Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Quote:

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.

Setanta, your hypocrisy amazes me. Both you and Blatham have vilified the two ladies on this forum simply because they hold different beliefs and opinions than you do. It is clear that your intentions are to intimidate them, rather than debate the actual issues. I cringe every time I read your muddled rantings. George had consistently approached this forum with objectivity and clearly has an interest only in maintaining debate (ie. not censure).

Quote:

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.

I agree that you have tried to artificially define the debate. In effect, you are attempting to confine everything Elsie says to the matters that you stipulate are important. I hope she doesn't cave in to you.

Quote:

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.)

What is your argument in regards to this point?

0 Replies

Max Myers wrote:

Setanta, your hypocrisy amazes me. Both you and Blatham have vilified the two ladies on this forum simply because they hold different beliefs and opinions than you do.

I had not engaged in any vilification of either of those ladies until they--in particular, Miss Elsie--indulged in ridicule for precisely the reason you adduce--a difference of opinion. Additionally, it is disingenuous of you, and an appeal to your dogma, to characterize a preference for the explanations of a theory of evolution as a belief. I don't "believe in" a theory of evolution, i find its contentions to be most consonant with the data which has been found and presented in the literature available to the layman. My preference for those explanations is not dogmatic, and i understand and accept that the process of scientific research can often lead to error; and i also understand that the method is self-correcting. Your criticism here is colored by your preference for a belief in "intelligent design." As those putting forward ID as an acceptable alternative to a theory of evolution in this thread have steadfastly refused to present a scientific justification for that preference, it can only be characterized as belief. In fact, the experience of this thread and of the "Evolution? How?" thread in the Spirituality and Religion forum is that proponents of ID will simply attack, usually in an egregiously faulty manner, the data and conclusions of scientific research, rather than advance any resonable scientific justification for a preference for ID. The examples of faulty or misrepresented statements about geology stand out starkly, as our member Farmerman both teaches the subject at the university level, as well as operating a successful small business engaged in highly technical geologic survey. FM is also extremely well-informed in the literature of this debate. Very quickly, those who propose ID descend into ridicule and accusations of dogmatic belief against those with whom they disagree, attacking their opponents in the area in which they are themselves the weakest. I make no apology for responding in like kind to those who deploy ridicule.

Quote:

It is clear that your intentions are to intimidate them, rather than debate the actual issues.

What is clear is that you wish to characterize those with whom you disagree in the worst possible light. The issue is what evidence a supporter of ID can provide that their theory of choice is scientifically sound, as opposed to religiously motivated. Miss Elsie in particular stoops to ridicule and steadfastly refuses to describe a theory of intelligent design or to name the designer. That hardly constitutes a willingness to debate.

Quote:

I cringe every time I read your muddled rantings.

You delicate sensibilities are a matter of indifference to me. This is a perfect example of the sort of invidious characterization preferred by those who are unwilling to make a statement of their theory, and to name the designer implicit in a concept of intelligent design.

Quote:

George had consistently approached this forum with objectivity and clearly has an interest only in maintaining debate (ie. not censure).

Were one to provide me a nickel for each occasion upon which George has indulged in censuring me, i'd retire tomorrow. I'm sure you find George's presentation attractive, as it is more consonant with your point of view.

Quote:

I agree that you have tried to artificially define the debate. In effect, you are attempting to confine everything Elsie says to the matters that you stipulate are important. I hope she doesn't cave in to you.

So then, one can assume that you do not consider the statement of one's premises necessary to debate? How very odd a notion of debate that is. When someone has consistently attacked the point of view of another in debate, it is in fact a normal forensic method to require that individual to state the contrary premise which they propose to offer in rebuttal. Miss Elsie states that a theory of evolution is "unproven" and flawed. Fine, then Miss Elsie should provide a proven and flawless theory which explains all of the data and which is internally consistent. As she advances the propostion that a theory of intelligent design is perferable to a theory of evolution, it is simple rhetorical courtesy to provide a desciption of the putative superior explanation--and in this specific case, to define the designer implicit in the term intelligent design.

I think you have nothing to worry about on this score, however, as Miss Elsie not only has shown no inclination to provide such an alternative statement, she has refused to do so explicitly, and indulged more ridicule for being asked to do so.

