97
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 10 May, 2007 08:04 am
You're repeating yourself old boy and we all know what that means.

Quote:
If I were to explain my thesis on being anti ID to you Spendi, it would leave you squirming, you couldn't handle it sunshine,


Try me. Don't just assert it. Assertions are not worth the energy involved in keying them up although I'll admit they put your name in lights easy. That's the sum total of their meaning.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Thu 10 May, 2007 09:09 am
Quote:
Prof puts new spin on evolution fight
(Kelly McClurg, The Capital Times, May 10, 2007)

Professor Michael Ruse, a key contributor in the ongoing debate over the divine creation theory of human existence vs. evolution, shared his thoughts on the reasons behind this debate in a lecture at the UW-Madison campus Wednesday, called "The Evolution-Creation Struggle: An American Story."

"I do not see the big battle' as being Genesis versus evolution," Ruse said. "This debate is much more one of providence versus progress."

Ruse, philosophy professor and director of the history and philosophy of science program at Florida State University, has edited or written nearly 30 books on the creation-evolution dispute, including his most recent, "Darwinism and its Discontents."

He stressed that the continuing disagreement among creationists and evolutionists is not simply a result of conflict between the theory of evolution and Bible, or atheists and Bible literalists. It is less about whether a person believes in God, said Ruse, and more about whether they believe in a life of self-directed progress or a life directed by divine providence, in which nothing can be accomplished without God's help.

Ruse illustrated this by tracing the creation-evolution debate to before Charles Darwin even shared his theories on adaptation and evolution, pointing out his ideas were not originally put forth in opposition to religion but rather in support of it, as proof beyond the intangibility of miracles that the world was designed by a higher power.

"When Darwin was pushing adaptation, he was not denying that the world was design-like' -- in fact, he was emphasizing it," Ruse said. "By and large Darwinian theory ought to be pretty acceptable to Christians, and the truth is, it was."

According to Ruse, the theory of evolution was not an issue of contention until scientists and evolutionists stirred debate for the purposes of increasing public scientific education.

As a result of this early push for evolutionary theory, tensions over how it applied to Christianity heightened and society began to split over the question of a literal interpretation of the Bible or a more subjective one that accommodated both evolution and religion. Which brings the issue into the present-day.

"What you start to see more and more," Ruse said, "is that it is not evolution as such; people are not battling over a scientific theory in itself. What they are battling over is what they think evolution stands for."

Such as notions of modernity, industry, science, and liberal views on issues like abortion and gay marriage. Evolution has become a symbol for an entire system of progressive values rather than a mere scientific theory, which is why it often comes into conflict with religion, Ruse said.

And herein lies the root of the problem. It is now providence or progress, rather than providence and progress. Theories that have risen in opposition to Darwin, such as that of intelligent design, which advocates a divinely created world as scientific theory -- although largely unrecognized as such by the scientific community -- continue to set religion and science at odds and, inevitably, people take sides.

"I see this debate in America as being not about evolution but being reflective of something much deeper," Ruse said. "The evolution-creation struggle is not really a struggle about science or even about religion. It is about human souls -- in a non-theological sense. It is about a fight for the soul of America. And that is why I do not think that this debate will go away very quickly in the future."
0 Replies
 
Mathos
 
  1  
Thu 10 May, 2007 09:17 am
I wouldn't want your outcome on my conscience 'barker' don't forget I have been witness to your melodramatic undertakings and tantrums for over two years now on these pages, the varicoloured meanderings you issue are those of a demented and lost soul. Far be it from me to wish to be the exacerbating influence of the windmills of your mind.

The over-ripeness of the terminology associated with vocabulary you many times seek to conclude your point as above, show signs of a bedraggled soul, lost in Hades, hitherto complacent that he be armed with the fateful thrust of truth and justice.

You taunt yourself with indiscretion, nuances of self imposed grandeur, whilst the simplicity abounds like a yearling from the hunter.

You amuse me Spendi, you are a pleasant candidate indeed to offer before the alter steps, but I have no desire to make a sacrifice out of you.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 10 May, 2007 10:03 am
spendi has made himself the "sacrificial lamb" on this thread; it's now just a thread for bemusement and laughter at his meanderings. I don't believe spendi belongs in an institution - his being the local pub - since he is harmless. Go on with the show.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 10 May, 2007 11:36 am
Mathos wrote-

Quote:
Zimmerman is your answer to everything isn't he Spendi! I wouldn't mind wagering you have a shrine built to him at the bottom of your bed, where you kneel and pass the rosary beads through your delicate little fingers every night! Singing a repertoire of his melodies which you self acclaim to be the gospel according to Robert.


