Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Bravo, adele_g. Well said. IMO, of course

0 Replies

This is neat.

Quote:

Sometimes ? ! ? ! ?

.

It is Setanta's response to Lola saying that I am "full of it".

The Judge has spoken.Not decisively.I can't tell whether I'm supposed to be "full of it" 3 in 5 or 2 in 5 or never.

One thing I can say is that the whole of the forum,including particularly Setanta's ideas,is the colour of the pretty glowing pink of petit bourgeois conservatism.I can't recall seeing one idea that was radical in 1850.The editors of Woman's Own and Good Housekeeping would be proud of it all.

That is what it looks like to an amateur Faustian.I can imagine how the professionals see it.

There was a young lady in the pub last night who had a device in her hand in which was depicted an electronic image of the female genitalia.She went round pointing it at people,who smiled for her,and then showed them what they looked like superimposed in the "man in a boat" situation.And I live in a rural,provincial setting.The pub's curtains are in the "tart's knickers" style.A designation well known here for twenty years at least.The young lady also had 9/10ths of her breasts on display and a skirt so short that some of the boys were claiming there were no other items of apparel beneath it.Naturally she took great care to bend over both ways as often as decency allowed which was about 3 or 4 times a minute.

Don't forget your Horlicks tonight fellow revolutionaries.

0 Replies

adele_g wrote:

Wrong again blatham. I do not like any religion or any religious sect being satirized, ridiculed or vilified.

What about the person who states, quite loudly, that non-believers in the speaker's particular flavor of religion will live in the burning fires of hell for eternity? Is not the persons referred to being vilified? How is that different from a religious sect being vilified?

0 Replies

It isn't

0 Replies

Quote:

blatham wrote:
What do you think Jefferson meant in his letter?

adele wrote: Frankly, I don't care what he meant in his letter. I'm not American.

That you aren't american isn't terribly relevant. I'm not american either. That you're too intellectually lazy to consider the argument is rather more relevant.

Your notion regarding religion and how it ought to be exempt from ridicule is deeply uneducated and unreflective. None of us here, or certainly very few, would agree with the notion. We aren't playing by your rules and there are very good reasons why we are not.

So, whether you wish to continue discourse in this arena is entirely up to you.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Max, You need to study what communism is all about. Communism tried to restrict religion in Russia, so it just went underground, but communism is not atheism or visa-versa. Communism is a social political-economic system. Not all communist countries restricts religion. Do your homework.

Perhaps you would grace us with the identity of a single Marxist government that did not restrict religion and freedom of thought among its citizens. I believe there are none and you are dead wrong on this point.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Were you or anyone else to spread malicious lies about someone who in fact demonstrably exists, including hate mail, then in most nations of the civilized world, that would be legally actionable. However, your putative god and your putative christ do not demonstrably exist, and no such legal recourse is available. Your analogy is false, and your protestations about your feelings are meaningless in the face of your inability to demonstrate the reality of the fairy tales which you choose to believe, absent reasonable evidence.

.... For quite a few members here, your god and your Jesus are held in contempt, justifiable contempt. You can get over it and accept it, or you can move on. I assure you, your decision will not materially affect this site.

THAT was both unnecessary and unduly offensive. None of it was needed to make your point, and a good deal of it goes well beyond what you should presume to be the state of mind and discourse on this site. Perhaps I missed it, but I have detected no provocation whatever that would justify this retort.

0 Replies

You think your way, and i'll think mine. This member comes to a thread in which the topic is whether or not "intelligent design" is science or religion. She then castigates people here for their expressed opinions of religion and the religious. Apart from being a diversion from the thread topic, it is a disgusting example of special pleading. I am unmoved by your opinion of my "retort."

0 Replies

Well?

Was the young lady in the pub a facet of "intelligent design" from the religious or scientific viewpoint?

Any less so than those on here?

0 Replies

adele,

I agree with you that there is a difference between criticism and ridicule. All of us need to be careful when attempting to use satirical humor.

Some of us feel that biological intelligent design theory is unscientific. We are even more critical of "young earth" theories. I was disappointed that your resource on carbon dating was the "Answers in Genesis" website. This website promotes a literal interpretation of the bible and therefore can not be considered an objective source on science issues.

