97
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Wed 18 Apr, 2007 03:36 pm
wandeljw wrote:
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.


No, Wandel. It is a strategy, maybe or maybe not intended to be misleading, utilized by those very few creationists who want ID taught or recognized in science class. You will find no misleading information posted anywhere by the vast majority of ID proponents nor does that majority support the fundamentalist crusaders in their widely publicized but narrow-in-scope campaigns

Your side does not seem to wish to accept the very reasonable stance of the majority of ID-ers and, from appearances, it looks very much like you wish to lump us all into the same pot.

To not draw a distinction between the two is as absurd as saying that all on your side are crusading to destroy all publicly expressed religious references and drive all religion underground when in fact it is only a noisy few fanatics and/or opportunists who are engaged in that crusade.

Do you honestly believe that Spendi does not know what the theory of evolution is? Do you honestly believe that I do not know what it is?
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Wed 18 Apr, 2007 03:44 pm
Sorry, foxfyre, but rosborne did not exagerrate. Those supporting creationism have over and over again provided misinformation on evolutionary theory.

(Spendi says he is not a creationist. Also, spendi avoids talking about the science behind evolutionary theory. He discusses philosophical, sociological, and literary issues. I have not been able to determine from his posts whether or not he understands the scientific issues.)
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Wed 18 Apr, 2007 03:54 pm
Well prejudices run deep, and there are few prejudices that run deeper than the prejudice expressed by Atheists against believers. Smile

If you think most pro ID-ers are of the fanatical Creationist camp, you just aren't looking hard enough, and I'm pretty sure nothing I would say would change your mind.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 18 Apr, 2007 05:39 pm
Foxy wrote-

Quote:
To not draw a distinction between the two is as absurd as saying that all on your side are crusading to destroy all publicly expressed religious references and drive all religion underground when in fact it is only a noisy few fanatics and/or opportunists who are engaged in that crusade.


It isn't "absurd" Foxy. That's an assertion. And it is playing the enemy's game. Human progress may well be conditional on destroying all religious references from the point of view of the second-hand stone merchant and that of his wife who has seen a new fashion in necklaces at an expensive emporium in Manhattan. Or a property developer who has espied a cathederal on a prime site and who knows a second-hand stone merchant who pays best prices and believes that a "Ring Them Bells" wedding is just a corny cover up for a meat trade.

And others too numerous to mention in a short post such as this is intended to be as I know anti-IDers have difficulty in concentrating on long ones.

It depends on who is defining human progress.

The property developer and the stone merchant are just as entitled to say what human progress is as anybody else.

But fossils are useless unless you can build a fashionable fireplace out of them or weave a tapestry of words around them from a similar motive.

They have as much chance of redeveloping the sites on which the cathedrals sit as they have of winning the lottery, their idea of transcendence, without buying a ticket.

They can rage and fume to their heart's content. They think preventing two paragraphs of tripe being read out to students in biology classes in Dover, assuming you've heard of it, and assuming the students are taking any notice or understand, is the high point of their campaign. Their great Victory. The legal teams with some justification.

It's obvious they are brain dead from that and what sort of system would put the brain dead in charge of education policy.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Wed 18 Apr, 2007 05:52 pm
foxy
Quote:
You will find no misleading information posted anywhere by the vast majority of ID proponents nor does that majority support the fundamentalist crusaders in their widely publicized but narrow-in-scope campaigns
. That shows a naive understanding of the "movement in recent history". Creationists lost in the US SUpreme court in the Louisiana case of "Edwards...", prior to Edawrds , all the talk was of "Scientific Creationism", The instirute of Creation SCience" and the Creation Resarch Center". Most of the books were takeoffs of Henry Morris. One book that "passed through " the Courts unconformity was the Creationist text "Of Pandas and People". After Edwards the book was modified very slightly, in that all the words "Creation", Creationism" Creationist" and any other manifestation of the prefix "Cre'tin", was swiftly redacted and replaced with the term, "Intelligent Design". Ill stipulate that it wasnt done by the vast majority of those who became IDers, but it was accomplished on their behalf by a group of dishonest carpet salesmen disguised as "Scientific Authorities". In fact, the Father of the Modern version of the term is Phil Johnson, a Creationist trial lawyer who wrote "Darwin on Trial" So Id challenge your understanding s of the history and timeline of today's rebirth of . ID

