97
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sun 20 May, 2007 07:09 am
wande quoted-

Quote:
On a chilly, late March day I was happily sipping a Starbucks half-caf when I caught a glimpse of a friend's cup and narrowly avoided performing a Danny Thomas-style spit take. On the side of the paper cup was printed


Not much of an inducement to read on after that infantile intro.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sun 20 May, 2007 08:28 am
A detail in a picture of the "intellectual".

It is, again, from Park Honan in his Matthew Arnold. A Life.

Quote:
Men alternate between langour and passion: the mass are clerks and drones existing as slaves in the soul's hot prison, and the so-called independent few, or intellectuals, are madmen on a sea of moral experiment flying before despotic winds. These slaves who "their lives to some unmeaning taskwork give" will soon, he realizes, include himself: ( a job as School's Inspector ) and his lines especially in their tone depict the souls of a thousand million city people from his time to ours, from Leningrad to Sydney, London to New York to Tokyo.........

The "few" who escape from economic necessity and social conformity, the proud intellectuals, are like the mad helmsman,

"Still bent to make some port he knows not where,
Still standing for some false, impossible shore....

Is there no life, but these alone?
Madman or slave, must man be one?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Sun 20 May, 2007 08:32 am
Wande--Ive seen those ransdom thoughts on Starbucks cups. Ive always wondered whether they have some committee made upof Spendi or gungasnake types who only see the world out of their anal orifices.
0 Replies
 
Mathos
 
  1  
Sun 20 May, 2007 10:27 am
spendius wrote:
It's okay Mathos. I didn't notice it.



Don't concern yourself Spendipussy, your carte blanche mannerisms are well documented amongst the stars!
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Sun 20 May, 2007 10:29 am
spendius wrote:
It's okay Mathos. I didn't notice it.


Didn't notice what?

Joe(Are you okay, Mathos?)Nation
0 Replies
 
Mathos
 
  1  
Sun 20 May, 2007 10:39 am
As ripe as a cherry in June Joe...Thanks for asking :wink:
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sun 20 May, 2007 10:59 am
Wande--Ive seen those random thoughts in various media output put there for sordid reasons. Ive always wondered whether they have some editorial committee made up of types who only see the world out of their anal orifices.

Gee -this is easy. You don't need to think. I understand why it is so popular now. It requires no mental effort whatsoever; not one scorrick.

It's like handbags at ten paces except you don't need the handbags.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Sun 20 May, 2007 02:31 pm
I prefer handmaidens at less than arms length.
Given your penchants, it would appear Darwinism is alive and well.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sun 20 May, 2007 03:03 pm
That's right Chum. Gratuitous, self-flattering assertions are "unfit" in grown-up debate. They are ineffective where it matters. Without firepower I mean. But that's barbaric isn't it?

Anyway- when have I ever said, or even intimated, that Darwinism isn't alive and well. It certainly is strong enough not to need half-assed defence.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Sun 20 May, 2007 03:14 pm
Perhaps you miss my tongue-in-cheek (not yours however), are you not celibate?
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Mon 21 May, 2007 08:27 am
CREATION MUSEUM UPDATE

Quote:
Facts about the museum and beliefs
(BY RYAN CLARK, Cincinnati Enquirer, May 20, 2007

WHAT IS CREATIONISM?
A belief in the literal interpretation of the Bible: that God created the world in six 24-hour days on a planet just 6,000 years old (according to Biblical genealogies). The interpretation runs counter to accepted scientific theory, which says Earth and its life forms evolved over billions of years.

Followers base their views of history and science on a literal reading of Genesis, the first book of the Old Testament. They say science "facts" must be interpreted, that many forms of scientific dating are inconclusive and that many scientists provide only one possibility of how the world began. They refer to the Bible as "the history book of the universe," which they say helps make sense of the world.

A FEW SPECIFICS
Mark Looy, vice president for Answers in Genesis, explains what creationists believe on these topics:

Dinosaurs: Dinosaurs, a major Creation Museum theme, were originally vegetarians that co-existed with man and the rest of God's creatures in the perfect world before Adam's sin.

Continental drift: The Bible is virtually silent about plate tectonics, except for a reference to the "breaking up" of the fountains of the Great Deep during Noah's Flood. Many creationists believe that, under the right conditions, plates could have moved rapidly (not a "drift") during Noah's Flood.

Stars: Answers in Genesis astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle and his new planetarium programs proclaim that God "made the stars also" (Genesis 1:16). And the writer of the 19th chapter of the Book of Psalms says that the heavens declare the glory of God.

Carbon dating: Carbon dating can date only tens of thousands of years. Assumptions about other radiometric decay-rates give dates of millions or billions of years, but there is much evidence that the rates were accelerated in the past.

Different "races": The Bible (Acts 17:26) and science (the field of genetics) teach that there is only one group of people - the human race - and that skin colors are shades of one color (brown).

Fossils: Most fossils found in the ground were formed as a result of a catastrophic flood a few thousands years ago - the flood that is recorded in the Bible (Genesis Chapters 6-9).

WHAT IS THE STATEMENT OF FAITH?
Before a person is hired in the Answers in Genesis ministry, or the Creation Museum, he must sign a Statement of Faith.

According to the Answers in Genesis Web site, the worker agrees that he believes, among other things: that "Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation," and "no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."

WHAT IS ANSWERS IN GENESIS?
It is an independent, nonprofit, international ministry organization based in Petersburg, Ky. Its headquarters is on site of the Creation Museum.

