Hokie wrote-
Quote:I think part of the reason science-minded folk tend to "attack" religion is out of retaliation.
Maybe they are simply retaliating against religion because it opposes things they wish to do and tells them that when they do them they are being immoral. So morality has to go. Or those parts of it which suit their personal interest. They are content to retain the rest though. They avoid discussing morality in general or they imagine it can be imposed by decree.
A religious person feels qualitatively different from monkeys despite his or her knowledge that the body may well have developed from them. Thus a religious person feels like a human being, except in the sort of circumstances Orwell challenged everyone to imagine, and is bound to feel superior to another human being who has been led to think he or she is a monkey when he or she isn't.
Maybe that sort of contempt is felt by the atheist and the retaliation stems from that.
In order to welcome you to the thread Hokie I thought I would ignore the wooliness of your remark and read it as- "I think the reason fundamentalist anti IDer folk "attack" religion is out of retaliation).
After all the fundie anti-IDer is what is on this thread apart from Foxy and myself. We don't retaliate. We discuss things in a civilised manner as Foxy will confirm if you ask her.
So be careful- fundie anti-IDers very quickly get snotty. I don't think they have a properly evolved sense of humour but that's just my opinion and you'll soon find out that nobody takes much notice of me. I've been a "silly man" and "irrelevant" already today and we are hardly half way through it.
It's a good thread though once you get into it. Nearly everything is better when gone into a bit. It has a touch of a pub atmosphere after 1,000 pages. It's a clique at one end of the A2K bar propped up by the everynighters like me and fm with drifters popping in and out when they've nothing better to do. That's one thing fm can't disagree about. Nor would timber if he hadn't sadly left us.
I often pop into the Trivia room for a bit of fun with Clary and the dumb blokes. Just to get my brain moving again.
Fox conveniently demonizes as atheists (and even feels the need to capitalize the word, the better to identify the enemy of "reasonable people," i suppose) anyone opposed to the proliferation of a false, unscientific doctrine known as "intelligent design," purported to have a scientific basis which it in fact does not have. Those whom she purports to be reasonable, as reasonable as Wandel, must simply be the "nonreligious," because surely, no atheist could ever be reasonable.
Certainly, some opponents of the proliferation of the concept of intelligent design attack it with missionary zeal, no less than do some its proponents in attempting to foist it onto the public. But Fox writes as though "intelligent design" were a concept derived by reasonable people from scientific evidence in order to reconcile scientific data and the millions of witnesses who have experienced god as Fox also alleges.
However, nothing could be further from the truth, and in this case, i ascribe Fox's statement to a naive ignorance rather than a willful intent to spread false information. The term "intelligent design" dates back to the mid-19th century, and the concept can be said to be even older, if one is willing to ignore the peculiar character of the late 20th century "intelligent design" movement. However, to ignore that is to completely fail to recognize why the concept of intelligent design--despite an argument for what may call "irreducible complexity" being 2000 and more years old, despite the specific argument being advanced (although with open acknowledgement of the agency of a deity) more than 150 years ago--has suddenly become a controversial and wide-spread belief. And it is nothing more than a belief, because it has no scientific evidence.
In the 1987 Supreme Court decision to which i have referred on several occasions in this thread, and quite recently in the discussion, Edwards versus Aguillard, the Louisiana "creationism law" was struck down as a violation of the establishment cause. In 1988, immediately after that decision, Charles Thaxton edited Of Pandas and People to change the word "creationism" throughout to "intelligent design." That book was printed in 1989, and in 1991, the Discovery Institute was founded, with the express purpose of: "revers[ing] the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." The Discovery Institute blandly describes this as their "wedge strategy."