Quote:

What is your argument in regards to this point?

You are already cross-quoting my responses, taking first a response which i made to George, then taking a response which i made to Miss Elsie. Now you demand that i respond to another remark made by George, who was cross-quoting in his criticism. I have already responded to his remarks that you have quoted, and do not acknowledge any compulsion to repeat the exercise.

0 Replies

phoenix32890 wrote:

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?

While the person loudly stating that non-believers will burn in hell for eternity might be a little misguided in their efforts, the intentions behind their actions are not hostile. Consider for a minute where this person would be coming from. This person would believe that the destination for all those who die without believing, is hell. This means they genuinely fear for the eternity of other people. Their loud rantings might seem offensive, but it is inspired out of concern for the future of others. Loudly stating that someone is going to burn in hell, is not an effort to single someone out and make fun of them, or to lord their own assurance of their salvation over others. Instead it is a somewhat misguided effort to warn people about something which they believe will happen.

Compare it instead to a psychic who predicts a terrible event like 9/11. They might stand at the street corner telling people who are entering the building that they are going to die. People walking by might feel uncomfortable, but the intentions of the psychic are in fact honorable. Even if the psychic had predicted 9/11 and it never came to pass, they believed it would happen, therefore their actions were out of concern for others.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

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.

Look blatham, I am still unmoved in regards to anything concerning Jefferson. If that makes me intellectually lazy, so be it. I have never studied Jefferson and I really do not care to start now. I did not come on this forum to debate the ins and outs of American civil liberties or the hallowed words of past presidents.

blatham wrote:

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

I believe, in fact, that you'll find that you and setanta are the only ones on this forum who support ridicule of others' religions. As for consideration and respect for others being "uneducated and unreflective", I think you will find that most of us left our petty and personal jokes at others expense in grade school, and developed a sense of respect for others as we progressed through our remaining education and the furthering of our careers.

0 Replies

adele_g wrote:

This person would believe that the destination for all those who die without believing, is hell. This means they genuinely fear for the eternity of other people. Their loud rantings might seem offensive, but it is inspired out of concern for the future of others. Loudly stating that someone is going to burn in hell, is not an effort to single someone out and make fun of them, or to lord their own assurance of their salvation over others. Instead it is a somewhat misguided effort to warn people about something which they believe will happen. (emphasis added)

It is perhaps laudable that you wish to think well of others. It is by no means assured that you have correctly characterized the motivation of everyone who indulges this sort of behavior. In particular, Americans are familiar with the smug assurance of religiously fanatical people of their own salvation, and the rightful torments to be visited upon the apostate.

Your remarks about the tragedy of September 11th were particularly inappropriate, and as offensive to Americans as any charge of impiety and insensitive lack of respect you can bring against those of whom you complain here.

0 Replies

setanta wrote:

There were and are people who consider The Protocols of Zion to be a serious work warning against the Jewish plot to take over the world. The notion is something they hold dear. I not only consider that it should be ridiculed, i consider that it should be contested whenever it appears.

This is where you and I differ Setanta. You have demonstrated your willingness to ridicule others at any possible chance you get. Your ridicule is based on your subjective opinions which you try to 'foist' on the rest of us. I choose to criticise and analyse rather than sneer and satirize.

setanta wrote:

Were the religiously fanatical not intent on foisting their silly arguments from theology off onto those who do not share their delusions, they'd attract a good deal less negative comment and ridicule.

Those of us who you consider to be 'religiously fanatical' because we happen to disagree with you, do not 'foist' our arguments from theology onto you any more than you 'foist' your own arguments from evolution onto us. Do not pretend to be a poor, innocent standbyer being verbally battered by nasty IDers. By your own standards, you are also a deserving candidate for ridicule.

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.

And why do you think this is Setanta? Because malicious lies, hate mail and verbal abuse are considered to be so abhorrent to our civilised society that legal action can be taken against the offender.

setanta wrote:

However, your putative god and your putative christ do not demonstrably exist, and no such legal recourse is available

The existence of God does not have to be demonstrably proven in order for people to be offended at malicious lies and verbal abuse about him. It is the people who can be demonstrably proven to exist who are likely to take someone to court. In fact where I come from laws do exist to allow people to take others to court for vilifying their race or religion.

setanta wrote:

Quote:
I am fed up with hearing my God's name blasphemed, and I am fed up with people thinking they are amusing by taking cheap shots at christians and at Jesus.