Quote:
Well prejudices run deep, and there are few prejudices that run deeper than the prejudice expressed by Atheists against believers. [Smile]
.
Again, youre understanding of the history is actually 180 off. The Creationists had actually BLOCKED teaching of evolution in the public schools by legislation in 4 states, and by intimidation of the book publishers in the others. This was only being dismantled starting in the 50's by teeny bits of compromise , and then till the legislatures and courts got involved in several key decisions. Kitzmiller is the first case of the new millenia (not counting legislative actions in Pa, Georgia, Ohio, and KAnsas), but in the last few years of the last millenium were cases such as "Freiler v" and "Velake v" requiring disclaimers whenever evolution was being taught.In these two where the states of Louisiana and Minnesota got involved by open support of ID from the ed boards of the respective states, the cases set the stage for Dover less than 10 years later.
SO, Creationism begat modern ID, and thats a fact, please dont attempt to spin it differently.

Quote:
If you think most pro ID-ers are of the fanatical Creationist camp, you just aren't looking hard enough,


NOW we have soft and hard ID where the "soft IDers" want to distance themselves from the "Hard Iders" who grew the "wedge document of the Discovery Institute". There was just too mmuch passive religion in "hard ID" so the new kids on the block want to spin it so that they can appear to be reasonable and wholly scientific. What a crock .
The IDers have one basic flaw in their MO, they cant shut up about the "transforming of society by ID" Even your reference to "ID v atheism" connotes a cultural war based upon Christianity v Non-Christianity. You guys will never learn that , in order to get anywhere, you must surrender your God crutch and totally accept ID on a supposed random naturalistic basis. (That you will never do, so youre gonna lose every fight you take up) Unless , of course, you think that the GOP(anti-science) majority USSC is but a centimeter away.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 18 Apr, 2007 05:55 pm
Foxy wrote-

Quote:
If you think most pro ID-ers are of the fanatical Creationist camp,


That's their straw man Foxy. Has been all along. Their accusations about straw men being merely entirely predictable projections.

One bent cop and the police force is corrupt.

They don't even know what anti-ID looks like in action. They think it's just an errand boy to satisfy their wandering desires.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Wed 18 Apr, 2007 06:10 pm
So you deny history as well spendi? What happened to the morality isnt lying a deadly sin?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Wed 18 Apr, 2007 06:14 pm
Up, I had to look up my ALighieri . It appears the big 7 dont include lying. viz
Quote:
Luxuria (extravagance, later lust), Gula (gluttony), Avaritia (greed), Acedia (sloth), Ira (wrath), Invidia (envy), and Superbia (pride).
. So, I guess its ok to be a liar in the cause of the Lord.
0 Replies
 
Pauligirl
 
  1  
Wed 18 Apr, 2007 07:24 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Well prejudices run deep, and there are few prejudices that run deeper than the prejudice expressed by Atheists against believers. Smile

If you think most pro ID-ers are of the fanatical Creationist camp, you just aren't looking hard enough, and I'm pretty sure nothing I would say would change your mind.


Who do you think the Designer is?

P
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Wed 18 Apr, 2007 09:32 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Do you honestly believe that Spendi does not know what the theory of evolution is? Do you honestly believe that I do not know what it is?


Spendi's not a creationist, he's just a troll. And I don't think you're a creationist either. You seem to be more of a 'soft-IDer' of some type. Maybe you believe that god created the Big Bang, and nature took its course after that. Such a belief is not incompatible with the evidence (even though it's still not a scientific theory).

To be fair, I don't remember whether you've demonstrated any level of detailed understanding of the fundamentals of evolutionary theory previously in this thread or not.

Perhaps you've heard the "Tornado in a junkyard forming an airplane by chance" analogy as applied to evolution? In order for someone to be considered even minimally conversant with basic evolutionary theory, they should be able to explain clearly why that analogy is NOT a viable analogy for biological evolution.

The mere fact that creationists (YEC's) actually use that example in their challenges to evolution demonstrates that they do not understand what they are challenging.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 19 Apr, 2007 03:30 am
fm wrote-

Quote:
So, I guess its ok to be a liar in the cause of the Lord.


