Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

If the "higher orders" of society, what media call As and Bs, are less prolific at producing offspring that the "lower orders", the Cs and Ds, does not evolution theory define the former as less fit that the latter?

If so, then a life of easy laxity, indigence, feeble-mindedness and general all-round self-indulgent gross moral turpitude is inevitably going to be selected in.

Evolution generally exhibits high reproduction rates and high wastage rates as can be seen from the swarms caused under favourable conditions where wastage is unusually low. The As and Bs exhibit low reproduction rates and low wastage rates which restricts the possible number of high performance potential individuals. They might be said to be the only cause of what is known as "dumbing down" as the percentage of chinless wonders in positions of authority increases under the guidance of the anti-evolutionary principles of nepotism and asserted competence.

It thus seems inexplicable that As and Bs would promote evolution theory and thus those who do promote that banal theory must be either Cs or Ds or members of the As/Bs awkward squad.

Of course the As and Bs could become more prolific than the Cs and Ds or they might segregate the sexes of "unqualified" persons with them deciding on who is qualified. They could bring back polygamy so that they had all the women to themselves or they could sterilise the Cs and Ds, which they have tried to do. (see Katie Relf and the National Welfare Rights Organisation et al. vs. Caspar W. Weinberger et al before Judge Gerhard A. Gesell ). They could segregate themselves in moated and fenced enclaves employing eunuchs as servants or they could institute chemical, surgical or Pavlovian reconditioning for the Cs and Ds.

They could also stick their head in a soundproof bag as Settin Aah-aah recommends and keep their fingers crossed and their good luck charms serviced reverently.

You demonstrate a complete ignorance of what is meant by "hybrid vigor" with that previous snippet spendi.

And he stole the premise from a movie called Idiocracy.

Never heard of it.

fm wrote-



Thanks. I'm no hybrid. I'm an ordinary Joe.

No comments on the post again I see. It is getting to be embarrassing that you must think nobody is noticing. Was it too good for you? Are you repressing the idea that you WASPS are about to be swamped by a more vigorous breeding segment of the demographic topography.

As Professor Greer wrote-



And seeking to expand the resource base with imperial strategies is counterproductive now that the rest of the world is learning to exploit our science and technology.

And the fear, pain and responsibilities of births reinforce any material reluctance to have children and especially in ladies who are accustomed to the lifestyle and expectations of the As and Bs.

Augustus couldn't get the As and Bs to be more fecund and look what happened to them.

Of the choices I suggested I think polygamy is the most promising but given the state of modern womanhood after 50 years of feminism I would respectfully decline to participate myself. I know the enclave solution is being toyed with and that those with money are buying bolt-holes in Europe.

Please look up hybrid vigor rather than prancing malaprops around like some doosh

fm-

Please try responding to the post instead of blurting out useless interjections and pointless insults.


Why didn't you use "heterosis"? Your usage is merely a form of esoteric snobbery.

I am aware, as I'm not a geneticist, that I only have a simpleton's notion of heterosis but I would like you to explain how my post demonstrated that ignorance which I would expect most others on here to share.

Otherwise it remains just another stupid assertion to add to the very long list of previous stupid assertions which you do not seem capable of preventing yourself from braying.

I see that you just looked up a word that is new to you . Now, If you use it three times it becomes part of your working vocabulary. However, hybrid vigor includes many other aspects of variability besides heterosis (anyway heterosis is a term that has had a brief but uneventful run, its a bit Victorian when seen from this latest millenium) I had a textbook on quantitative evolution written by Falconer himself. I sold it years ago..
I know that youre not a geneticist, nor are you much of a scientist ( depite your claim). Your mind doesnt seem wired to the drudgery necessary to seek out things that first dont stroke your ego.Stick with beer, its more your style.

All I asked for fm was an explanation of how my post demonstrated an ignorance of "hybrid vigor". I didn't claim I wasn't ignorant on the subject. Quite the opposite. I wanted you to tell me, seeing as you asserted it, how my post demonstrated that ignorance.

If I had said that Mr Eddington's table is mostly empty space thinly populated with rapidly moving particles and that such a statement was too radical a correction of common sense, which is a function of science, because it risks depriving scientific theories of the ultimately commonsensical evidential basis on which they depend for some sort of acceptance not derived from the sheer authority of the scientist and it would thus be safer to regard the theories of science as offering highly generalized and effective abstractions from the richness of what exists to our consciousness rather than as the only or the whole truth and you had responded by saying that that just demonstrated how ignorant I was of prediction paradox it wouldn't be unreasonable for me to ask you to explain exactly how you arrived at your conclusion.

