Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

fm wrote-

Quote:

we wont get back to topic until Wandel comes in and posts something relevant from a publication.

I am so happy for yourself and for xingu (who is nowhere near on topic but its's okay for AIDsers it seems) that wande has arrived in the nick of time to post something "relevant". I'll say.

Sounds like shaman's mumbo-jumbo to me. Takes all sorts.

BTW fm- it doesn't inspire much awe in your style when you are "torn between two mental pictures" and then jump all over one of them in the manner of a Salem pastor. Torn means undecided.

My "last remark" may well have been "convoluted" and thus hardly evidence for the rush to impulsive judgement.

Could you explain why Mr Smolin is "neat". A lot of viewers might be persuaded to study him on your recommendation and that is fundamental "on topic". It comes before any other issue on the site.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

wande has arrived in the nick of time to post something "relevant". I'll say.

Sounds like shaman's mumbo-jumbo to me. Takes all sorts.

The biological emergence theory I mentioned yesterday may sound like mumbo-jumbo, spendi.

This theory actually came up during the Dover trial. It was revealed that the textbook "Of Pandas and People" used "creationism" in early editions, "intelligent design" in later editions, and planned on substituting "sudden emergence theory" in future editions. A lawyer for the parents of the Dover students asked: "We won't be back in a couple of years for the sudden emergence trial, will we?" Judge Jones immediately interjected: "Not on my docket."

0 Replies

In discussing the efficiency of methods of begging Sam Johnson, in his extended essay A Journey To The Western Isles, wrote about Scottish beggars-

Quote:

They solicit silently, or very modestly, and therefore though their behaviour may strike with more force the heart of a stranger, they are certainly in danger of missing the attention of their countrymen. Novelty has always some power, an unaccustomed mode of begging excites an unaccustomed degree of pity. But the force of novelty is by its own nature soon at an end; the efficacy of outcry and perseverence is permanent and certain.

One supposes that arguing continuously through a megaphone about whether to call the "Poof" creationism, intelligent design or sudden emergence is eminently satisfactory for effortless enrichment. So much so, it seems, that it works for the well heeled when begging off the poor. One thing is for sure and that is that no work is being done which will increase the fortunes of mankind. Quite the contrary in fact.

It is high class begging though but which the canny Scotsman might laugh to scorn were he not to think he might try it himself.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

A lawyer for the parents of the Dover students asked: "We won't be back in a couple of years for the sudden emergence trial, will we?" Judge Jones immediately interjected: "Not on my docket."

Thank god.

First it's ID, then it's BE (Biological Emergence). Different name, same snake oil.

0 Replies

It used to be known as High Anglicanism ros.

When people wrench up their roots to try their hand elsewhere, for whatever reason, they do try to distance themselves from those roots even going so far as to style a game "football" in which the hands are the principle instrument of skill if not of force and play the ball and stick game minus the inconvenience of the ball pitching on the ground and giving them a number of chances to hit it neither of which comfort is available to a proper batsman.

So it is to be expected that some new-fangled scientific type name will be sought after by a migrating horde, and adopted, although hardly without some sophisticated wrangling.

I think it was Mr Jefferson himself who enjoined you to do exactly that.

0 Replies

I do believe that we will have to do something about TV.

It has been well said that rapid changes in national manners are the result of conquest.

On such a principle it can be argued that we have been conquered by TV which is a pure urban phenomenum.

We have lost, or are losing, our original character. Our tempers have been softened and our military ardour is being extinguished. The dignity of independence is depressed and disguised in sporting faction and contempt of government is abated as our reverence of chiefs is subdued.

Our palates and sensibilities have improved our delicacy at the expense of our manhood.

And all this is done by a species of witchcraft. Visions fly through the sky into our private chambers and materialise as living beings before our very eyes and lay enchantments and spells upon us but unlike ancient witchery they are divisible without diminution of power and can appear in millions of places at the same time and in un-numberable other times.

Even our language in under threat. Media -English is gaining ground and conditions our thoughts and there are those who think it reasonable, nay, necessary, to deny us the Holy Scriptures and our folk songs so that we might have no monument to our mother-tongue and thus become historyless and in awe and dependence on this new language of abstraction in which expressions such as "pretty nice" and "neat guy" are thought to have some meaning.

0 Replies

Pomposity-A
Content-D

0 Replies

That's simply a reflex which is entirely predictable and serves the urban party.

It pretends that we can have something for nothing. That TV has no costs.

TV, in your eyes, has presumably the same integrity as the Church did 300 years ago. You have new high priests- that's all. Here today-gone tomorrow types.

Anyway fm- it's good to see you using this new language of your claque once again. I'm glad it has meaning for you. It hasn't any for me nor any other reasonably well-educated person.

