97
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
username
 
  1  
Tue 3 Apr, 2007 09:55 am
All right, let's try it this way: humans, chimps, bonobos, and gorillas are all apes. Yes, we are too. We all descended from apes. The common ancestors before the species diverged were all apes too. They just were somewhat different from their descendents today. Thinking humans are not apes is mere hubris on our part, and is disproved by evolutionary genetics.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 3 Apr, 2007 11:05 am
One might say that the truth is lovely. Her loveliness needs no reasoning--it is a feeling

Only lovely art can do duty in expressing truth.

One would hardly say that cascades of blood clotting agents in chiclid ankle bones circa 600 million years BC are lovely.

"Been so long since a strange woman has slept in my bed,
Look how sweet she sleeps, how free must be her dreams.
In another lifetime she must have owned the world, or been faithfully wed
To some righteous king who wrote psalms beside moonlit streams."

That's lovely.

As Joseph Joubert said-

Quote:
One should be fearful of being wrong in poetry when one thinks differently from the poets, and in religion when one thinks differently from the saints.

There is a great difference between taking for idols Mahomet and Luther, and bowing down before Rouseau and Voltaire. People at any rate imagined they were obeying God when they followed Mahomet, and the Scriptures when they hearkened to Luther. And perhaps one ought not too much to disparage that inclination which leads mankind to put into the hands of those whom it thinks the friends of God the direction and government of its heart and mind. It is the subjection to irreligious spirits which alone is fatal, and, in the fullest sense of the word, depraving.


So it's nothing new folks.

If some chancers and snake-oil operatives are ramping it up for personal motives too sordid to discuss what difference does that make to the intellectual argument? One might admire the skill and perseverence, not to say desperation, as they might only be fit for unskilled labour otherwise. They might even be happier.

Then Joubert goes on to define the essence of the idea of intelligent design-

Quote:
May I say it? It is not hard to know God, provided one will not force oneself to define him.
Do not bring into the domain of reasoning that which belongs to our innermost feeling. State truths of sentiment, and do not try to prove them. There is a danger in such proofs; for in arguing it is necessary to treat that which is in question as something problematic: now that which we accustom ourselves to treat as problematic ends by appearing to us as really doubtful......'Fear God,' has made many men pious; the proofs of the existence of God have made many men atheists. From the defence springs the attack; the advocate begets in his hearer a wish to pick holes; and men are almost always led on, from the desire to contradict the doctor, to the desire to contradict the doctrine. Make truth lovely, and do not try to arm her; mankind will then be far less inclined to contend with her.
Why is even a bad preacher almost always heard by the pious with pleasure? Because he talks to them about what they love. But you who have to expound religion to the children of this world, you who have to speak to them of that which they once loved perhaps, or which they would be glad to love,--remember that they do not love it yet, and to make them love it take heed to speak with power.
You may do what you like, mankind will believe no one but God; and he can only persuade mankind who believes God has spoken to him.


With only 3% of Americans being atheists it is easy to believe that their atheism began with a "desire to contradict the doctor".
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Tue 3 Apr, 2007 01:47 pm
I do often debate with myself when I don't know what to believe about something. And in teaching critical thinking, I try to encourage my students, whomever they might be, to consider every angle of a problem or situation and try not to overlook anything before they choose their opinion regarding it.

In this case, I honestly don't care whether dogs descended from wolves, but I found the research interesting that suggests that they both evolved as their own species and not one from the other.

I also don't care whether humans descended from apes but I can accept a possibility that each evolved as its own species and not one from the other.

This is the point you chose to overlook FM and thus, you pretty much made a red herring of your whole argument.

I also applaud my granddaughter for having an open mind that allows more than one posisbility to exist when there are no absolutes available. I think she's going to make a heck of a scientist if that is where her destiny lies.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Tue 3 Apr, 2007 01:51 pm
And Spendi, it scares me that I think I'm sometimes able to follow, and appreciate, your thought processes. Laughing

But I'm not confident on your most recent post. Are you saying that some make up their own truths because they don't want to believe? If so, I couldn't agree more.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Tue 3 Apr, 2007 02:13 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Then again, my granddaughter (who does know and accepts the Theory of Evolution with my blessings) asked me recently, "If man evolved from apes, why are there still apes?"

I had no answer for her.


Explain to your granddaughter that modern humans and modern apes evolved from a common ancestor. Neither one evolved from the other in modern form.

If she then asks, "if humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor, then why are there still apes?", she will see the flaw in her original question.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Tue 3 Apr, 2007 02:16 pm
rosborne979 wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Then again, my granddaughter (who does know and accepts the Theory of Evolution with my blessings) asked me recently, "If man evolved from apes, why are there still apes?"

I had no answer for her.


Explain to your granddaughter that modern humans and modern apes evolved from a common ancestor. Neither one evolved from the other in modern form.

If she then asks, "if humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor, then why are there still apes?", she will see the flaw in her original question.


Even at her tender age, I don't think she would be that illogical however. The question was not "why are there still apes if humans and apes evolved from a common ancester?." Her question was, "If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?" She saw the difference between the two. So do I. And I bet you do too.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Tue 3 Apr, 2007 02:22 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
And in teaching critical thinking.......
This is equally most bizarre and telling.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Tue 3 Apr, 2007 02:26 pm
Chumly wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
And in teaching critical thinking.......
This is equally most bizarre and telling.