0 Replies

True enough. I am not attempting to pick a fight here, but note that the epithets on this thread go back many pages and I have the strong impression the materialist side of this argument is well-represented among them, probably dominant by a wide margin. While some would like to narrowly restrict the notion of Intelligent Design to biological evolution, I believe most serious students of the question recognize that its most serious potential lies in the origins of the cosmos. Despite this you were rather contemptuous of her references to that part of it. as below;

Setanta wrote:

No, it's not ironic to attempt to conflate a discussion of "the Big Bang" with a discussion of the scientific validity of "intelligent design"--it's just stupid. Apples to oranges . . . i note that you continue to avoid making a statement of the nature of a theory of intelligent design, and to sedulously avoid providing a description of the designer. So far, you have no case to make.

That was both unfair and incorrect. I'll concede that her specific references to the "big Bang" and expansion/contraction are a bit dated now, however to physicists the singularities persist - in several forms, depending only on the particular theoretical assumptions made by the physicist. So far they seem inescapable (unless you wish to consider a quantum multiverse an explanation.)

0 Replies

Now you are cross-quoting. First you attacked my response to Miss Adele, now you are attacking my response to Miss Elsie. However, as it seems your purpose is to find fault with me, i'm not terribly concerned about your confusion, it serves your purpose well, does it not?

I find it ironic indeed that you complain of the scorn with which i have greeted Miss Adele's attempt to introduce special pleading into a discussion of whether or not "intelligent design" is science or religion, but have remained mute to Miss Elsie deploying scorn consistently for several pages. Sauce for the goose always makes sauce for the gander.

Essentially, "intelligent design" is a narrow, Protestant exegesis, tarted up and disguised with a lab coat and a clipboard. So as not to offend you by leaving you out of the equation, i'll concede that many ultramontane Catholics are delighted with the prospect of success in sneaking creationism in by the back door. However, my response to Miss Elsie was neither unfair nor incorrect. "Intelligent design" as proposed for inclusion in secondary school curricula does not refer to cosmological origins if we are to believe its proponents, it is concerned with a refutation of a theory of evolution. Of course, ID is in fact concerned with cosmology in that it is an attempt to foist creationism off on science education--but its proponents are insufficiently honest to acknowledge as much. Which is why it certainly was not unfair to ask Miss Elsie once again to, as Miss Dlowan asked, provide a statement of a theory of "intelligent design," nor to provide, as i have repeatedly asked, a description of the designer.

0 Replies

In response to some of the comments I have read on here I went to my library and skimmed through a few books.

I found one with the title LIMERICKS.This was published in 1992 by Castle Books,a division of Book Sales Inc.of 110 Enterprise Avenue Secaucus NJ07094. ISBN 1-55521-783-4.Printed in the USA.

On reading a few choice examples I am left wondering what sacred cows you have left to blaspheme,satirise or generally dump on.I would provide a few examples if the thought of your blushes didn't restrain me.

Are these people who seek to confine all discussions to those areas they confine discussions to somewhat out of the loop of 1992 American publishing practice?

I think that you really ought to address this question and the one in the previous post if you expect to be taken seriously.

0 Replies

My mother's memory is available for satirization.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Well?

Was the young lady in the pub a facet of "intelligent design" from the religious or scientific viewpoint?

Any less so than those on here?

Clearly your memory of the sight strongly suggests that the breasts, thus exposed were indeed designed in harmony with certain elements of your visual cortex and perhaps some still functioning endocrine responses.

0 Replies

Hardly George.I have endocrine fatigue.

Do you think I could be refurbished by engaging with neutral subjects for a period of time.

Actually I think my visual cortex has been harmonised to the breasts by a process I know very little about rather than the other way round.

I am still wondering whether the young lady is a part of intelligent scientific design or religious design.There are another 60,000 pubs in the country and,as I was at pains to point out,my pub is in a very staid and straight-laced region.We have no knickerless can-cans here nor any bondage theme parks like they do in the big cities.

I was observing the scene in a proper dispassionate manner as befits a sociologist and serious thinker.The depiction of such forces being unleashed has been my specialisation for years.They are engaged as I write on building 4 million single accomodation units which will require 2 million extra TV sets over what would be required in married quarters along with much else which it would be bootless of me to list for a man such as yourself.I'm tending to think that the two things are connected.

If you worked in the consumer durables industry I think you might think it a good thing.The FTSE and the Dow are rather more important than the stuff you lot are debating I feel.

Would "necessity" come under religious or scientific intelligent design.

0 Replies

Quote:

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Would "necessity" come under religious or scientific intelligent design.

Both, I think.

0 Replies

Long run or short (forgetting Keynes).

Can you get Google Earth G?

0 Replies

blatham wrote-

Quote:

My mother's memory is available for satirization.

.

No thanks-my own was bad enough.She was out the other side of satire.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know