Then find someplace else to post--you'll never escape that here...I assure you, your decision will not materially affect this site.

I was referring to western society as a whole, not this forum alone. While western society may never completely change, I had at least hoped that you would have the decency to refrain from ridicule at least while I am here participating. You obviously no regard for anyone but yourself.

As for my absence not materially affecting this site, perhaps it wouldn't. You don't seem to listen to anyone but yourself. I doubt that the absence of the entire sum of the participants in the forum would make any material difference to you.

0 Replies

Quote:

Your remarks about the tragedy of September 11th were particularly inappropriate, and as offensive to Americans as any charge of impiety and insensitive lack of respect you can bring against those of whom you complain here.

I meant absolutely no disrespect to Americans. I'm sorry if my choice of example was inappropriate.

0 Replies

setanta wrote:

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.

You are correct to point out the topic of the forum. "Intelligent Design theory: religion or science?".

You will also note that the topic is not "ID theory: religion or science, and anything else you can think of to make fun of christianity or other religions."
The discussion of religion is supposed to be in direct relation to the ID theory. When I read blatham's post about the mock Jesus republican speech, I brought it up because it had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand, which I suppose could also be seen in your words as "a diversion from the thread topic".

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

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.

I am sorry to have disappointed you about the source. However I am afraid that any source I come across will probably have some sort of religious approach to it, because they seem to be the only ones willing to step away from the evolutionary status quo. As for literal interpretation of the Bible not being objective, I don't think we can win either way. If we interpret the Bible taking into account all the underlying meanings and cross references, and make assumptions about intentions of the authors, people say we are changing our interpretations according to what we want it to say. That would hardly be objective would it? Instead, in order not to read things in that aren't there, other people believe the Bible should be taken literally. What is the outcome? People suddenly consider this not to be an objective approach.

0 Replies

adele_g wrote:

I believe, in fact, that you'll find that you and setanta are the only ones on this forum who support ridicule of others' religions.

Ahem!!!!!!!

0 Replies

adele_g wrote:

phoenix32890 wrote:
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?

While the person loudly stating that non-believers will burn in hell for eternity might be a little misguided in their efforts, the intentions behind their actions are not hostile. Consider for a minute where this person would be coming from. This person would believe that the destination for all those who die without believing, is hell. This means they genuinely fear for the eternity of other people.

Imagine...a god who is willing to punish people by unrelenting, excruciating torture for all the rest of eternity!!!!!

And these good folk think that such a god ought to be "worshipped!"

Why is it necessary to check one's brains at the door when entering the theater of religion?

0 Replies

Frank Apsia wrote:

Imagine...a god who is willing to punish people by unrelenting, excruciating torture for all the rest of eternity!!!!!

Frank, I am not going to bother starting a debate with you on theology and on the characteristics of God, but let me assure nothing is as simple as you are trying to make out.

0 Replies

Frank Apsia wrote:

adele_g wrote:
I believe, in fact, that you'll find that you and setanta are the only ones on this forum who support ridicule of others' religions.

Ahem!!!!!!!

Well, excuse me for having left you out of the nasty club.

0 Replies

Quote:

I am sorry to have disappointed you about the source. However I am afraid that any source I come across will probably have some sort of religious approach to it, because they seem to be the only ones willing to step away from the evolutionary status quo

Doesn't that suggest something to you adele? I'm not being rude or unkind (I hope) but it strikes me (as a non-theist) that ID'ers with their religious leaning must step away from the scientific approach and seek sympathetic sources.

And this for general consumption:

Religion=faith
Science=scepticism

Yes I'm simplistic but stripped of all the rhetoric it seems to me that these are two separate issues.

0 Replies

Quote:

blatham wrote:
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

adele wrote:
I believe, in fact, that you'll find that you and setanta are the only ones on this forum who support ridicule of others' religions. As for consideration and respect for others being "uneducated and unreflective", I think you will find that most of us left our petty and personal jokes at others expense in grade school, and developed a sense of respect for others as we progressed through our remaining education and the furthering of our careers.

