97
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Fri 27 Apr, 2007 02:18 pm
It should be noted that Koestler disliked "Darwinism". He wrote a sympathetic account about a controversial "Lamarckian" biologist (The Case of the Midwife Toad).
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 27 Apr, 2007 02:25 pm
He may not have disliked Darwinisn so much as the uses to which it might be put. The social consequences of it I mean.

Geneticism is another -ism which is impossible to like or dislike without reference to its potential consequences.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Sat 28 Apr, 2007 05:16 am
farmerman wrote:


It was Limbo Wilso. But the point is well made. How quickly these "Immutable" laws of a deity can get modified by a committee of skull caped old farts.


I thought that's what limbo is (purgatory). But I don't claim to be a theological expert.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Sat 28 Apr, 2007 05:17 am
Quote:
Geneticism is another -ism which is impossible to like or dislike without reference to its potential consequences.


Ned Ludd picks up his hammer to begin smashing PCR analyzers.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 28 Apr, 2007 06:44 am
In the White House too.

I should imagine they are studying genetic research quite closely with a view to social consequences. One hopes so at least.

And there is a school of thought that thinks Mr Ludd something of a martyr although I'm not one of them. I quite like these modern conveniences and I think I can steer around most of the shite they are synergised with.

So far.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 28 Apr, 2007 07:34 am
Wilso wrote-

Quote:
I thought that's what limbo is (purgatory). But I don't claim to be a theological expert.


I feel sure the viewers will be very relieved to hear that. I know I am.

Do you know what Thought did?

He followed a muck-cart and thought it was a wedding.

It's an old English saying. Dates back centuries.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Sat 28 Apr, 2007 09:29 am
spendis just an old fart pensioner who's trying to get his last phlegmy words ion screen before hes called home. So lets not be reciprocal about our delings with him.


We just laugh at the fact that he spissed his pants again
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 28 Apr, 2007 11:06 am
Are you reduced to heckling now fm.

I'm surprised there is so much spare straw where you are. The figures you build it all out of are not very artistically pleasing due to the fact that they have been re-cycled so often.

First I'm having trouble navigating in the world of science.

Then I should stay in the shallows.

Then I could understand fire if I asked a kid.

Then I'm a luddite.

Then I'm a phlegmy old fart.

And now I've pissed my pants.

And that just on one page.

Very intellectual I must say. No wonder some say American education is going down the tube.

Nothing but straw and nothing on topic.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Sat 28 Apr, 2007 11:37 am
apendi--ANY connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 28 Apr, 2007 01:31 pm
Yes, it does seem that way doesn't it. Perhaps, to some extent, we are representitives of two cultures more different than appearences might suggest.

The assertion does look like a prop of some sort in the US whereas it is laughed to scorn in educated circles in Europe. The French have a special word for it.

I have seen it said, by an eminent scholar, that From Here To Eternity could not have been written by a European.

It might be why the French are determined to prevent much American TV from reaching their population. And it might be why a lot of Americans are coming to see that Jaques Chirac at least had a point in opposing the war in Iraq. Maybe he knew about this particular weakness. He ought to have done as both Sir Winston Churchill and Sir Anthony Eden had complained about it enough.

But is it a propensity which was necessary to tame a wilderness and take it to Superpower status and, as such, perfectly understandable.

But really, fm, a generation of American children cannot be allowed to be educated on principles decided by who is the best organised and most skilful asserter. An educator ought to agree that education is not a marketing operation.

The question may be whether, now that the wilderness has been tamed, it becomes dysfunctional, a negative unintended consequence. That would be a moot point.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Sat 28 Apr, 2007 05:39 pm
Hey spendi, what time is it?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 28 Apr, 2007 06:34 pm
It is time those ladies in the pub tonight started behaving like ladies again.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sun 29 Apr, 2007 02:17 pm
Quote:
Plato had said that mortal man was prevented from hearing the Harmony of the Spheres by the grossness of his bodily senses; the Christian Platonists said that he lost that faculty with the Fall.


When Plato's images strike an archetypal chord, they continue to reverberate on unexpected levels of meaning, which sometimes reverse the messages originally intended. Thus one might venture to say that it was Plato who caused that Fall of philosophy which made his followers deaf to the harmonies of nature. The sin which led to the Fall was the destruction of the Pythagorean union of natural and religious philosophy, the denial of science as a way of worship, splitting up of the very texture of the universe into a vile lowland and ethereal highlands, made of different materials, governed by different laws.