So Fox is completely wrong to attempt to suggest that "intelligent design" is simply a religiously-based belief which is forwarded by innocent religionists who are viciously attacked by evil atheists whose only joy in life is being mean to the devout. Thaxton took a 19th century term, dusted it off, dressed the old whore up in fancy clothes and smeared make-up on her, and trotted her out as a "scientific theory." It is the specific intent of the Discovery Institute to attempt to avoid the Supreme Court prohibition on teaching creationism by promoting "intelligent design" as a scientific theory having an equal standing with a theory of evolution. Modern proponents of the "theory" of intelligent design assiduously avoid the question of who or what the intelligent designer might be, because they are practicing deceit and do not want to admit that they are referring to theistic creation.
I doubt that Fox is intentionally practicing deceit--i frankly don't consider her to be that clever. Nevertheless, it is completely false to attempt to portray intelligent design as an innocent belief under siege from the evil atheists. It is, however, typical of the kind of rhetoric which is the best Fox has to offer. Intelligent design is not science, and in no way "complements" science, and is most definitely in conflict with science. It is furthermore false that most "pro-IDers" don't want intelligent design taught as science; they do, and that has been the point all along. Refuting the lie that intelligent design has a scientific basis does not constitute an attack on religion, and does not constitute an attack on the religious beliefs of the young, for most of whom religion is the received wisdom of their parents. Finally, the intelligent design movement is glaring evidence that there are a great many religious people who definitely do want to impose on science.
Foxy wrote-
Quote:I can understand people not believing in ID (the Atheist)
I can't Foxy. The position cannot but be posited on a belief and such people don't believe in beliefs and furthermore it more than suggests that one's personal behaviour is governed by fear. Fear of the law, fear of disapproval, fear of failure: and that without those fears they would have nothing left to explain why they open a door for a lady. Such an action would be contrary to the conservation of energy principle which is such a striking feature of evolution theory. Monkeys seem to be content to wait until the mating season gets going for a day or two. No wonder it's quick. It's a lot less than 7 minutes. 3 blinks and that's it.
Conditioning is out as an explanation because had we been conditioned we would all think the same things and that would be no good. We would die of utter boredom in no time at all. Unless you allow that each of us has been conditioned by all the circumstances of our individual past which is, in my case at least, an irreducible complexity and I sincerely hope it is in your case. You would never condition a monkey to play golf and be pleased when it shoots a birdie.
Foxy wrote-
Quote:It always amazes me, however, why so many Atheists are not content to fight the battle Wandel is fighting here; i.e. keeping ID out of science curriculum.
Do you not accept that ID cannot, by its real nature, be put into any curriculum? It cannot be taught. It's virtually indefineable though a lot have tried. It is a life long osmosis and the albumin of the educational establishment is one of the foods for it. And the albumin is evolving and the debate is about minute changes in concentration of the main components and not sudden dramatic changes however much they might suit the purposes of those who propose such ridiculous things, as if they are on the rudder of the State, in order to make themselves into some sort of big deal.
Foxy wrote-
Quote: Science should not be about the business of attacking the religious beliefs of people, especially the young, any more than religion should attempt to impose itself into science.
But religion does impose itself on science. Hence all the "ethics committees" and very carefully drafted legislation covering certain sensitive areas.
The serious anti-IDers seek to throw off all vestiges of that yoke and get down to some post-modern science. I read a review a few years ago of a novel by an American lady in which one of the female characters drank all sorts of noxious chemicals in order to turn the fetus into a freak for her sideshow at the fairground. I didn't need to read the book. I got the general idea. That would stand as a metaphor for post-modern science I think.
Settin' Aah-aah wrote-
Quote:no atheist could ever be reasonable.
I showed that when I said that the atheist is posited on a belief, as Mr Apisa often said, and he doesn't believe in beliefs in general but in only his own belief and that is definitely unreasonable.
But you did come clean on a number of points which is welcome.
rosQuote: Item #2 is just plain wrong, since life evolved to match the conditions, not the other way around. I don't understand how someone as knowledgeable as Collins (and other scientists) can make this mistake.
Item #6 I don't even know where to begin with. It just seems like a last ditch desperate attempt to squeeze some form of objective morality into nature.
