Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Being thus invited to reply in kind I have no confidence in your ability to judge anything wande.

I hope that brings home to you the fatuousness of your post.

0 Replies

Walter,
The Rio Rancho situation was resolved a little more than one year ago:

Quote:

Rio Rancho school board amends science policy
(Associated Press, April 11, 2006)

RIO RANCHO, N.M. (AP) - Rio Rancho's school board has amended a policy that opponents contended was a ploy to introduce "intelligent design" into the science curriculum.

The board voted 4-1 Tuesday to remove a sentence that deviated from state standards and replace it with language taken verbatim from the standards.

The standards require schools to teach evolution but acknowledge there will be disagreements.

The theory of intelligent design says life on Earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation.

Nearly all scientists dismiss it as a scientific theory. Critics say it's nothing more than religion masquerading as science.

Don Schlichte and Marty Scharfglass, two board members who introduced the policy, apologized to science teachers at Rio Rancho High School for failing to consult with them prior to proposing and adopting the policy last summer.

The sentence that deviated from state standards said: "When appropriate and consistent with the New Mexico Science Content Standards, Benchmarks and Performance Standards, discussions about issues that are of interest to both science and individual religious and philosophical beliefs will acknowledge that reasonable people may disagree about the meaning and interpretation of data."

The state standards say: "Students shall understand that reasonable people may disagree about some issues that are of interest to both science and religion (e.g., the origin of life on Earth, the cause of the big bang, the future of the Earth)."

This year, however, New Mexico state legislators have proposed new intelligent design measures (that have been "tabled" for the moment).

Quote:

Intelligent design supporters find new, creative ways to get their message out
(Editorial Opinion, The Albuquerque Tribune, March 13, 2007)

In this session of the New Mexico Legislature, no fewer than two bills and two resolutions supporting "intelligent design creationism" were proposed.
Rep. W. C. "Dub" Williams, a Glencoe Republican, sponsored two measures in the House, while the corresponding Senate measures were put forward by Sen. Steve Komadina, a Corrales Republican.

The carefully crafted "academic freedom" measures made no specific mention of intelligent design. But it was clearly the driving purpose behind these, which would have permitted and encouraged teachers to present so-called weaknesses of evolution science in biology classes. The measures would have also have given students the "right and freedom to reach their own conclusions about biological origins."

We don't encourage students to "reach their own conclusions" on how to add fractions. Why should we suddenly do so with the biosciences? Make no mistake, the only academic freedom involved in these measures is the freedom to teach creationism in science class.

The legislation doesn't look like it's going anywhere. Both House measures had been tabled, and the Senate measures may not even get to committee before adjournment this week.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

Walter,
The Rio Rancho situation was resolved a little more than one year ago:

I know, wandel :wink:

0 Replies

fresco wrote on another thread-

Quote:

Recently, leaders of Congress have made it harder rather than easier to understand or notice small clauses in complicated legislation.

Are you all eagle-eyed comprehension experts?

0 Replies

Wandels op ed quote from The Albuquerque Trib, belies the assertion of foxy who would have us believe that IDers are mostly harmless people who only want to "get along".
As those of us whove been in "the Creationism trenches" on this issue see every day, these "leaders of science" are mostly an agenda driven "take no prisoners" bunch who wish to supplant standard science with some articles of faiththat can confuse the hell out of our kids.
When "Irreducible complexities" start parading about as actual scientific analyses, theres nothing left to do but head off this kind of Mideval thinking and shush it from the classroom.

I lose my patience because its such a waste of effort to have to pay attention to these clowns who make campaign issues that appeal to their religious constituents and who, like Romney (and Pa's own past Senator Santorum) will flop all about depending on which news service is taking the notes.

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

As those of us whove been in "the Creationism trenches" on this issue see every day, these "leaders of science" are mostly an agenda driven "take no prisoners" bunch who wish to supplant standard science with some articles of faiththat can confuse the hell out of our kids.

A long-winded version of the ever-popular straw codger.

He means "mostly" in his backyard.