This "dualism of despair", as one might call it was carried over into medieval philosophy by the Neoplatonists. It was the legacy of one bankrupt civilization: Greece at the age of the Macedonian conquest, to another bankrupt civilization: the Latin world at the age of it's conquest by the Germanic tribes.


Arthur Koestler. The Sleepwalkers; Part Two, Dark Interlude. Chapter 1.

Or as Bob Dylan had it-

Quote:
Well, you walk into the room
Like a camel and then you frown
You put your eyes in your pocket
And your nose in the ground
There ought to be a law against you comin' around
You should be made
To wear earphones.


Those on here who see Science and Religion as a unified force are Pythagoreans and the true carriers of scientific progress.

After all, there is a limit to how many fossils can be dug up to prove Darwin's theories before everybody falls into a coma. The Harmony of the Spheres has no such limits.

We all know that two floating portions of the earth's crust ruck up a bit when they collide: like a rug, when you come home pissed and catch your foot in it, which is easier than one might think. We don't need to see studies of every mountain and hillock in the world in a never ending cascade of "funding". We've got it. It can't have anything to do with the rucking so it must be to do with the funding. Silly me. I never thought of that before. Boy- am I thick or what?
0 Replies
 
OGIONIK
 
  1  
Mon 30 Apr, 2007 04:18 am
Well, either way you go you soon realise that both science and religion say the same things, using different words.

we exist, if you choose to believe some entity came from nowhere out of nothing and created the universe , go ahead.

If you believe an explosion came from nowhere out of nothing and created the universe , go ahead.

either way... i think you get the picture.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Mon 30 Apr, 2007 05:56 am
The main difference is that science develops its theories FROM the data. It doesnt make up a theory and then try to carefully select or ignore data that can support it. Very Happy

If a theory in science is an explanation in which all the data supports and none of the data refutes, then Creationism and ID arent science because there are huge batches of data that dont support ID . The IDers, in an attempt to, at least maintain some value, try to adapt their worldview to accept he main core of scientific theory (like natural selection and common ancestry). Theyve backed themselves into such a tight corner that they are now merely an orthodox branch of theistic evolution.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Mon 30 Apr, 2007 06:16 am
This ider isn't backed into any corner never mind a tight one. You are backed into a corner when you can't answer any questions, particularly the muzzling question which Lola asked, and are reduced to repeating mantras which we have all heard on more occasions than we remember.

The IDers you choose for your own purpose might be different. But one should beware of people in tight corners.

You either can't or won't see the point of my last post. Most of the others as well. I've already quoted Joubert saying that Plato is a dead loss outside of his style.

People with easy answers should be kept well away from positions of influence. Plato didn't understand social consequences either. It was just a pipe-dream of his fantasies but it does show how to pipe-dream. There are other fantasies.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Mon 30 Apr, 2007 07:16 am
spendi
Quote:
This ider isn't backed into any corner never mind a tight one. You are backed into a corner when you can't answer any questions, particularly the muzzling question which Lola asked, and are reduced to repeating mantras which we have all heard on more occasions than we remember.


Somebody **** in your Rice Krispies this morning spendi? Laughing

Quote:
People with easy answers should be kept well away from positions of influence.

. Thats what I keep saying in my letters to the Bush Administration.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Mon 30 Apr, 2007 07:28 am
Do you sign them "Disgusted of Pennsylvania" ? (With your name and titles appended.)

It's a lower-middle class version of banging your head against the wall. I once wrote to Mr Lamont when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer and I received a personally penned reply and a lifetime's supply of money.

They have a sifting system. You need to be saying something reasonably plausible which they haven't heard before. A politician will consider anything reasonably plausible that hasn't already been tested to destruction.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Mon 30 Apr, 2007 08:31 am
Whatever you say spendi, as long as you make sense to you.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Mon 30 Apr, 2007 08:49 am
CURRENT CREATIONIST THINKING
(The author of the essay below, Babu G. Ranganathan, has a B.A. with academic concentrations in Bible and Biology from Bob Jones University.)

Quote:
Where Are The Half-Evolved Chipmunks?
(Babu G. Ranganathan, The Conservative Voice, April 29, 2007)

Millions of people are taught that the fossil record furnishes proof of evolution. But, where are there fossils of half-evolved chipmunks, dinosaurs and other creatures?

The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-formed species. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among evolutionists there are diametrically different interpretations and reconstructions of the fossils used to support human evolution from a supposed ape-like ancestry. In fact, all of the fossils used to support human evolution have been found to be either hoaxes, non-human, or human. Evolutionists once reconstructed an image of a half-ape and half-man (known as The Nebraska Man) creature from a single tooth! Later they discovered that the tooth belonged to an extinct species of pig! The "Nebraska Man" was used as a major piece of evidence in the famous Scopes Trial in support of Darwin's evolutionary theory.