The Grand Materialist Niccolo Machiavelli thought so and I do believe there are people who say the American Government do also. He claimed that the end justifies the means just as my property developer and my stone merchant would.

He meant that it is sometimes necessary for a ruler to do things that are not right in themselves but which may be considered right in the context of the prevention of greater evils.

It is said that Bob Dylan's Drifter's Escape is about the same thing.

Having said that I still do not know what it is that I have done wrong to cause your slanderous remark. Perhaps you might explain so that viewers may come to some other conclusion than that you are ungentlemanly.

One certainly sees plenty of evidence that the sins you list are thriving in American society.

Market economics, the hidden hand, is a pretty rigid system, scientific some say, but nobody dares apply it without mitigation. Religion mitigates materialism in the same way. In fact it is religion which mitigates the application of market economics.

ros wrote-

Quote:
Spendi's not a creationist, he's just a troll.


Do you like being laughed at ros. Define troll for us and then we can see if I fit.

I'm a "silly man", I'm "irrelevant", I'm a "liar" and I'm a "troll" all within 24 hours and all by anti-IDers. A pattern is on the point of emerging into the clear light. One hopes such a pattern is kept well away from the levers of power. With anti-IDers comprising 3% (I read on here- I thought it was 10%) they are a long way from power and may justly be said to be irrelevant.

I have still seen no answer to the muzzling question and I didn't raise it.
Asking questions of people and then refusing to answer them oneself is somewhat silly and lies can be perpetrated by default.

Quote:
Perhaps you've heard the "Tornado in a junkyard forming an airplane by chance" analogy as applied to evolution?


It isn't even an analogy. There's no organic life in the "ideal type" junkyard. There's an organic junkyard in the mind of anyone who considers such a comparison to have the slightest validity.

Quote:
The mere fact that creationists (YEC's) actually use that example in their challenges to evolution demonstrates that they do not understand what they are challenging.


What has that got to do with Foxy and myself? Neither of us have ever made such a claim. As we two are the only ones on here the statements about the junkyard are definitely silly, a type of lie, irrelevant and, as far as I understrand the word "troll", troll-like.

You are bringing to the table ros the same standards you were bringing two years ago. They look to me to be identical with the standards you left school with.

Can you assure us that your anti- religious position is based on intellectual considerations rather than on some personal circumstances.

Quote:
To be fair, I don't remember whether you've demonstrated any level of detailed understanding of the fundamentals of evolutionary theory previously in this thread or not.


I know you haven't ros. Not a glimmer.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Thu 19 Apr, 2007 10:10 am
I heard today a radio program about the important transitional fossil found in Canada, the take-a-leak. This find is not simply important because it shows the transition from one type of animal to another, but is clear evidence of the evolution of fastidious intellect. The take-a-leak grew tired of swimming around in her own pee, so she grew legs in order to walk out on the land to urinate.

An important finding, which i have no doubt the frothing at the mouth religionists will assert was created directly by their imaginary friend.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Thu 19 Apr, 2007 10:32 am
Pauligirl wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Well prejudices run deep, and there are few prejudices that run deeper than the prejudice expressed by Atheists against believers. Smile

If you think most pro ID-ers are of the fanatical Creationist camp, you just aren't looking hard enough, and I'm pretty sure nothing I would say would change your mind.


Who do you think the Designer is?

P


It doesn't matter for this discussion--that would be a provocative question for a separate thread I think.

In this discussion, the ID-ers are willing to co-exist peacefully with the Evolutionists and in fact have no quarrel with the Evolutionists and agree with the Evolutionists. They agree with the Evolutionists that ID cannot and should not be taught as science.

That isn't sufficient for the Evolutionists, however. They are unwilling to peacefully co-exist. Most seem to feel it necessary to tar all ID-ers with the same brush as wild-eyed fanatical Creationists who are trying to destroy science or push a religious agenda and most seem to have a need to discredit ID and ID-ers in most uncomplimentary ways. (I attribute this to their own insecurity and uncertainty of their personal beliefs, but have no way to prove that of course.)