0 Replies

We all lose our patience with these people that promotes ID as science in our schools, and politicians who use this issue (all the religious' based ones) to promote their electability. the problem with this "battle" is that most people take leave of their brains when it involves religious' beliefs.

They all love homosexuals, but wants to prevent them from having equal protections under the laws. They can't see their own homophobic bigotry, and their efforts to create more discrimination in this country.

We all lose our patience - except those fundamentalists who can't tell the difference between politics and religion.

0 Replies

Spendi, at least Im IN the trenches. What've you done ? Ill bet NOTHING is the answer. (It would mean sobering up, shaving, , showering, and finding some clean clothes to wear.)

Dont bother yourself. Youre too precious right here.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Wandels op ed quote from The Albuquerque Trib, belies the assertion of foxy who would have us believe that IDers are mostly harmless people who only want to "get along".

Fox seems to be taking the ID 'purist' high ground. I think she's aware that there are fringe elements who are using ID as a wedge ("The Wedge Strategy"), but I think she's deceiving herself that there are any number of people who care at all about ID without having a political/religious agenda.

She has repeatedly described her own position as one which does not attempt to promote ID as any form of science, but as just another non-scientific theory. However, she refuses to see all non-science theories in an equal light. She seems to think that ID is somehow more valid than any other supernaturally derived theory (I had been using the "Gnomes and Fairies" theory as an example, but it really could have been any supernaturally grounded theory).

0 Replies

I suggest that not all ID theory is wholly based on the supernatural in the sense that it's not entirely unreasonable at least with respect to the initial phases of life on earth to give higher than equal plausibility to extraterrestrial doings of some sort or other.

I'm always amused by ID'ers because they indirectly promote this concept.

0 Replies

The whole idea is to try and create controversy where the is none and to promote the proposition that ID is on a parallel with science when it is actually nothing more than a long ago discarded view of the natural world.

Maybe things will take care of themselves. Perhaps the Higgs particle will be found and we will find ourselves in a multiverse of energy strings in an array that is as eternal as any Spaghetti Monster.

Joe(I personally think we are on the back of a large turtle)Nation

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

I suggest that not all ID theory is wholly based on the supernatural in the sense that it's not entirely unreasonable at least with respect to the initial phases of life on earth to give higher than equal plausibility to extraterrestrial doings of some sort or other.

I would agree if ID was specific to this planet alone. However, as a general concept, it just pushes the requirement for the supernatural back to an extraterrestrial source.

And I agree with you, it's amusing to see ID'ers implicitly promoting ET's and super technology. Smile

Of course, in their own minds, I doubt this is what they are thinking, it's pretty obvious they prefer the Flying Spaghetti Monster (may the sauce be upon him).

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

Spendi, at least Im IN the trenches. What've you done ? Ill bet NOTHING is the answer. (It would mean sobering up, shaving, , showering, and finding some clean clothes to wear.)

What does being in the trenches mean?

One thing I have done is make this thread what it is. I know anti-IDers have played their part, a discreditable one in my view, but the thread wouldn't have lasted long with a bunch of anti-IDers agreeing with each other.

As the focus of opposition I have brought you all together a little and possibly more than that. You have arrived at the point where you have never criticised each other no matter how stupid some of the posts of fellow anti-IDers have been.

By studying various aspects of this subject I have learned a great deal myself which I wouldn't have done without this thread.

I also take into account viewers of the thread who don't enter the debate.

Someone might look into A2K, like one of my posts, and go back and read them all. That's roughly how I choose my reading and viewing material. For such a person, and they would have an open mind by definition, I provide pointers in other directions (Dylan, Joubert, Veblen, Arnold, Spengler, Homer, Shakespeare etc) which might be as useful as a university course to anyone who is grabbed by them and who follows the trails they suggest. The staff in educational institutions are generally in that category which is said to appear on earth at the rate of one per minute. The fact that I don't know who the few (a Stendhalism) might be or even if any exist is neither here nor there. I prefer to eschew publisher's hype and corrupt reviewers. They may be not even here yet. The record remains for them when, or if, one or more do arrive.

It is worth an unquantifiable price to learn to avoid assertions. Indulging in them, and they are indulgencies and easily become ingrained habits, will damage all the relationships a person has.