Even if evolution takes millions and millions of years, we should still be able to see some stages of its process. But, we simply don't observe any partially-evolved fish, frogs, lizards, birds, dogs, cats among us. Every species of plant and animal is complete and fully-formed.

Another problem is how could partially-evolved plant and animal species survive over millions of years if their vital organs and tissues were still in the process of evolving? How, for example, were animals breathing, eating, and reproducing if their respiratory, digestive, and reproductive organs were still incomplete and evolving? How were species fighting off possibly life-killing germs if their immune system didn't exist yet?

What about all those spectacular and popular claims reported in the mass media of evolutionists having discovered certain transitional forms in the fossil record? Such claims have not been accepted by all evolutionists and, after much investigation and analysis, these claims have been found to have no hard basis in science. This has been the case of every so-called "missing link" and "transitional" form discovered since Darwin.

Recently it was thought they had discovered fossils of dinosaurs with feathers until they found out that the so-called feathers were really scales which only had the appearance of feathers. Scientists theorize the scales took upon a feather-like appreance during some brief stage of decomposition before being fossilized. Even if they were feathers, this still wouldn't be any kind of evidence to support macro-evolution unless they can show a series of fossils having part-scale/part-feather structures as evidence that the scales had really evolved into feathers.

Many times, evolutionists use similarities of traits between different forms of life as a basis for claiming a transitional link. But, the problem for evolutionists is that the traits which they cite are complete and fully-formed.

Evolutionists claim that the genetic and biological similarities between species is evidence of common ancestry. However, that is only one interpretation of the evidence. Another possibility is that the comparative similarities are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes in all the various forms of life. Neither position can be scientifically proved.

Not only are there no true transitional links in the fossil record, but the fossils themselves are not in the supposed geological sequential order as evolutionists claim in their textbooks. Of course, evolutionists have their various circular and unsupported arguments or reasons for why this is so.
If macro-evolution (evolution across biological kinds) actually occurred then we should find millions of indisputable transitional forms in the fossil record instead of a few disputable transitional forms that even evolutionists cannot all agree upon. And, again, the point needs to be emphasized that species cannot wait millions of years for their vital (or necessary) organs and biological systems to evolve.

In fact, it is precisely because of these problems that more and more modern evolutionists are adopting a new theory known as Punctuated Equilibrium which says that plant and animal species evolved suddenly from one kind to another and that is why we don't see evidence of partially-evolved species in the fossil record. Of course, we have to accept their word on blind faith because there is no way to prove or disprove what they are saying. These evolutionists claim that something like massive bombardment of radiation resulted in mega mutations in species which produced "instantaneous" changes from one life form to another. The nature and issue of mutations will be discussed later and the reader will see why such an argument is not viable.

The fact that animal and plant species are found fully formed and complete in the fossil record is powerful evidence (although not proof) for creation because it is evidence that they came into existence as fully formed and complete which is possible only by creation.

Although Darwin was partially correct by showing that natural selection occurs in nature, the problem is that natural selection itself is not a creative force. Natural selection can only work with those biological variations that are possible and which have survival value. The evidence from genetics supports only the possibility for horizontal evolution (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) but not vertical evolution (i.e. from fish to human). Unless nature has the ability to perform genetic engineering vertical evolution will not be possible.

The early grooves in the human embryo that appear to look like gills are really the early stages in the formation of the face, throat, and neck regions. The so-called "tailbone" is the early formation of the coccyx and spinal column which, because of the rate of growth being faster than the rest of the body at this stage, appears to look like a tail. The coccyx has already been proven to be useful in providing support for the pelvic muscles.

Modern science has shown that there are genetic limits to evolution or biological change in nature. Again, all biological variations, whether they are beneficial to survival or not, are possible only within the genetic potential and limits of a biological kind such as the varieties among dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.

Variations across biological kinds such as humans evolving from ape-like creatures and apes, in turn, evolving from dog-like creatures and so on, as Darwinian evolutionary theory teaches, are not possible unless Nature has the capability of performing genetic engineering.

***********************************

It is only fair that evidence supporting intelligent design or creation be presented to students alongside of evolutionary theory, especially in public schools which receive funding from taxpayers who are on both sides of the issue. Also, no one is being forced to believe in God or adopt a particular religion so there is no true violation of separation of church and state. As a religion and science writer, I encourage all to read my Internet article "The Natural Limits of Evolution" at my website www.religionscience.com for more in-depth study of the issue.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 01/19/2025 at 06:34:15