Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

And in both cases I agree that the fact that ID cannot be proved nor disproved via scientific principles is in fact relevent.

Quote:

And in both cases I agree that the fact that ID cannot be proved nor disproved via scientific principles is in fact relevent.

. Go on, convince someone that your " relevance" = understanding of how things work.

Admit it, you started this with a comment posted reflecting on your granddaughters observation (which is a very familiar empty argument employed by Creationists). Its also One that most of us have heard so many times before by persons who frequented this and an earlier related thread.Its such a shallow observation that I have little patience regarding it. From that post on , I haveobserved that youve managed to not take a firm stand on anything, youre saying now that you are merely trying to make the point that ID exists. Noone has denied that ID, as a philosophical construct, does exist. As a factual testable theory, however it brings nothing and is being sapped of its " hybrid vigor" each successive day . You can be as combative and passive-aggressive as you wish but facts are facts, ID is pretty much a sham.

Nothing like being in the middle of a cloud to make reality really pop out and present itself.

Spendi, I know who Wilhelm Reich is, but that's about it. He didn't get into the fields that most interested me.

Gnomes and Fairies can't be proved or disproved by scientific principles either, do you think that is also a relevant fact worth telling everyone about?

Foxy wrote-

Quote:

Spendi, I know who Wilhelm Reich is, but that's about it. He didn't get into the fields that most interested me.

Are you a nun Foxy.

The one thing that you Chumly, Farmerman, Wandel et al can't seem to get through your head is that NOBODY is arguing that ID is relevant science.

Foxy wrote-

Quote:

The one thing that you Chumly, Farmerman, Wandel et al can't seem to get through your head is that NOBODY is arguing that ID is relevant science.

Oh! I am. We've done matter and radiation and whatnot to the point of pointlessness. We are on higher things now. Scientifically. Anti-IDers are fighting in the last ditch against the psychological and sociological sciences. They know that politicians are only interested in one thing and that turning Asia, say, into glass has few advantages over turning it into molten glass. It's a bureaucratic battle in the institutions of the "higher learning". The losing side commonly gets indignancy coefficient meters banging up on the red marker.

A very liberated one with hubby, kids, and a granddaughter, Spendi

Both my text and Foxfyre's text are bizarre, the difference being my text is more plausible.

The above clip is not even a sentence. As for your present fascination with bee communication, Id witnessed that "dance" but never could decode it. Nor have I the slightest idea about its means of development of this trait.

The one thing that you Chumly, Farmerman, Wandel et al can't seem to get through your head is that NOBODY is arguing that ID is relevant science.

It depends. We have what the Bible describes as a "cloud of witnesses" who have experienced God who will testify to certainties based on that experience.

When we have a similar cloud of witnesses who can testify to experience with gnomes and fairies, then we would have to think about that wouldn't we?

ros, you should have been a trial lawyer. However I guess your deep sense of morality intervened.

Freedom of Speech vs. License
(By Ronald K. Wetherington, SMU Daily, 04/11/07)

It is noted that Aeschylus, in the 5th century B.C., wrote that truth is the first victim of war. As the conflict between science and religion once again heats up, truth is again in danger of being the victim. An academic campus is logically the appropriate setting for the science-religion debate, but it ought not to become a battlefield, lest truth be sacrificed by emotion and freedom become license.

It is for this reason that academics must be very careful not to tread heavily on either freedom of speech or its unreasoned license. Just as truth itself grows and changes with experience, so the pursuit of it without open debate has always the possibility of leading to falsehood.

It is understandable, then, that many of us in the sciences were taken by surprise and reacted strongly to the announcement that Seattle's Discovery Institute had scheduled a conference on "Darwin vs. Design" this semester in McFarlin Auditorium. This is not to be a debate or balanced discussion, but rather a partisan promotion of the assertion that design in nature constitutes scientific evidence for a creator, the so-called theory of Intelligent Design (ID).

Our protest (initially, a call for disallowing the conference until its legal scheduling was confirmed) immediately drew claims that we are trying to "censor scientists and scholars advocating Intelligent Design…." The Institute further claimed that we are "trying to intimidate people who are in some way associated with researching Intelligent Design into being quiet, rather than engaging in a civil debate about the scientific merits of their arguments."

This is patently untrue, and is but one reason for our objection to the venue. The conference will promote this and other false statements designed to discredit science and scientists. In fact, some of us have actively engaged in debate with creationists and ID supporters both in our own science classrooms and at public forums on campus. In 1992, the university hosted a three-day symposium on "Darwinism: Scientific Inference or Philosophical Preference?" Five evolutionists and five anti-evolutionists gave presentations and engaged in friendly debate. No intimidation. No censorship.

We continue to encourage casting light on these issues and reducing the heat of passion. The coming ID conference is more likely to generate heat. We should not misunderstand the avowed intent of these conferences (an identical one was held this March in Knoxville). They are carefully planned to further the Institute's goal to "encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidence's [sic] that support the faith, as well as to 'popularize' our ideas in the broader culture." This evangelical motive is carefully disguised in their promotional material.

It is hardly censorship to demand both intellectual honesty and forthrightness in any public program on a university campus. The program purports, by its title, to be a scientific examination of "Darwin v. Design." Truth has already become victim, alas. The university erred in scheduling this.

It is hardly censorship to demand both intellectual honesty and forthrightness in any public program on a university campus.