You've been involved here for what, about two weeks or so? Whereas on the other hand, folks like george, setanta, frankapisa, farmerman myself and others have been debating with each other for up to six or more years. Thus the presumptive knowledge claim you make in sentence one above is transparently silly. If you wish to gain credibility here, you really ought not to pretend to know what you clearly do not know.

The point, for the third time, is not that religious notions or faith ought to be ridiculed, but rather that such notions or faith cannot be allowed some special exemption on the basis that you might be offended. That you are not prepared to go to the necessary intellectual work of considering why this might be a necessary presumption for the maintenance of religious freedom (and more broadly, freedom of all intellectual inquiry) does rather serious damage to the proposition that any of us should take you seriously here.

You are untrained (or very poorly trained) in philosophy and you are unfamiliar with both the demands and necessities of unfettered inquiry in matters of theology and political theory. I don't say this to insult you, I say this because it is obvious and because your lack of such experience, knowledge and training does not stand you in good stead for arguing this case or any such case. This does NOT mean you are stupid and it does not mean you don't have valuable points of view to communicate. But it DOES mean that your insistence that our philosophic debate move along lines you believe appropriate just ain't going to win the day. You may wish that inquiry and debate here procede in the manner you prefer, but you will be disappointed in this wish.

0 Replies

The "usual suspects" in this thread post in a wide variety of fora, on many topics. They also make friends online, and frequently arrange to meet in person. Their tastes and interests are patently catholic. However, this site is also frequently by the likes of Miss Elsie and Miss Adele, who arrive at this thread, and post only in this thread, and having quickly deployed ridicule of others, cry bloody murder when treated in like kind. Then Miss Adele indulges in special pleading for her superstition of choice. As with those who arrive here only to post in the political forum, or the religious forum, and display an obsession with a single message, it is difficult not to conclude that such members only object in coming here was to mercilessly flog their preferred dead horse.

0 Replies

Goodfielder, adele's criticisms of a dating method were obviously extracted from a source that excels in "mining" out of context quotes. She had nothing to back up her convictions and quietly let them drop. Now , theyve got the debate right where they want it. AS I see it now, we (those that say that ID is a religion) are on the defensive. We are appearing to be the dogmatic ones by criticizing views that the IDers say , can be part of a more "harmonized" system of science. A system that, with all things open for discussion , will allow the student to make up his or her mind about the validity of the concepts authored.
We should extend that concept into all classes. I submit that the first place should be Drivers Ed. In my proposed "Intelligent Driver" method, we expose the students to driving first so that they may experience and develop techniques without all that dogmatic instruction by obviously ossified teachers. Intelligent Driving will also require that we give each student about 6 oz of Cruzian Rum before they get behind the wheel. That way they dont have to be analyzing the stupid statements from "authority" about drunken driving. We will let them make up their own minds.

0 Replies

farmerman - point taken. And for mine this is where it lives. ID is a religious idea. In my country's education system it would sit quite nicely in religious instructon classes, it belongs there. It patently does not belong in science because it lacks the discipline of science (so did I when I was at school but that's another matter).

We (in Australia) are seeing the murmurings here. The murmurings are that ID should be taught in schools as a concurrrent theory with evolution. I hope we fight it and win. I have no problem with it being taught in religious classes or Sunday School. it is patently not science and should not be taught as science or as anything approaching science. Put it in social sciences as a current social debate but it is not scientific. To try to pretend it is to mis-educate people.

0 Replies

Well, that's been happening in Canada too, and McTag and steve could likely produce instances where it can be seen in England as well.

These various groups are now well-linked up via the internet, bulk email mailings, etc. Whether in Canada or wherever, the arguments and even the legal strategies are duplicated and predictable.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Well, that's been happening in Canada too, and McTag and steve could likely produce instances where it can be seen in England as well.

Does Canada have religion classes or something like it? I'm wondering where America's extreme polarization on this issue comes from. And I'm speculating that maybe American creationists are dwelling on the fact that metaphysics and the limits of science are worth teaching in school, but American schools have no straightforward framework for teaching it in. Maybe that's why Americans get the full program of creationist activism, while the rest of the world gets only "murmurings", as goodfielder puts it.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know