No scientist would make such a remark unless he had an explanation ready to hand and if you haven't an explanation of how my earlier post demonstrates an ignorance of "hybrid vigor" it might be safe to assume that you haven't a scientific bone in your body and are nothing but a highly subjective braying machine who thinks everybody else is stupid as a result of getting all your own way for so long that you have internalised it as a dogmatic truth of universal application.

The thing about drudgery is that one ends up being an expert on the subject being drudged and knowing nothing significant about anything else and unable to hold a conversation on any other subject.

I'm now assuming you haven't an explanation from which it is logical to further assume that your remark about my ignorance of "hybrid vigor" was an empty assertion lacking all credibility. You might just as easily have used "deontic logic" as "hybrid vigor" or many an other term of which there is a vast range to choose from to allude to your mastery of scientific knowledge.

I used to impress young ladies with the same trick many years ago before I learned how dangerous it is to impress young ladies or, indeed, older ones.

spendi, You continue to contradict yourself; you make little of farmerman's contributions on science, but you ask him to explain/clarify scientific terms.

You are a card.

Spendi , whose lucid moments are gettuing fewer saidHeres the question I answered , the rest is just your Mouthurbation.

For those anti-IDers not familiar with Pascal's Wager here it is-



One can easily reject with scorn literal interpretations of Genesis and live with that. That's an id-er. ID is a business proposition.

fm wrote-



You failed to say what the "vigor" was in the service of. Was it laying more eggs or putting on saleable meat faster? Streaky bacon maybe?Having thinner fetlocks so the racehorse goes faster on ground that is watered to prevent the horse breaking down? Having prettier petals?

We are discussing human beings in their social context.

I don't think you answered the question at all.

I realise that the Cs and Ds can have vigor but only if the offspring are not subjected in utero or childhood to any negative factors in the environment caused, in a rich society at least, by unequal wealth distribution.

BTW-"Spendi , whose lucid moments are gettuing fewer..." is just another subjective assertion. I don't agree with it for a start. I think you are simply saying that matters you don't wish to deal with are not lucid.

Too easy. Not much drudgery in evidence there. Was it "ego-stroke" you called it in your earlier projection?

Wouldn't "hybrid vigor" in the C/D social setting lead to drug dealing, car stealing and the like in the absence of wealth redistribution? Vigourous young people with little to lose can be a problem.

Some people would be outraged at such vigour and some others would make a good living out of managing it. It would depend on who you were I suppose in appraising it.

I have been aware of the principle in general, without the snobby label, since I was about 8. I grew up on a large estate with pretty gardens and kitchen gardens half under glass and with a number of farms around the periphery. I used to pack day old chicks for transport to far flung places in a state of the art incubation unit. Hatching time was when I first got an interest in sociology. Not that I knew that label either. And I have seen two massive bulls milked every day and their sperm divided up into hundreds of "straws" which mainly went to S America. Those two bulls were serious daddies. (Has Richard Dawkins provided a store for the future benefit of the human race?).

"Hybrid vigor" is hardly worth discussing without any reference to the qualities to be made vigourous and the potential utility of them.

When the Genome project gets into gear we will probably be able to find a mating conjunction producing an offspring who can chew gum whilst on the can and hum I'll Do It My Way whilst getting his earwax out with a matchstick and meditating whether to vote Bill back in again for another 8 years.

That would be a pretty vigourous hybrid that the A/b*set could never achieve. Liza Minnelli could have acted it though.

* I decided to use A/b rather than A/B due to the delicacy of my training in proper etiquette and my sense of the proper order of things when you stop fannying about with self-justifying bullshit.

I'm thinking of using c/D rather than C/D on the basis of that thing about how beastly the bourgeoise is.

past your bed time spendy

pascal's wager

Remember, he's a scientist but hasn't read anything lately.

Joe(He's not a Doctor, he has a Master's Degree)Nation

I think he's a scientist who can ignore Charles Darwin, and all the subsequent scientists who have supported Darwin's theory of evolution.

spendi believes his non-religous based ID is the answer to our environement.

