97
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Fri 20 Jul, 2007 12:43 pm
real life wrote:
hi spendi,

I have tried to make sure that my posts speak only for myself, not for you. I think most folks know that to be the case.

Sorry if you have thought that I somehow cast a bad shadow on you.

The social consequences of Darwinism which seem to interest you a lot are important IMO also, but they are generally not what seems to be of interest to a lot of other folks on the science forum. I can't help that either, sorry.

I don't want to discourage you, but the politics forum might be a better venue for discussion of social trends, etc . Just a thought. I'm glad to have you here. Take good care. Cool


Thank you, real life.

spendi: I totally agree with real life's assessment.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 20 Jul, 2007 01:22 pm
I presume wande that you will have a good idea what conclusion I draw from your primly pedestrian remark.

But I think it is fair to say that everyone on here speak only for themselves so there's very little one can say about it being pointed out.

It is my view, as you well know, that Creationists do indeed "cast a bad shadow" on this thread for reasons I have often thought fit to mention and which you seemingly have forgotten. Even the Pope knows Creationism is a dead duck and does discredit to modern Christianity and it is not mentioned in the thread title.

I had thought that you didn't agree that the social consequences of Darwinism were "important also",as rl said they were, due to the fact that discussions of them are not to your taste. Thus on the one point of substance your "totally" looks a bit exaggerated.

And if you didn't think that rl's final paragraph was patronising, to both of us, as this is your thread and he vainly invited me to piss off, and bad mannered, then you must not know what either of those expressions mean unless another conclusion is drawn which I will forbear mentioning.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Fri 20 Jul, 2007 01:56 pm
spendius wrote:
It is my view, as you well know, that Creationists do indeed "cast a bad shadow" on this thread for reasons I have often thought fit to mention and which you seemingly have forgotten. Even the Pope knows Creationism is a dead duck and does discredit to modern Christianity and it is not mentioned in the thread title.


I disagree, spendi. Creationists have always been welcome to make their case on this thread. Creationists use scientific concepts to promote their views. Intelligent Design proponents employ many of the same criticisms of evolutionary theory that have been made by creationists.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 20 Jul, 2007 02:13 pm
Perhaps wande, you may also consider just how long it is since rl paid you the compliment of visiting your esteemed thread with his distasteful and discourteous response to a lady visitor.

Quote:
I disagree, spendi. Creationists have always been welcome to make their case on this thread.


You are certainly entitled to disagree although it is hardly an argument. Obviously you welcome Creationists on the thread. They are easily refuted and easy things are for ever attractive.

I don't recall any Creationists deploying any scientific concepts. Perhaps you will enlighten me on that score. And which proponents of id on this thread have employed the same tactics. You might end up in dispute with ghosts by this process. And one always wins in such disputes.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Fri 20 Jul, 2007 02:22 pm
spendius wrote:
Perhaps wande, you may also consider just how long it is since rl paid you the compliment of visiting your esteemed thread with his distasteful and discourteous response to a lady visitor.

Quote:
I disagree, spendi. Creationists have always been welcome to make their case on this thread.


You are certainly entitled to disagree although it is hardly an argument. Obviously you welcome Creationists on the thread. They are easily refuted and easy things are for ever attractive.

I don't recall any Creationists deploying any scientific concepts. Perhaps you will enlighten me on that score. And which proponents of id on this thread have employed the same tactics. You might end up in dispute with ghosts by this process. And one always wins in such disputes.


Have you ever considered getting a life?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 20 Jul, 2007 03:39 pm
I might consider it if you could give me an idea of just what this "life" thing actually is.

Would it by any chance be anything like any of those billions of lives which have neither the time nor inclination to read, copy and respond to my posts. You must think of them as stones or something when the person you are attempting to converse with needs to get a life.