Not exactly. I'd need a lot of shrines for all the others I take notice of and learn by if I did that sort of thing. Dylan is here and now and people know about him. What do they know about Joyce and Stendhal? I've been quoting Joubert a bit lately and I'll bet not a threader has ever heard of him before. Now they have. They've been Abled 2 Know if they fancy it. Dylan does it fast and adds something to words.

Listen to this. It is by Paul Williams and he's talking about Dylan singing "I Believe You" at Birmingham (I was on the front row) in July 1981. He goes on for three pages about it in his great book but I'll only quote a little of it.

Quote:
In other words, what we hear on "I Believe in You" that is so electrifying seems to be (and is) the sound of Dylan's voice; what we are really hearing, however, is the sound of his heart. Or you could say (and he probably would) that we're not hearing Dylan at all: spirit is speaking through his voice, spirit is alive in the room.


The Arabic singers do something called Mutrib. It is like that. I lived in the ME for a while and heard it all the time. You don't even need to know the language.

Of course it can't be done that often. But there's a whole bunch who are what Foxy calls a "cloud of witnesses who will testify to it whatever silly blurts you throw at out. It's what real music is all about.

That stuff your hero, Frank Sinatra, does is for cocktail lounges where a roomful of saps come out having had every single one of their stupidities confirmed and reinforced.

I prefer a challege to my received wisdom and to get some value out of my ticket. I can look in a mirror for the self congratulation if I feel like it.
I want to arrive at the other end a different person from what I was at the beginning not an exaggerated version of what am.

It is no gospel. It is just straight talkin' truth and it wouldn't matter who said it. At least he's a person singing with the spirit.

Manchester United Ltd is a thing.

There are no substitutes to put on for Bob.

But it is odd. I never said anything about you building a shrine to Man U despite your obvious worship of it. I leave that sort of empty jibe to those who it does something for. I could make stuff like that up all day long if I felt like it. It's so,so,so phewkin' easy it's beneath my notice. It's an anti-ID thing.

The sneer versus the spirit.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 10 May, 2007 11:52 am
Sheesh- these anti-IDers eh? What can anybody say?

Read their posts dear friends. Read them slowly and carefully. See the defeat in everything they write. Well- rant is a better word.

It's all they can do not having any knowledge of the subject.

Hence I 'have made myself the "sacrificial lamb" on this thread.' Dearie,dearie me.

They come on here to debate and that's a contribution. I'll draw a veil over Mathos. I'm a delicate person.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 10 May, 2007 12:07 pm
What it is is that there are two basic methods of discourse.

The one is where the ideas determine the style, as with Joubert and all the others I mention approvingly and the other is where the style determines the ideas as with Voltaire and Racine and all that stuff that's dead from the neck up and which relies on rote learning anything easy to follow, a loud voice and a stupid audience.

Everybody is free to choose which they prefer but they are not free to deny those basic categories exist.

Notice that Mathos has not answered the question he was asked. He probably has no idea what to say so out comes the tar-brush. There's nobody behind a tar-brush. Just a swishing noise.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 10 May, 2007 12:19 pm
spendi, It's more than a swishing noise. It's evident from your attempts to belittle mathos' opinions.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 10 May, 2007 12:31 pm
That must equally apply to your attempts to belittle others.
0 Replies
 
Mathos
 
  1  
Thu 10 May, 2007 12:42 pm
Take the veil off Spendi, let the readers see what you can do!

Your quotes are totally irrelevant, off subject to start with and your in the habit of using American terminology; This pathetic 'sheesh'
your going to end up wishing me to 'Have a nice day' next.

You need a PMA (Positive Mental Attitude) for your own configurations and ideas, assuming you have some! Quoting Stendhal, Joubert and Zimmerman is Hocus Pocus when the meat needs cooking.


I could quite easily make reference to the words of Oscar Wilde as an example in reference to your bloating and silly, childish rantings!

He skips through the copses singing
And his shadow dances along.
And I know not which I should follow,
The Shadow or the song.

Easy meat aren't you!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 10 May, 2007 12:45 pm
Only where it's deserved, spendi. Others will determine on their own about me.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 10 May, 2007 01:24 pm
Everybody is easy meat when you're on a one way megaphone.

Are you an anti-IDer Mathos? I have my colours nailed up. Why do you keep tugging at the hem of your frock? It isn't as if it's of any importance whether you are or not.