I presume the D would disqualify me from entrance to an establishment of the higher learning in which you had influence thus, besides fulfilling Veblen's 100 year old prophecy, providing you with protection from any ideas which you don't already have and keeping the funds restricted to those circles of which you approve.

0 Replies

I'm sorry.

I failed to mention how easy it was to do.

I'm becoming much too habituated to that sort of thing from AIDsers and have to pinch myself to notice it.

0 Replies

NEW MEXICO UPDATE

Quote:

Intelligent design supporters find new, creative ways to get their message out
(Editorial Opinion, The Albuquerque Tribune, March 13, 2007)

In this session of the New Mexico Legislature, no fewer than two bills and two resolutions supporting "intelligent design creationism" were proposed.
Rep. W. C. "Dub" Williams, a Glencoe Republican, sponsored two measures in the House, while the corresponding Senate measures were put forward by Sen. Steve Komadina, a Corrales Republican.

The carefully crafted "academic freedom" measures made no specific mention of intelligent design. But it was clearly the driving purpose behind these, which would have permitted and encouraged teachers to present so-called weaknesses of evolution science in biology classes. The measures would have also have given students the "right and freedom to reach their own conclusions about biological origins."

We don't encourage students to "reach their own conclusions" on how to add fractions. Why should we suddenly do so with the biosciences? Make no mistake, the only academic freedom involved in these measures is the freedom to teach creationism in science class.

The legislation doesn't look like it's going anywhere. Both House measures had been tabled, and the Senate measures may not even get to committee before adjournment this week.

While supporters insisted that "this is about science, not religion," Williams was much more honest. At a hearing Jan. 29 in the House Judiciary Committee on the memorial, Williams declared: "What we evolved from we will never figure out. There are many people who are absolutely convinced God did all of this, and if you have the faith I have, God did it all."

After hearing from several scientists and teachers opposed to the bill at an Education Committee hearing Feb. 21, Williams graciously tabled his own bill.

These unnecessary measures would have given students the power to decide how they will be tested in the science of biology. Current state standards already recognize the rights of students to have their own religious views.

Just because this legislation may have failed, however, we shouldn't be complacent about intelligent design creationists.

Watch for continued calls for classroom presentation of so-called weaknesses in evolution. In mainstream science, evolution is spectacularly successful, and supported by literally millions of observations. The only weaknesses brought forth are invariably warmed-over creationist pseudoscience - the "Cambrian explosion" can't be explained; complexity can't evolve; study of past events is mere speculation; and on and on.

Look out for complaints that simply teaching the scientific method - testing real-world (natural) explanations - somehow denies even the possibility of a guiding intelligence above it all. Science is not "atheism" just because it cannot invoke supernatural causality.

Intelligent design creationism proponents demonize everyone who doesn't accept their specific sectarian tenet - that God created unique "kinds," and would never use evolution - as "Darwinists" and "atheists."

They have the audacity to think they know the mind of God, and that they should keep the rest of us in line. The president of the New Mexico Intelligent Design Network, Joe Renick, went as far as calling Judge John E. Jones (who ruled that intelligent design is just a form of creationism in the Dover, Penn., ruling of 2005) one of the "federal judges who drink the same Kool-Aid as the Darwinists," invoking images of cult leader Jim Jones leading a mass suicide in Guyana.

In public, they will claim intelligent design is not creationism, but only "science." But on the Jan. 13, 2005, "Family News In Focus," James Dobson's radio news program, Renick revealed his agenda: "If there's no transcendent designer or creator, such as the God of Genesis, well then, that's going to say a whole lot about what this life is about and what it means."

The latest intelligent design creationism effort is underway, and it involves giving science teachers copies of infomercial videos, under the auspices of the New Mexico Science Foundation. But the Public Education Department has repeatedly said intelligent design has no place in New Mexico science classes. These videos are not acceptable for class use.

The material cleverly makes no mention of creation, or God, but instead links to the National Science Foundation and quotes Albert Einstein.
Yet, the webmaster for the foundation is Mark Burton, a high-ranking member of the Creation Science Fellowship of New Mexico, a creationist organization committed to biblical inerrancy, Noah's flood and a 6,000-year-old Earth.

0 Replies

EVERYBODEHH GRAB YER SNAKES AND PAARRAYYUZZ JEEEZZUSSS

Shumballalaalhallahllah.
(for those THAT ARE into glossololial grandiloquence).

for spendi, my new bumper sticker

PROUD TO BE AN AIDer

0 Replies

Yeah

Nothing wrong with that fm.

As long as you know it's about money and power and the rest of it is about 40 miles away in a deep fog you are perfectly entitled to emblazon your party affiliation. You must admit that you had thought that you were doing some good or you were saving the human race type of bullshit.