Perhaps I could say the same to you but, as I pointed out to Steve earler, it would be equally meaningless and pointless except that it would demonstrate to others that I had nothing to say but had a strong desire to stick my oar in and twirl it around in a desultory fashion. That it would also be deficient in manners might also cross my mind but one would hardly expect such a delicate consideration from an area whose cricket team tried to dig up the pitch their opponents were shortly to bat on after utilising it themselves whilst it was in pristine condition.

Such a life is not on my agenda.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Fri 20 Jul, 2007 07:07 pm
spendius wrote:
I might consider it if you could give me an idea of just what this "life" thing actually is.

Would it by any chance be anything like any of those billions of lives which have neither the time nor inclination to read, copy and respond to my posts.


Those are exactly the kind of lives worth emulating. Smile
0 Replies
 
Pauligirl
 
  1  
Fri 20 Jul, 2007 07:44 pm
real life wrote:


I was surprised that Pauligirl found the article to be of any value whatsoever.


The point was connecting BAV to the ICR.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 21 Jul, 2007 03:29 am
wande wrote-

Quote:
Those are exactly the kind of lives worth emulating.


Apart from the implied insult of assuming I, and others, don't know what the word "exactly" means without it being dramatically emphasised I might say that a logical positivist starting from the principle offered for our delectation and edification would favour closing down debate forums or, being a little pedantic, just A2K, or, to be very pedantic, just your thread wande or to be very, very pedantic just those persons who-

Quote:
read, copy and respond to my posts
.

The majority of the billions of lives I was obviously referring to are lucky if they can get hold of a dollar a day and have clean drinking water.

But realistically it is a very minor matter when some individual wishes to read, copy and respond to my posts, and thus fails to emulate the lives you enjoin us to, and display his ignorance and bad manners.

What is not a minor matter is how will an anti-ID world, which is being argued for on here, regulate the sexual drive and reproductive function within a social organisation of great wealth and power using exclusively scientific methods where the pure truth is the only ruling principle.

I could easily offer an answer to that, a few even, were I so minded, but it is noteworthy that anti-IDers on here are reticent of doing so despite the obvious fact that such regulation is much the most important aspect of all developed social systems and are seemingly very keen to distract themselves from thinking about it by jumping all over every irrelevant point that comes up.

What is really striking about that is that they seem to think that no-one is noticing this reticence and drawing the obvious conclusion from it.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Sat 21 Jul, 2007 03:21 pm
Taner Edis, a Turkish-American physics professor, wrote an article about the author of "Atlas of Creation" in 2002:

Quote:
Harun Yahya and Islamic Creationism

"Darwin Day" could probably only be thought of in the United States. After all, among industrialized nations, the US is the only one with a strong creationist movement, causing endless battles over school curricula. Other countries have their anti-evolutionary moments, but the American market for creationism is the largest. Ken Ham might present his "Answers in Genesis" (www.answersingenesis.org) with an Australian accent, but he found it best to move to the US.

Of course, Americans are not the only people who have a strong streak of old-time religion in their culture, and who perceive the strain modern science puts on the old verities. In this time of religious revival around the globe, the Islamic world is perhaps the most striking in its attachment to a scripturally literalist faith. However, until recently, "creation-science" was not very visible in Muslim lands. Ironically, this was mainly because Darwinian evolution rarely appeared in education or in intellectual life.

In 1873, in the days of the Ottoman Empire, Mithat Efendi mentioned Darwin's theory in one of his writings. The religious scholars put out a fatwa declaring him an apostate. In the twentieth century, the scholars lost their traditional power in many countries, and Western ideas increased in influence. Still, Muslim thinkers took it for granted that either evolution did not occur, or that any development in life happened under direct divine guidance. The Quran, after all, declares special creation, particularly of humans. The blind naturalistic process modern science has come to accept obviously had to be wrong; the Darwinian view of nature was but another indication of Western degeneration in religion and morals. However, Muslim apologists rarely felt a need to elaborate their dismissal of Darwin.