I can do anti-ID better than this lot. They're all half-baked but at least they have a side. You haven't yet so why do you come on here?

Stick and stones might break my bones
But words will never hurt me.
0 Replies
 
Mathos
 
  1  
Thu 10 May, 2007 01:35 pm
Your so content wallowing about in your own excrement, that you fail to note I answered that question with civil aplomb some posts back.

My colours are readily available, the fact you are having a great amount of difficulty in seeing the wood for the trees, is no surprise.


This beligerent attitude you have now sought to express puts me somewhat in mind of Oscar again, certainly not a childish ditty the likes of which you have just thrown down. I bet Zimmerman could improve on that!

My, he's showing his teeth now; He'll be calling me a big girls blouse next.

Oscar.

And twice a day he smoked his pipe
And drank his quart of beer
His soul was resolute, and held
No hiding place for fear;
He often said that he was glad

The hangman's day was near.


Come on Spendi, get a growl on!
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 10 May, 2007 02:36 pm
I already have. A "ROAR" actually it seems. The shrinking violet has tip-toed away at least.

Are you an anti-IDer or not.?

Do you want Science to be muzzled then?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 10 May, 2007 03:02 pm
spendi, Where do you come up with such crazy ideas about science being muzzled?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 10 May, 2007 04:57 pm
Come off it c.i.

For goodness sake.

Get with it.
0 Replies
 
Mathos
 
  1  
Fri 11 May, 2007 02:05 am
Watch this space Spendi! I'm only going to tell you one more time.

I'm totally anti ID

Science is well and truly muzzled (CI is kidding himself if he thinks it isn't)

I'm not afraid to take the muzzle off.

The occidental world especially has grown soft, somewhat akin to an over-ripe decaying water melon. The nanny states we have produced are destroying true men and leaving a bunch of hypocritical mard-arsed whingers on the floor looking for lawyers and a pay day.

Your in that category too Spendi. You mask the facts with beer and systematic personal oblivion, kidding yourself that utopia is in the confines of your pubs four walls. It isn't.

Things are going to change! There will be an opening of a new and 'Brave New World' the whingers will be spare parts and nourishment for the survivors.

Your too old to be counted in!

Maybe you'll add to the fertiliser requirements.

I don't think you could take it in, if I opened up.

Have you ever been hit Spendi? Felt blood gushing down the back of your throat, a broken rib, black eye, loosened teeth?

I doubt it. Not so many have.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Fri 11 May, 2007 04:45 am
Holy cow.

No, not you.

Ultra-violence.

Luckily for us a muzzled dog can still bark.

Joe(Meanwhile Nature is indifferent, just like God)Nation
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Fri 11 May, 2007 08:52 am
Quote:
Evolution Important Question, But Debate Left Us No Wiser
(By Kathleen Parker, Washington Post, May 10, 2007)

WASHINGTON -- In a nation where 91 percent of citizens profess to believe in God, it's a safe bet we won't see an atheist in the White House anytime soon.

But what about a president who doesn't believe in Darwin? And are Darwin and God mutually exclusive?

These are the questions that (still) trouble men's souls. And still cause trouble for presidential candidates forced unfairly to essentially choose between God and science.

In the "gotcha" question of the first GOP debate, journalist Jim VandeHei, relaying a citizen's question, asked John McCain: "Do you believe in evolution?"

A natural response might have been, "Well, that depends on how you define evolution.'' It would seem that Clintonian nuance is off the boards for now. Instead, McCain gambled and said -- no doubt with fear and trembling in his political heart -- "Yes.''

Next VandeHei asked: Is there anyone on the stage who doesn't believe in evolution? Three raised their hands -- Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas and Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado.

As debate audiences were pondering the meaning of Darwin in the Oval Office, McCain asked permission to elaborate. McCain then added: "I believe in evolution. But I also believe, when I hike the Grand Canyon and see it at sunset, that the hand of God is there also.''

Note to George Tenet: This is what you call a slam dunk. McCain was able to acknowledge both science and religion -- evolutionary theory and creationism -- and make them mutually exclusive. Some may call that "fence-straddling'' or "having it both ways,'' but political observers call it "Bingo!'

The others weren't so fortunate. Like little boys called to the front of the class for public humiliation, Huckabee, Tancredo and Brownback immediately became targets of ridicule by the educated elite who, though Darwinists all, were presented with a contradiction: If Darwin was right, how did these knuckle-draggers make it to the presidential campaign podium?