Everybody knows that they don't know the answer to the main question and that they never will. How can it be about that?

Get campaigning. The nose to the grindstone 6.am parade with marching band party.

Bring back the Bishops.

0 Replies

wande-

Very nice that last quote. Are they a bit above the national average in Albuquerque?

0 Replies

There are a lot of above-average A2Kers living in or nearby Albuquerque.

0 Replies

That must explain why the local rag puts in a little more effort than is usually seen wande. Editor's neices are not everybody's cup of tea intellectually.

0 Replies

TENNESSEE UPDATE

Quote:

Finney says he may drop creationism question
(Associated Press, March 14, 2007)

MARYVILLE, Tenn. The Tennessee senator who proposed forcing the state education commissioner to say whether a supreme being created the universe now says he may drop the matter.

Senator Raymond Finney of Maryville puts it this way -- "This may not be the time and place for that."

The Republican lawmaker cited a workload with other legislation as one reason to reconsider the resolution he introduced, which asks Education Commissioner Lana Seivers to answer whether the universe "has been created or has merely happened by random, unplanned, and purposeless occurrences."

A Senate colleague asked the state attorney general to clarify whether the question to Seivers violated the state constitution, which holds that "no political or religious test" can be required as a qualification for state office.

An attorney general ruling issued yesterday said the question was permissible because it wasn't the same as a "test."

If Finney proceeds with the resolution, it only has to pass the Republican-controlled Senate and won't be considered by the Democratic-controlled House or the governor.

0 Replies

If someone can pass the message on I'll ask Ms Commissioner, with all due respect to her elevated position, whether or not the universe has been created or has merely happened by random, unplanned, and purposeless occurrences.

Or if there's a third possibility.

It's a simple enough question. With a simple enough answer.

Quote:

Senator Raymond Finney of Maryville puts it this way -- "This may not be the time and place for that."

It is difficult to imagine a time and place unsuited to such a question to a legislator in education.

0 Replies

These are the questions that State Senator Finney proposes to ask the Tennessee Education Commissioner:

Quote:

(1) Is the Universe and all that is within it, including human beings, created through purposeful, intelligent design by a Supreme Being, that is a Creator?

Understand that this question does not ask that the Creator be given a name. To name the Creator is a matter of faith. The question simply asks whether the Universe has been created or has merely happened by random, unplanned, and purposeless occurrences.

Further understand that this question asks that the latest advances in multiple scientific disciplines -such as physics, astronomy, molecular biology, DNA studies, physiology, paleontology, mathematics, and statistics - be considered, rather than relying solely on descriptive and hypothetical suppositions.

If the answer to Question 1 is "Yes," please answer Question 2:
(2) Since the Universe, including human beings, is created by a Supreme Being (a Creator), why is creationism not taught in Tennessee public schools?

If the answer to Question 1 is "This question cannot be proved or disproved," please answer Question 3:

(3) Since it cannot be determined whether the Universe, including human beings, is created by a Supreme Being (a Creator), why is creationism not taught as an alternative concept, explanation, or theory, along with the theory of evolution in Tennessee public schools?

If the answer to Question 1 is "No" please accept the General Assembly's admiration for being able to decide conclusively a question that has long perplexed and occupied the attention of scientists, philosophers, theologians, educators, and others.

Source: Tennessee Senate Resolution 17

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

It's a simple enough question. With a simple enough answer.

Spendi,
In my post above, I have quoted the senator's question in full. Do you think it is an honest question?

0 Replies

Of course it is valid wande.

The sticking point is what the senator from Tennessee means by "creationism".

It can only be that that supplies the difference between his position and that of Ms Seivers assuming she doesn't seek to gain the admiration of the General Assembly and that of all nations by declaring us all to be purposeless and, as such, only subject to the coercions of power and only then when detected and that any sense of duty she has in serving the state and the nation's children is a mere cover for her personal aggrandisment whether she knows it or not.

I asked the question a few times way back in various guises but no answer was ever provided.

Creationism is, however, a good story and has been put to good use (we hope) and now that science has discredited its literal acceptance those with a scientific inclination, or an urge to ride the coat-tails of Science for posturing's sake, either go with ID, a poetic interpretation, or declare we are indeed purposeless and meaningless which not a few have done.

I think that Americans of a certain narrow type have a disinclination to accept that some knowledge is not for the masses because if they don't know what that knowledge is they are thereby defined as members of the masses themselves and they thus deny that type of knowledge exists and they only debate about that knowledge they do know. Art is, for them, a commodity like all the other accoutrements with which they support their sense of self-worth. A money display.

Which is to say that they think nobody can possibly be wiser than they are. And some of them can hardly read and write.

AIDsers might consider what a universal sense of purposeless and meaninglessness might look like in action rather than just that sense being a sectional one.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know