Your motives for being "in the trenches" could be suspect.

Now- "sobering up" as a recommendation is contrary to one of the world's most famous, oldest and respected philosophies (Bacchus etc). It is a Roundhead proposition and I'm a Cavalier. I think it was Braudel (another pointer) who said that the discovery of the fermentation process was mankind's greatest achievement and Dean Martin said, about being sober, "imagine feeling like that all the time", with a shudder. And beer is decent food. Drinking the harvest and paying a lot of tax. The teetotal non-smoker is just about the worst company any man can keep and I am happy that they huddle together for comfort and reassurance and have an agreement whereby they take turns in pretending to find each other's holiday snaps, invariably the most dire pictures one ever sees, fascinating. The phoney bastards.

As for shaving- what could be more anti-evolution than that. Shavers must think that the beard has no biological function. It requires the most humiliating procedures and postures, it clutters up the bathroom with extraneous kit, some of it rusty, it injures the hair and the skin, it often draws blood and it renders the male visage similar to a baby's bottom or a very ugly lady's face. Throughout the ages it has been the mark of a slave. It is also expensive considering the above disadvantages. And time consuming with the added pisser of seeing your silly self in the mirror.

Showering is a useful method of washing the body for those who fear lying back in a hot tub for half-an-hour risks them falling into contemplation. It is almost impossible to contemplate things in a shower and you are breaking one of the golden rules which says never stand up when you can lie down. And it doesn't open the pores properly nor does it ratchet the thirst up to where it ought to be by 10.00 pm. It's real Roundhead stuff and is congruent with other activities too tiresome to mention which also inhibit contemplation.

All clothes are a bit suspect on the cleanliness side when worn by Roundheads. "Dirty" and "clean" are relative and nebulous terms. Hospitals, when I have seen them, sparkle and gleam and, according to the authorities, are a breeding ground for some very nasty little busybodies. You are talking about surface appearences I think and certain consequences of your mothering experience.

Suppose one of the "few" read that and liked it. He could follow my back tracks and study those people I suggest and I can't see it doing him anything but good. It has done me good anyway. I have survived and I have seen more go under than I care to think about.

Who knows? One can only run it up the flagpole. Who salutes is not my choice. If anyone salutes the anti-ID flag they have my sympathies but also my best wishes.

0 Replies

SO, If we go forth in public forums , we should look for the unkempt, hirsute, scraggley, malodorous , drunken sot, and that would be you?

0 Replies

Actually- the terms we are using on here are misleading.

I'll quote the great Joseph Joubert again-

Quote:

The Jansenists tell men to love God; the Jesuits make men love him. The doctrine of these last is full of looseness, or, if you will, of errors; still,---singular as it may seem, it is undeniable,---they are the better directors of souls.

The Jansenists have carried into religion more thought than the Jesuits, and they go deeper; they are faster bound with its sacred bonds. They have in their way of thinking an austerity which incessantly constrains the will to keep the path of duty; all the habits of their understanding, in short, are more Christian. But they seem to love God without affection, and solely from reason, from duty, from justice. The Jesuits, on the other hand, seem to love him from pure inclination; out of admiration, gratitude, tenderness; for the pleasure of loving him, in short. In their books of devotion you find joy, because, with the Jesuits nature and religion go hand in hand. In the books of the Jansenists there is a sadness and a moral constraint, because with the Jansenists religion is for ever trying to put nature in bonds.

If one criticises the Jesuits for their looseness one ought to temper the criticism by considering their amiabilty.

I suppose the American Puritan tradition is conditioned by Port Royal Jansenism for sociological reasons associated with the general unpopularity of its strictures, which Flaubert and others castigated, and the usefulness of them in taming a wilderness where sacrifice of comfort would be essential; a difficult and complex matter. A sort of advantageous mutation in a new environment allowing successful colonisation.

Wow!

So anti-ID might be anti-Jansenist or anti-Jesuit. ID might be either depending on which is easiest to make way with. "id" is on a whole other level and might be said, I would say, is a natural development of the Jesuit position in tune with Science.

