Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

The Rebranding of Intelligent Design

Unfortunately, what they call "evolution" is not evolution as evolutionary biologists understand it.

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.

Foxfyre wrote:

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.

That's exactly what I acknowledged and wrote (and which you quoted).

Foxfyre wrote:

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.

I'm not being dishonest Fox. I'm just being clinical and precise. If you can't handle the fact that personal experience is not scientific evidence, then tough luck for you, that's just the way it is.

Foxfyre wrote:

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.

You can believe whatever you want to believe Fox, but it doesn't change reality. And the reality is that even though you experienced something, and even though you're convinced of something, it doesn't make it true. And the ONLY place it makes it any different from any other superstition is in YOUR mind, nowhere else. That's just simple clinical fact.

I think it's quite a slippery slope to say that the threshold for a delusion to become truth is determined by counting the people who believe it.

I said that a majority of ID'ers are not of the 'purist' persuasion.

I'm just being clinical and precise.

I think it's quite a slippery slope to say that the threshold for a delusion to become truth is determined by counting the people who believe it.

"If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."- Anatole France

Have you nothing to contribute yourself wande on this thread. This stuff you bring up is nothing but propaganda from the anti-ID side. And pretty shallow and repetitive to boot.

spendius wrote:

Have you nothing to contribute yourself wande on this thread. This stuff you bring up is nothing but propaganda from the anti-ID side. And pretty shallow and repetitive to boot.

The essay I quoted today presents new information. The Discovery Institute is coming out with a new textbook: "Explore Evolution". The new tactic is to redefine evolution so that "design" is a major element (misrepresenting what evolutionary theory actually says and ignoring evidence that is not compatible with 'design").

To me, it's not just an interesting problem, but dangerous for the future of our children and survival. It's another form of information armageddon.

The essay I quoted today presents new information. The Discovery Institute is coming out with a new textbook: "Explore Evolution". The new tactic is to redefine evolution so that "design" is a major element (misrepresenting what evolutionary theory actually says and ignoring evidence that is not compatible with 'design").

They say History is written by the victor.

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.