Fanaticism on either side is destructive to the debate and to society as a whole I think. That is the point I've been trying to make, but apparently it was too subtle for the intellect of the Creationists. Smile
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 19 Apr, 2007 11:07 am
Settin' Aah-aah wrote-

Quote:
An important finding, which i have no doubt the frothing at the mouth religionists will assert was created directly by their imaginary friend.


There are no frothing at the mouth religionists on this thread nor anyone who shows any idea of what an imaginary friend actually is other than a tired-out cliche which seems to have got stuck fast like a piece of paper in the spokes of a bicycle wheel.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Thu 19 Apr, 2007 11:08 am
foxy
Quote:
In this discussion, the ID-ers are willing to co-exist peacefully with the Evolutionists and in fact have no quarrel with the Evolutionists and agree with the Evolutionists. They agree with the Evolutionists that ID cannot and should not be taught as science.

That isn't sufficient for the Evolutionists, however. They are unwilling to peacefully co-exist. Most seem to feel it necessary to tar all ID-ers with the same brush as wild-eyed fanatical Creationists who are trying to destroy science or push a religious agenda and most seem to have a need to discredit ID and ID-ers in most uncomplimentary ways. (I attribute this to their own insecurity and uncertainty of their personal beliefs, but have no way to prove that of course.)


Are you shitting me? What do you think Dover was all about? Do you think that some biology teachers were out looking to lynch IDers? Hell no, It was a fraudulent attempt by a religious agenda'd up schoolboard run by a drug addled ex cop who bullied his board members into "getting that aetheist Darwin out of our school"They originally wanted to bring IDas the "approved" method of teaching about origins and life's development (even though noone on the board could tell ID from the AA, and , when on the stand, they looked really foolish)

DO you even read the news? Do you have problems with short term memory ? You should back off your arguments because youre running in circles and youre back-tracking is leaving rut markes in the discussion.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 19 Apr, 2007 11:18 am
Foxy wrote-

Quote:
That isn't sufficient for the Evolutionists, however. They are unwilling to peacefully co-exist. Most seem to feel it necessary to tar all ID-ers with the same brush as wild-eyed fanatical Creationists who are trying to destroy science or push a religious agenda and most seem to have a need to discredit ID and ID-ers in most uncomplimentary ways. (I attribute this to their own insecurity and uncertainty of their personal beliefs, but have no way to prove that of course.)


I attribute it to them having indulged in, or approved of for their convenience, some behaviour/s which the settled religiousness of our cultural traditon condemns and it is thus mere self justification. There is also the idea which I mentioned earlier of getting carried away attacking authority to the extent that the doctrine of the authority gets included.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Thu 19 Apr, 2007 11:28 am
farmerman wrote:
foxy
Quote:
In this discussion, the ID-ers are willing to co-exist peacefully with the Evolutionists and in fact have no quarrel with the Evolutionists and agree with the Evolutionists. They agree with the Evolutionists that ID cannot and should not be taught as science.

That isn't sufficient for the Evolutionists, however. They are unwilling to peacefully co-exist. Most seem to feel it necessary to tar all ID-ers with the same brush as wild-eyed fanatical Creationists who are trying to destroy science or push a religious agenda and most seem to have a need to discredit ID and ID-ers in most uncomplimentary ways. (I attribute this to their own insecurity and uncertainty of their personal beliefs, but have no way to prove that of course.)


Are you shitting me? What do you think Dover was all about? Do you think that some biology teachers were out looking to lynch IDers? Hell no, It was a fraudulent attempt by a religious agenda'd up schoolboard run by a drug addled ex cop who bullied his board members into "getting that aetheist Darwin out of our school"They originally wanted to bring IDas the "approved" method of teaching about origins and life's development (even though noone on the board could tell ID from the AA, and , when on the stand, they looked really foolish)

DO you even read the news? Do you have problems with short term memory ? You should back off your arguments because youre running in circles and youre back-tracking is leaving rut markes in the discussion.


And are you of the camp that because some black people, or a lot of black people within a given neighborhood, commit auto theft, that all blacks are inclined to be criminally minded?

Do you espouse that because most terrorists these days are Muslim that all Muslims are capable of being terrorists?