A Jansenist, for example, might oppose homosexuality, birth control and abortion on the grounds of duty to the state in terms of population increase whereas a Jesuit might oppose them for their lack of joy an amiability. To attack both positions in one convenient lump, a straw man if ever there was one, is ridiculous not to say pathetic. A Jansenist might change his position when population density is seen as satisfactory but a Jesuit never changes his position on joy and amiability.

I am, of course, a Jesuit and I can't for the life of me imagine how anyone fortunate enough to have a Jesuitical education can turn his back on it unless American Jesuits are different from European ones in a similar way that American sport is different from the European tradition and seems to be unexportable as football (soccer) and cricket eminently are.

It feels to me that anti-ID is much closer to Jansenism. The absence of joy and amiability in anti-ID posting is striking.

This post is really for Foxy because I'm not convinced she understands this vital difference. I'm certain nobody in the Dover courtroom did.

It distorts the debate when two Roundhead factions are squabbling as if Cavaliers didn't exist when they are the very ones who produce all the best art or, better, all the art of any significance. Roundheads are anti-Art. Cromwell said "Warts and all".

The only serious artists America has produced to my knowledge are Andy Warhol and Bob Dylan and they were and are both deeply religious in the Jesuitical tradition Andy having been shot to death by a feminist anti-IDer in pants and short back and sides. What joy she must have felt. What amiability eh?

0 Replies

spendi , when you beat a dead horse, you really flog the carcass.

0 Replies

An unfortunate choice of metaphor. I never touched a horse I was riding never mind a dead one.

You might have said that when I make a mill wheel not a drop of water gets around the sides of it.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

farmerman wrote:
Wandels op ed quote from The Albuquerque Trib, belies the assertion of foxy who would have us believe that IDers are mostly harmless people who only want to "get along".

Fox seems to be taking the ID 'purist' high ground. I think she's aware that there are fringe elements who are using ID as a wedge ("The Wedge Strategy"), but I think she's deceiving herself that there are any number of people who care at all about ID without having a political/religious agenda.

Since we seem to be speaking in 3rd person mode, I think Rosborne desperately NEEDS to believe that all ID-ers are religious wackos with an agenda else he is unable to justify his prejudices. This prevents him from seeing the reality that is mostly 100% opposite from what he chooses to believe.

Quote:

She has repeatedly described her own position as one which does not attempt to promote ID as any form of science, but as just another non-scientific theory.

I describe my position as one that does not attempt to promite ID as any form of science because I do not attempt to promote ID as any form of science. Again, one not blinded by his own prejudices would be honest enough to acknowledge that.

Quote:

However, she refuses to see all non-science theories in an equal light. She seems to think that ID is somehow more valid than any other supernaturally derived theory (I had been using the "Gnomes and Fairies" theory as an example, but it really could have been any supernaturally grounded theory)

And here Rosborne is blatantly dishonest in presuming what I do or do not refuse to see which places his views in the ad hominem category. The one element that he leaves out of the equation is the one no dedicated Atheist fanatic can acknowledge which is the experience claimed by many millions of witnesses who base their beliefs on that experience. Only by denying that experience can they push their Atheistic religious doctrine with any credibility and, in so doing, look quite foolish to those who know the truth.

There is a huge difference between admitting that religious belief looks no different than belief in gnomes and fairies to oneself and presuming to tell another person that he or she has not experienced what s/he testifies that s/he has experienced. The first is honesty. The second is presumed demagoguery.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
But almost all of us--liberal, moderate, conservative--are concerned about the concentrated and dedicated assault on religion in general and Christianity in particular and believe that due diligence is necessary to prevent losing our First Amendment rights. And we take strong exception to the public schools attempting to undermine the values taught by parents and/or destroy the religious faith of the students.

Can you give an example of one of these attacks on your First Amendment Rights.

Also, please give an example of a concentrated and dedicated assault on religion in general and christianity in particular.

Ros, I'm not going to bite here and in so doing completely sidetrack this thread. If you have paid any attention to what I have been posting, your questions have been asked and answered several times already.

0 Replies

Quote:

The Rebranding of Intelligent Design

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know