WHO IS ANSWERS IN GENESIS?
In all, about 300 people work there as part of the ministry and the museum.

They include Ken Ham, president of the ministry, who decided to start his ministry based on the Bible in a central U.S. location, hence the move to Kentucky's Boone County.

Jason Lisle is the museum's astrophysicist. His job is to make certain the museum's theories are scientifically accurate.

"God constructed the universe so you and I can understand it," he says. "It is logical, and it speaks of his design."

Patrick Marsh, the museum's design director, is a Los Angeles native and a former designer for theme parks like Universal Studios. He is charged with making the museum fun. His work is based on his deep-rooted faith in creationism.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Mon 21 May, 2007 09:05 am
If any of that sounds stupid to you, consider that the alternative is evolutionism, which really IS stupid.

The sum total of miracles descri bed in the bible, both testaments in the case of Christians, is probably less than a hundred. Evolution on the other hand requires an endless sequence of probabilistic miracles and outright violations of real physical and mathematical laws. You could devise a new religion by taking the single stupidest idea or doctrine from each of the existing religions, and even that would make more sense than evolution.

Linus Van Pelt's "Great Pumpkin" theology makes more sense than evolution.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Mon 21 May, 2007 09:14 am
Intelligent design is not science. It's mysticism. It's guessing. It's untestable. It's horseshit.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Mon 21 May, 2007 09:19 am
gungasnake wrote:
If any of that sounds stupid to you, consider that the alternative is evolutionism, which really IS stupid.

The sum total of miracles descri bed in the bible, both testaments in the case of Christians, is probably less than a hundred. Evolution on the other hand requires an endless sequence of probabilistic miracles and outright violations of real physical and mathematical laws. You could devise a new religion by taking the single stupidest idea or doctrine from each of the existing religions, and even that would make more sense than evolution.

Linus Van Pelt's "Great Pumpkin" theology makes more sense than evolution.


While I don't think the evolutionists have it all figured out any more than the creationists have it all figured out, I don't see these as opposing theories. I prefer a reasoned image of evolution contained within and operating from within Intelligent Design. While scientists can be as guilty as religionists of drawing wrong conclusions about what they research and study, I don't think they have to be enemies or necessarily be at odds with each other.

ID is beyond human ability to describe or define within any parameters known to human kind, and yet we can know of its existence. And we can reason that ID would be so large and all encompassing that it could quite easily contain science within it. Indeed ID would be the author of science. We mortals are not privy to know how ID would presume to design and order the universe. We can only know and understand little bits of it and I can be a strong IDer and still believe that this allows for Darwin's theory and natural selection.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Mon 21 May, 2007 09:34 am
Foxfyre wrote:
I can be a strong IDer and still believe that this allows for Darwin's theory and natural selection.


Yes, you can, but you can't teach ID in a science class.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Mon 21 May, 2007 09:52 am
Foxfyre wrote:
While scientists can be as guilty as religionists of drawing wrong conclusions about what they research and study, I don't think they have to be enemies or necessarily be at odds with each other.

From a scientific point of view, depending on how you define "god", the god hypothesis is either refuted or superfluous. For most religions, on the other hand, the god hypothesis lies at the core of their existence. How are these viewpoints not at odds with one another?
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Mon 21 May, 2007 10:01 am
foxfyre,

Your description of ID is something that can be "known" through spiritual faith only.

Evolutionary theory offers an explanation of natural processes through an examination of material evidence only. Science ignores spiritual issues. If new material evidence refutes a scientific theory, scientists correct their theory. Spiritual beliefs are not correctible in this way.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Mon 21 May, 2007 10:08 am
Spiritual beliefs are not correctible in any way. They develop their own "evolution" through the minds of many.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Mon 21 May, 2007 10:39 am
Oy, Im still stuck back with gunga's logic.
BTW gunga, yeh , the biblical account does really sound extra stupid. i LIKE THE WAY YOU TRY TO QUANTIFY THE NUMBER OF "MIRACLES" AS a "tit-for-tat" equivalency in incredulity. Is that a new twist on silliness?
A "miracle" is an event that CONTRADICTS scientific laws. How can evolution contradict its very basis?

You can buy a ticket to the Creationists museum, or you can sit down and study a bit more.
Buyin a ticket's certainly cheaper.

How do they interpret dinosaurs , whose very dentition is similar only to living carnivores, as plant eaters? IZZAT wacky or what.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Mon 21 May, 2007 10:44 am
wandeljw wrote:
foxfyre,

Your description of ID is something that can be "known" through spiritual faith only.

Evolutionary theory offers an explanation of natural processes through an examination of material evidence only. Science ignores spiritual issues. If new material evidence refutes a scientific theory, scientists correct their theory. Spiritual beliefs are not correctible in this way.


No, Wandel. Anything can be "known" or more correctly "proved" through personal experience only. Anything, including evolution and all other sciences, that is not personally experienced is believed by faith alone. If you think about it, you will know that I am right.

At the same time I am not saying that ID is anything like science. ID is not testable in the same way that science is testable. These are two totally different concepts that coexist separately at the same time but are not comparable. For this reason I and most IDers do not agree to ID being taught as science. But because for most of us, ID is learned through personal experience, we also will not agree to science teachers dismissing ID as invalid or unbelievable.

Again that's all I ask. Science teachers should teach science as well as science can be known and taught. Science teachers should not presume to teach the concepts of ID and that includes dismissing it as invalid.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 01/22/2025 at 07:17:46