The truth is, each man took a calculated risk -- or a courageous stand, depending on one's view. To say "yes'' would have been to betray evangelical Christian voters, 73 percent of whom believe that human beings were created in their present form in the last 10,000 years or so.
To these folks, "no'' didn't mean anti-science; it meant pro-God and conveyed a transcendent, non-materialistic view of the world. To secular Darwinists, "no'' meant either ignorance or pandering to the ignorant -- most likely both.

On its surface, the question seems simple enough -- if oddly out of century. Darwin's theory of evolution isn't exactly hot off the presses. But it remains controversial among some people of faith -- including some respected scientists -- for whom evolutionary theory reduces man's world to a godless accident bereft of moral meaning or structure.

To the faithful, in other words, it is not such a simple question. It also was not a fair question under the circumstances. Yes or no doesn't quite cover the complex issues implicit in any mention of Darwin these days.

In a conversation after the debate, Huckabee said, "I wish life were so simple. If it were, we'd be in a game show and not running a presidential campaign ... If I'd had time, I would have asked whether he meant macro or micro evolution?''

That's a different sort of answer than what is inferred from a simple "no'' forced by the manic pace of a 90-minute "debate'' among 10 candidates, none of whom is qualified to seriously debate scientific theory. Nor, as president, should they try. In fact, Huckabee says he does believe in evolution (with qualifications) and thinks Darwin's theory should be taught in schools.

"I do know that species do, in fact, adapt and there are many instances of adaptation and mutation,'' he said, "but I still believe that the design has a designer and the creation has a creator. I wouldn't pretend to fill in the blanks between what God created and what is today.''

Microevolution and macroevolution can't be properly distilled in this space, but broadly speaking, micro allows for the possibility of a creator. McCain more or less expressed the micro view that evolution doesn't necessarily preclude God.

These are interesting and complex issues that compel smart, thoughtful people to passionate debate and serious investigation -- too complicated, in other words, for an insta-response in a politically charged arena.
The debate question was fundamentally a setup for ridicule. No one was served and no one, alas, is the wiser.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 11 May, 2007 09:49 am
Mathos wrote-

Quote:
I'm totally anti ID


and

Quote:
I'm not afraid to take the muzzle off.


Well thanks. That makes a change. Not that I believe you of course. Not the "totally" I mean. It's probably no more than a fad you picked up to suit your conveniences way back and you have never really thought of examining it in detail. Only probably mind you. I'll allow for you having intellectual integrity. It is possible.

In fact I will proceed on the basis that you do have intellectual integrity from now on and then we can get the total anti-ID position out in the open where it belongs, assuming you understand it, if we are going to be influencing the future generations through the educational process.

Perhaps you will comment on this-

When Europeans first encountered the Zulu in South Africa they found that a key dogma in their religious code was that a man could not have a woman until he had "dipped his spear in the blood of the enemy."

The point is that no matter how much the Colonial administrators deprecated this ferocity inducing religious custom,deriving from their God/s, it was in their face as a fact. It had evolved and there it was like a finch on an island. They saw, Rider Haggard reports, and he was one of them, that they needed to extirpate this doctrine and, as things stand today, they seem to have almost succeeded.

Now it is quite respectable to defend this practice as it existed in the circumstances on any number of grounds. It could, for example, be an easier way that we have now for getting laid. But all the grounds on which it is defensible are related to the social consequences of the practice and its function in the tribes survival and dominance in the area. Darwinian theology must approve of it as it must approve of the finch's wing feathers and colours or a turtle's shell. That is because Darwinian theology rests on non-Christian grounds.

Judging from your homily about us all going soft due to the ministrations of the Nanny state you approve of the Zulu practice here. And now. Copious blood flow is usually a sign of hard men about.

Would that be a reasonable conclusion? After all total anti-ID eschews Christian theology. It's superstitious bullshit they say. If not it is as half-baked as anti-ID in its non-total form and thus there would be no reason to add the word "totally". It then becomes another bloody empty assertion serving only to make you feel more macho than the wimpy anti-IDers we find in our company.

But it is the carriers of the Christian theology, forgetting the Boers, who have tamed this tribe and now they play cricket and pay through the nose to get laid. So who is toughest Mathos- The tamer or the tamed?

We have tamed lions and tigers to fake being ferocious. That's serious taming. I've seen them at the circus. 300 years from now the posh will have them as house pets like our cats and dogs. I bet a few do now somewhere in that wild world of incident.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 01/20/2025 at 09:34:55