Don't be so ridiculous c.i. Your hermeneutics regarding my posts are abysmal.

Of course I accept Darwin's theories in regard to evolution and those of any scientists who follow them.

But any scientist would know that religion is as exigent to the evolution of cultures as carbon is to the evolution of life on earth. Silicon being a possibility I suppose in other worlds. Pollonium 210 even. Who cares about other worlds? I certainly don't.

Thus, and it seems obvious to me, that when Darwin's theories are used by subversives to destroy religion, rather than for their utility by a small number of valued specialists, they are being used to destroy culture. I don't see how cultures can function without religion of some sort, and none have done, and from an evolutionary point of view Christianity has been selected in. It has the prettiest wings don't you know? And it knows how to flap them. Show me a woman who would swap places with a pre-Christian woman and you are showing me a mad woman.

Christianity invented the science of dynamics and force on which every moment of your life is dependent by a process so complex as to defy explanation. An irreducibly complex process. Anybody who offers an explanation of that process as a true one is stupid by definition. All we really know about it is that it happened and here's you gumps trying to pull the plug on it. Fat chance of that pal. You are not arguing with a bunch of imprisoned girls in a classroom now you know.

Just because an ice-cream is good on a hot day doesn't mean we want force feeding with half a ton a week of it. Science is a truly wonderful treat for all of us and hopefully for the world but it isn't everything.

It is you anti-IDers who are contrarian and bigtime. That's why you continually project your contrarianism on to me. You lot are objectively contrarian. You must hate our way of life is the only explanation I can think of. The fact that you are in a majority of about 5 or 6 to 1 on this thread does not disguise the more important fact that in wider society you are a bunch of bigoted, bad tempered, stupid cranks who haven't even learned to read and write properly yet or think outside of your own solipsistic brain mush.

Just another spendi contradiction.

BTW, it's not 5 or 6 to 1, but about 99 to 1; you're the one.

Being a Spengler fan involves much more than the simple statement represents.

It means being a fan of a way of thinking and feeling which includes being attracted not only to Spengler's great work itself but to the works of others of his fans, Henry Miller for example, and to those he expresses admiration for, such as Cecil Rhodes and a vast range of others.

His name is a sort of label. A shorthand. A sort of bible.

His severe philosophy, patriarchal to its marrow, I find provides interest and affects my way of looking at the world in a manner I like.

Spengler saw life, particularly human life, as having a destiny just as a plant has a destiny through all the stages of its morphology. Cultures as well. And that this destiny, which is fixed, is pulled into the future by a purpose. A divine purpose of which we have no knowledge nor ever will have. It is mystical.

The Darwinian approach, useful as it may be and a label also, is pushed from the past and denies purpose and is posited on dead forms which are set in stone because evolution is a process far too slow to be observed in any truly scientific way. It is subject to blind forces only.

The choice between the two, and they are polarised, for me at least, comes down to a comparison between the personalities and styles of the adherents of the two modes of thought.

In the Darwinian camp I see nothing in the personalities and styles that attracts me whereas the Spenglerian camp contains a whole host of men to admire. I've not seen a woman yet in that camp.

Thus the choice is basically emotional and hence incoherent to a materialist and I assume derives from influences in my youth which are lost in the foggy ruins of time and which anti-IDers can be assumed to be bent on eradicating. Midnight mass at Christmas in a catherdral say. Mother's milk even.

Huxley's famous remark- "Why didn't I think of that?" when he read Origins says it all. It is that simple.

All the Darwinian can do to try to impress people is go to different species and repeat the same old principles for each one relying on technical terms and fancy words for processes by which the studies are undertaken which is really a form of word magic.

When people are impressed it rewards the Darwinian and, in Pavlovian jargon, stamps the pattern in more fixedly and a trap is sprung in his mind.

He gets tunnel vision. His admirers are his worst enemy. They condition him to shut up his mind in one banal and arid box.

Spengler (a label don't forget) whooshes one through a whole gamut of human experience and presents anyone who follows up on his leads with an ever expanding educational opportunity which could easily last a thousand lifetimes.

Decline of the West is not just a book to be read from front to back, closed and added to the list of books one has read.

It can be opened anywhere and a few paragraphs read and other doors open for those who want to go through them in the library or on Google which is, as yet, nowhere near a library and months or even years of enjoyable education results.

Education which is not enjoyable is hopeless.