natural tendency of such an elite to seek hegemony and the obvious contempt in which such an elite holds the uninitiated.

Some viewers may prefer Dr Sam Johnson's ideas on that.

Quote:

It is natural for those who have raised a Reputation by any Science, to exalt themselves as endowed by Heaven with peculiar Powers, or marked out by an extraordinary Designation for their Profession; and to fright Competitors away by representing the Difficulties with which they must contend, and the Necessities of Qualities which are supposed to be not generally conferred, and which no Man can know, but by Experience, whether he enjoys.

And also-

Quote:

There is a kind of intellectual Cowardice, often to be found among men devoted to Literature, which whoever converses much among them may observe frequently to depress the Alacrity of Enterprise, and, by consequence, to retard the Improvement of Science. They have annexed to every Species of Knowledge some chimerical Character of Terror and Inhibition, which they transmit, without much Reflection, from one to another, and with which they first fright themselves, and then propagate the Panic to their Scholars and Acquaintance.

Men devoted to Science or Religion often fall into the same error.

So much for peer-reviews. Anti-Science according to the Doc.

I am not as alone as you seem to think fm although I understand the benefits of asserting that I am. Self-complacency mainly. Which is a sub-division of Pride and, as such, to be eschewed always and everywhere.

0 Replies

Excerpt from Scientist Magazine, March 2007:

Quote:

What if Humans were Designed to Last?
(By S. Jay Olshansky, Robert N. Butler, and Bruce A. Carnes)

When Michelangelo painted The Creation of Adam on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, he portrayed the Renaissance view of humanity as having been molded by the hand of its creator, a "perfect" physical specimen. Charles Darwin, when drafting his theory of evolution, presented imperfections in humans' anatomic structures and functions as the strongest evidence for his theory. It now appears they were both right.

A coordinated network of molecular processes providing cells with nearly flawless surveillance, maintenance, and repair capabilities exemplifies the "perfection" of the human body. Living things need this precision in order to survive to reproductive maturity in the face of a hostile environment and the toxic debris that the cellular machinery of life generates. Meanwhile, subtle changes and imperfections at every level of biological organization give rise to the diseases and disorders associated with aging and impose limits on the duration of life, but ultimately, these changes and imperfections drive the evolutionary process itself. The juxtaposition of Michelangelo's perfection and Darwin's flaws embodies the linked stories of reproduction and death.

Evolution has given humans a beautifully orchestrated set of genetic programs to carry most of us through to sexual maturity, but we have also been given a brain large enough to ponder our demise. Yet, if the molecular, cellular, and genetic machinery used to conceive, develop, and operate a human were designed rather than the result of evolution, humans would be different and life would look different. This is our challenge. We asked experts in gerontology, neuroscience, genetics, cell biology, development, and health and fitness science to devise a human that would stand the test of time. Here's what they've come up with.

In the absence of planned form and designed function, what we have is a living machine that appears well thought out, but which fails when operated beyond its biological warranty period. Some anatomic fixes could make a difference in aging populations: Most men older than age 50 can attest that the prostate gland has the functional plan of an apprentice's first effort rather than the end result of intelligent design. Anyone who understands how time takes its toll on the body and mind, however, will recognize that designing a human body built to last requires far more substantive changes than meddling with simple anatomy.

0 Replies

Very good wande.

What it fails to take into account however is that Adam and Eve may well have been perfect and in a Garden of Eden not subjected to the environmental rigours for which they were not designed and that the ruination of Adam which has led to this weary world of woe is due to the temptations of Eve which test he singularly failed to pass as do the vast majority of his progeny.

He may well be fondling her yet otherwise.

Which is one more reason why the Almighty's representitives on earth eschew the company of ladies. And why married pastors are a joke.

"As I walked out tonight in the mystic garden
The wounded flowers were dangling from the vine
I was passing by yon cool crystal fountain
Someone hit me from behind."

Ain't Talkin'. Bob Dylan.

I might have written-

As I walked out in the magic, mystic garden
The blowing flowers were trembling on the vine
Passing by yonder cool crystal fountain
Something hit me from behind."

Still-it's a wonderful song and the first live performance (see You Tube) is something else. New York. Nov 2006.

How about-

"The Blonde God has fallen victim to the meat trade,
The husk is all there is that's left behind,
It does the rounds that it feels it has to
After finding out it pays pretending to be kind."

0 Replies

Back in the 70's everyone was certain that everything in the environment caused cancer. Dr Bruce Ames even developed a"mutagenicity scale" with which to assign values of carcinogenicity for various chemicals. LAter, as the structure and limitations of our genomeswas getting understood, the new way was to evaluate the "death genes" We know now that the truth lies somewhere in between.
We do have a genome that recognizes its inability to "heal itself" with age and , there are certain environmental chemicals and dietary items that are related to cancers. Even Bruce Ames has repudiated his own "Ames Test"

We relegate our earlier science understandings to the same mythopoesy as we do the charming legends of Adam and Eve.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know