Exactly. Hes just preaching the doctrine of being "only slightly pregnant".
being "tuned for life" was a statement from Collins that adorned a wall at a recent GSA meeting on the acid environmentas of the proterozoic and the loss of oxygen in the late Permian..
There is a significant difference between "attempting to teach that there is no" intelligent design, and pointing out that there is no scientific basis for alleging that there is evidence of intelligent design. "Science" does not do the former; it does do the latter.
Has anyone see
War on Science ? it's a BBC documentary. It's being shown locally over the next week or so.
spendius wrote:Foxy wrote-
Quote:I can understand people not believing in ID (the Atheist)
I can't Foxy. The position cannot but be posited on a belief and such people don't believe in beliefs and furthermore it more than suggests that one's personal behaviour is governed by fear. Fear of the law, fear of disapproval, fear of failure: and that without those fears they would have nothing left to explain why they open a door for a lady. Such an action would be contrary to the conservation of energy principle which is such a striking feature of evolution theory. Monkeys seem to be content to wait until the mating season gets going for a day or two. No wonder it's quick. It's a lot less than 7 minutes. 3 blinks and that's it.
Conditioning is out as an explanation because had we been conditioned we would all think the same things and that would be no good. We would die of utter boredom in no time at all. Unless you allow that each of us has been conditioned by all the circumstances of our individual past which is, in my case at least, an irreducible complexity and I sincerely hope it is in your case. You would never condition a monkey to play golf and be pleased when it shoots a birdie.
I have no quarrel with those who do not believe in a Creator God or some form of Intelligent Design guiding creation and evolution of the universe. Given the things that we can observe that go wrong, or at least seem to go wrong, their disbelief, from their persepective, is reasonable. The millions who have experienced what they believe to be the force behind I.D., however, have a much broader perspective and are open to wider understanding and possibilities and aren't limited to science as the explanation for everything.
spendius wrote:Foxy wrote-
Quote:It always amazes me, however, why so many Atheists are not content to fight the battle Wandel is fighting here; i.e. keeping ID out of science curriculum.
Do you not accept that ID cannot, by its real nature, be put into any curriculum? It cannot be taught. It's virtually indefineable though a lot have tried. It is a life long osmosis and the albumin of the educational establishment is one of the foods for it. And the albumin is evolving and the debate is about minute changes in concentration of the main components and not sudden dramatic changes however much they might suit the purposes of those who propose such ridiculous things, as if they are on the rudder of the State, in order to make themselves into some sort of big deal.
If you have read anything I've written here, you KNOW I do not accept that ID can ethically or reasonably be put into any science curriculum. It certainly can be put into many other kinds of curriculum.
spendius wrote:Foxy wrote-
Quote: Science should not be about the business of attacking the religious beliefs of people, especially the young, any more than religion should attempt to impose itself into science.
But religion does impose itself on science. Hence all the "ethics committees" and very carefully drafted legislation covering certain sensitive areas.
Again the efforts of religionists to impose religion on science is not as widespread or as much of a problem as one might think given the media coverage it gets. There are too many of us who oppose our more zealous fundamentalist brethren to think that science is in any danger from religion any time soon despite those pockets of irrational policy that we see in the media.
Quote:The serious anti-IDers seek to throw off all vestiges of that yoke and get down to some post-modern science.
Serious IDers know that ID is real. They also know it cannot be proved nor disproved using any known scientific principles or processes and thus oppose any curriculum that would presume to use science to defend ID.
Conversely, again, serous IDers oppose any science teacher attempting to use science to discredit ID.
INTELLIGENT DESIGN CONFERENCE UPDATE
Quote:New name, similar face
(Editorial Board, SMU Daily Campus, 04/18/07)
Before any discussion about Intelligent Design starts, it's imperative that everyone understands a few basic facts.