Really? When you teach do you not teach analytical, comprehensive, and critical thinking? Why not? Why wouldn't you? What manner of teacher does not? What rationale could one offer for not doing so? How you do justify 'bizarre and telling' within this framework? Or are you applying subtle definitions to the terms? What criteria is incorporated in critical thinking do you think? And how much consensus of process and results do you consider necessary for it to have occurred?
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Tue 3 Apr, 2007 02:26 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
I also applaud my granddaughter for having an open mind that allows more than one posisbility to exist when there are no absolutes available. I think she's going to make a heck of a scientist if that is where her destiny lies.
By that token it wound mean an empty mind lacking the basics for critical thought as is shared by your inability to accept levels of plausibly,
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 3 Apr, 2007 02:28 pm
Foxy-

Scared of me!!!!????

I'm as cute as a basket of whelps. I can melt butter by looking at it.

It's interesting though. That someone, a Lady too, who chooses her words with such care should choose to use that one.

I think one ought to avoid praising one's descendents. It raises a suspicion that one is praising one's own genetic material.

But I'm a bloke and maybe ladies take a more level-headed view and it must be very tempting when the praise is merited. But it can be dangerous when it enters the educational system which is why I think that being educated by priests or nuns is much the best.

It may be particularly dangerous, to a society I mean, when it is linked to a tendency to run education upon business lines as Veblen says your system is.

When I consider the possible thoughts of refined ladies I'm scared witless and my knees knock together like a woodpecker pecking another woodpecker and I quake in my boots like a half-ready yellow jelly.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Tue 3 Apr, 2007 02:30 pm
Chumly wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
I also applaud my granddaughter for having an open mind that allows more than one posisbility to exist when there are no absolutes available. I think she's going to make a heck of a scientist if that is where her destiny lies.
By that token it wound mean an empty mind lacking the basics for critical thought as is shared by your inability to accept levels of plausibly,


So if I or my granddaughter explore possibilities when there are no absolutes available, we are possessed of an empty mind incapable of critical thought? That's rather amazing actually. Perhaps you would care to define the gospel according to Chumly by which 'open minds' must think.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 3 Apr, 2007 02:31 pm
My last post was in response to a post by Foxy in which she expressed the view that she found appreciating and following my thoughts "scary".

She seems to have deleted it.

But the moving finger's scratches won't wash off.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Tue 3 Apr, 2007 02:35 pm
spendius wrote:
My last post was in response to a post by Foxy in which she expressed the view that she found appreciating and following my thoughts "scary".

She seems to have deleted it.

But the moving finger's scratches won't wash off.


I deleted nothing. Well, I have deleted posts in which my impulse to retaliate overrode my better judgment, but none of these have been aimed at you. I do agree about the pitiful state of U.S. education, but it still can be found here and there in small amounts usually in small places.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Tue 3 Apr, 2007 02:36 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Even at her tender age, I don't think she would be that illogical however. The question was not "why are there still apes if humans and apes evolved from a common ancester?." Her question was, "If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?" She saw the difference between the two. So do I. And I bet you do too.


Ok, then let me rephrase this in a simpler form...

Question: "If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?"

Answer: "Because Humans did not evolve from apes, they evolved from an apelike common ancestor"

In other words, the original question contains a flawed assumption. Once the flawed assumption is removed, the original question becomes irrelevant.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Tue 3 Apr, 2007 02:47 pm
rosborne979 wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Even at her tender age, I don't think she would be that illogical however. The question was not "why are there still apes if humans and apes evolved from a common ancester?." Her question was, "If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?" She saw the difference between the two. So do I. And I bet you do too.


Ok, then let me rephrase this in a simpler form...

Question: "If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?"

Answer: "Because Humans did not evolve from apes, they evolved from an apelike common ancestor"

In other words, the original question contains a flawed assumption. Once the flawed assumption is removed, the original question becomes irrelevant.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Tue 3 Apr, 2007 03:11 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Really? When you teach do you not teach analytical, comprehensive, and critical thinking?
Show me your numerous examples of "analytical, comprehensive, and critical thinking" from your recent posts on this thread and how they meet "analytical, comprehensive, and critical thinking".
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Tue 3 Apr, 2007 03:20 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
So if I or my granddaughter explore possibilities when there are no absolutes available, we are possessed of an empty mind incapable of critical thought? That's rather amazing actually. Perhaps you would care to define the gospel according to Chumly by which 'open minds' must think.
You unsurprisingly demonstrate your ignorance between the possible and the plausible.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 3 Apr, 2007 03:22 pm
Foxy-

I do beg your pardon. I looked for the post to copy it in view of the contents which, as I've already said, were interesting assuming you wouldn't use a word like that loosely which experience has shown would be unlikely.

I must have got mixed up on the pages- whatever- but I had thought it had vanished and now I've checked after your last post I see, much to my mortification, that it hasn't vanished and I have, through my incompetence, offended you and I ought to do some penance.

(How about Calamity Jane supervising it as I know you are very busy! )

When will I ever learn? Never question the actions of a Lady.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 3 Apr, 2007 03:30 pm
Chum wrote-

Quote:
You unsurprisingly demonstrate your ignorance between the possible and the plausible.


I think the line between those two Chum is a bit wobbly. Only money might provide a limiting factor assuming there was no sense of shame in the world as there couldn't possibly be in a 100% secular world.

It is obviously possible for everyone to take heroin but it is only plausible to some. Just think of any activity you couldn't imagine someone you know doing when you know there are others doing it for fun.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Tue 3 Apr, 2007 03:40 pm
Chumly wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Really? When you teach do you not teach analytical, comprehensive, and critical thinking?
Show me your numerous examples of "analytical, comprehensive, and critical thinking" from your recent posts on this thread and how they meet "analytical, comprehensive, and critical thinking".


But Chumly I already did. It requires analytical, comprehensive, and critical thinking to recognize that, however.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 01/10/2025 at 10:52:32