Do you go with the theory that because a few elected representatives have been convicted of crimes that all elected representatives are crooks? (That one may be a bad analogy).

Do you believe that the presence of a few money grubbing opportunists among Christian evangelists translates into a truth that all Christians are cheating and extorting money to line their own pockets?

If some Democrats or Leftists think that the GOP masterminded 9/11, shall we assume that all Democrats or Leftists are that paranoid and/or illogical?

If you say no to any of these, how do you translate that because some ID-ers are inappropriately pushing a Creationist agenda to be included in science curriculum, that all ID-ers are of similar mind and motive? And rather than argue with those who are acting inappropriately, why do you feel the need to dispute ID and ID-ers in general, especially the large majority who are neither advocates for nor activists for inappropriate activities?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Thu 19 Apr, 2007 11:31 am
Fox's response ignores that even if some of the religiously devout are honest, decent sorts who consider these to be important questions, but not something for the classroom--those who dusted off the term "intelligent design" and began touting it as "scientific" in the late 1980s did so precisely because they wanted to do an end-run around the Supreme Court, and promote a creationist agenda in science classrooms. Richard Nixon was a crook. The people who voted for him may not have been crooks, and may have deplored what his re-election campaign staff did. That doesn't alter the fact that Nixon was a crook.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 19 Apr, 2007 11:44 am
I just saw one of our boxers talking about a fight he is having in Las Vegas.

He said the the air-conditioning in the hotel he is staying in is fixed up to make the atmosphere in the place oxygen-rich in order to get the gamblers pumped up for action.

That's a bit like subliminal advertising. Are air conditioning units in large buildings subject to any muzzling of their scientific possibilities. Are the populations of large buildings sitting ducks? Are there any other chemical substances which could be introduced into air conditioning systems in large buildings and which could have other effects than enhancing gambling confidence?

What argument would anti-IDers use to restrict such activities. Is it happening in large shops with vapours and lighting techniques? Does anti-ID lead to mass medication on behalf of the elite? And isn't anti-ID a drive to replace the religious elite by a scientific elite.

Dover, fm, was a farce as well as a non-event. It was a robbery. Do you seriously think that one judge, a minor one at that, is the final arbiter and authority on this discussion? What happened to that bill designed to prevent such a scam happening again? Do you put aside the dictum of Miles Copeland, "Who gains?", just because it suits your position. That's anti-intellectualism of the front rank.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Thu 19 Apr, 2007 11:56 am
Foxy, Im not gonna even respond to your question as Setanta has said it far better than I could. Its just that your squirming to make some relevancy here is getting really amusing.
Quote:
And are you of the camp that because some black people, or a lot of black people within a given neighborhood, commit auto theft, that all blacks are inclined to be criminally minded?
where does this fit into the conversation ? You are truly a piece of art lady.
Quote:
why do you feel the need to dispute ID and ID-ers in general, especially the large majority who are neither advocates for nor activists for inappropriate activities?
Mostly because the whole concept of ID is like the baldface messing with truth as in "1984" , where "todays truth is tomorrows lie" and "war is peace" are, scary concepts when people who , supposedly espouse morality and good works, generally trash them to push their agendas.
ID is, as Set said, merely a way fro the Creationists to run around a proscrition of law as contained in our very Constitution.The "Scientific Creationists" (those who want to actually TEACH this crap as science, had morphed into IDers. Even though the concept of ID was 200 years old, it wasnt resurrected with a vengeance until the "SCientiic Creationists" were faced by a legal roadblock. CNICAL? you bet!. So please dont give me crap about "the honest and fair minded --Were only interested in coexistence" IDers. The IDers are really the actual vermin , They are the truly dishonest ones. I will argue with a Creationist till Im blue in the face and still keep a ceratin fondness for them because they really believe their doctrine. IDers , on the other hand, are a bunch of con-men who are merely trying to manipulate a system to their ends, and they always use less than honorable means, . SO, in that respect, If you call yourself an IDer, Id say you too are a manipulator and a fraud. Get my point? I consier a heirarchy of Creationism, with the most honorable YEC Creationists at the top and the IDers at the whale **** bottom of the ocean.

Other than that , Im pretty mellow about all this

Very Happy
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 01/18/2025 at 12:28:18