First, the theory of evolution isn't "just a theory." Relativity is a theory. In some cases, gravity is a theory - we haven't been able to test it on all of the planets and galaxies in our universe, so we can't say for sure that it applies in all possible cases.
Scientific theories, as a rule, are much more complex than laws, which only relate to a single, narrow action. Theories undergo rigorous tests of the scientific method.
In other words, theories don't just appear out of thin air.
Now that that's out of the way, let's take some time to discuss the debate between Intelligent Design and evolution.
Or, more accurately, the never-ending talking heads. Because let's face it: You're not going to convince someone who believes something on faith with a scientific argument and vice versa.
Quite frankly, the "scientific" arguments set forth by supporters of Intelligent Design are laughable. None of their assertions have been tested with the scientific method; it's purely conjecture.
We're not saying it's wrong to believe in creationism. But its place is in religious settings, not scholastic ones, and while this is a Methodist university, there's no reason to masquerade creationism as a scientific theory rather than what it is: a faith in God.
Which brings us to the so-called debate held this weekend in McFarlin.
The Discovery Institute, a group that purports to have scientific evidence of Intelligent Design, sponsored the event. The institute says that even if articles on ID haven't been published in scientific journals, many important discoveries haven't been, citing Galileo, Newton and Darwin himself.
Never mind that these bodies of evidence were entirely too large to compress into a journal article - magazine presses didn't even exist. (Remember that full-page glossy spread on Newton's discovery? Yeah. Neither do we.) And there are more specious arguments where that came from.
President Turner has defended the debate in the pages of The Daily Campus as part of the robust discourse of free speech. Problem is, this wasn't discourse. It was a group of pseudo-scientists proselytizing to an audience looking to reinforce views it probably already held.
And we're inviting these people to come to our campus?
It's not as though declining to host a group is tantamount to declaring that group's point of view invalid. Think of it not as hampering discourse, but as refusing to let a religious group leech off SMU's credibility.
This article makes the point that there are two theories of evolution out there:
I think I've said this many times before. In a majority of cases, the people who are attacking evolutionary theory, don't understand it.
And we've seen that here on A2K. I don't think we've had a single creationist on A2K who can demonstrate a functional understanding of the actual theory. Almost all objections are simply regurgetated propaganda cut/pasted from creationist web sites.
Foxfyre wrote:Ros writes
Quote:And we've seen that here on A2K. I don't think we've had a single creationist on A2K who can demonstrate a functional understanding of the actual theory. Almost all objections are simply regurgetated propaganda cut/pasted from creationist web sites
In order for you to say this with a straight face, you would have to be intending a huge untruth or else be an extremely selective reader. I opt for the latter theory.
I would agree with rosborne on this, foxfyre. I have read every post on this thread. We have actually found the creationist propaganda sources that the posters have been using. Providing misleading information about evolution is a basic strategy among creationists.
ros wrote-
Quote:I think I've said this many times before. In a majority of cases, the people who are attacking evolutionary theory, don't understand it.
If you'll look back to a post of mine earlier today you will see that I understand it. But I have my doubts whether you would understand why I showed that. It would have passed you by for one reason or another.
Evolution theory is talking after the event. Evolution is going on now.... and now. It's a description. No insight into the process. Like describing a train going from London to Glasgow without any understanding of the swirling forces causing it to happen. One might describe the evolution of building design in the same way and by using the technical jargon and certain types of rhetoric one might get wind-weaving and mesmerise the audience into thinking you have done more than just describe it.
Anyway- I'm not attacking evolution theory. It is what people are using it for. Like all theories it has a collective life of its own once it goes critical and such things have an inbuilt drive to grow. Just like the brambles growing round the window. As a successful political theory I can't see what force could prevent it taking us back to red in tooth and claw although I recognise that there will be a lot of good jobs for some on the journey there. Religion holds the line. Not very well but it puts a brake on it.
To suggest that Science is not gaining a little all the time is ridiculous. And a fraud.
I'm not a Creationist either. Except in the sense that The Bible created art.