In the US, creationism appeals to a religiously conservative population who have become upwardly mobile, joining professional classes where technical knowledge is highly valued. They are concerned both to affirm their traditional, morality-infused view of nature and at the same time, respect science and technology. Creation-science promises to accomplish this without compromise. Interestingly, a similar situation has developed in the Islamic world. Particularly in Turkey, long the most modernized among Muslim nations, the last few decades has been a time of both religious revival, and of the growing power of a religiously conservative segment of society who operates in a global capitalist economy. And so, perhaps unsurprisingly, creationism has recently erupted in Turkey, and influenced other Muslim countries. Muslim immigrant communities in the West -- also caught between old-time religion and the modern world -- have also been increasingly exposed to creationism, often imported from Turkey.

One name dominates Turkish creationism: Harun Yahya. Supposedly this is the pen name of Adnan Oktar, the leader of a religious order. But Yahya is credited with so many books, articles, videos, and web pages (www.hyahya.org) that it is hard to believe this is a one-man industry. Plus the intellectual prowess of leaders of religious orders are commonly exaggerated -- tales of incredible intellectual productivity serve as a kind of modern miracle story, bolstering the stature of charismatic teachers. So Yahya is not really a person but the flag under which the most prominent Turkish creationist activities set sail.

What is immediately striking about Yahya's productions is how modern and media-conscious they are. Before the Yahya era, expressions of creationist sentiment in Turkey were generally confined to religious intellectual circles; these writings rarely went beyond throwaway references to the obvious intelligent design in biology, and denunciations of evolution generally occupied a few passages in books concentrating on larger religious themes. Some religious orders striving to create an Islamic version of modernity attacked evolution in their "science magazines," but these had limited effect -- a well-heeled and media-savvy creationism, with great production values, continually harping on the evils of evolution, was unheard of. In contrast, Yahya's material is in full color, printed on glossy paper, copiously illustrated, popular in orientation (it uses few Arabic terms, unlike much religious literature), and available in all sorts of modern media. These publications are ubiquitous, found not just in bookstores but even in supermarket chains owned by the new breed of "Islamic corporations."

It is clear that Yahya's project commands an immense amount of resources. It is doubtful that Yahya's lavishly produced materials support themselves -- they are priced to be affordable, and even obtaining them for free takes no great effort. The August 2002 issue of Mercek, his "monthly scientific and cultural magazine" sold for about $1.80, including two VCD's (video CD-ROM's), and the only ad for non-Yahya merchandise it contained was for a series of materials to learn English (important for the upwardly mobile). Yahya's web sites make most of his books available online, in a wide variety of languages -- at no charge. Turkish creationism has gone international, and Yahya's books are as easily found and as prominently displayed in Islamic bookstores in London as in Istanbul. And the organization behind all of this, and the sources of its finances, are virtually unknown. The Turkish state, notoriously unable to bring the underground economy under control, or even collect taxes from most businesses, is also unable to enforce regulations on religious foundations.

Another striking aspect of Yahya's material is how much of it is taken, with minimal changes, from Western creationist literature such as that associated with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). Since the Quran is not as specific as the Genesis story, Islamic creationists usually allow an old earth, so Yahya discards flood-geology and is noncommittal about the age of the earth. But the rest is there, flavored with quotations from some "Intelligent Design" figures, and all set in a matrix of traditional Islamic apologetics hammering on how obvious it is that there is a designing intelligence behind all the wonders of nature. ICR-style creationism, which we tend to think of as a sectarian, evangelical Protestant peculiarity, turns out to be pre-adapted to an Islamic environment.

Yahya also promotes other beliefs far from mainstream science and scholarship, besides creationism. These tend to be his versions of conspiratorial ideas popular in the Muslim world, such as Masonic plots and holocaust denial. But even when indulging these politically-colored fantasies, Yahya has a way of getting back to denouncing evolution. Fascism: The Bloody Ideology of Darwinism (Istanbul: Kultur, 2002) begins with a "To The Reader" section, where Yahya explains that evolution is at the root of evil today: "The reason why a special chapter is assigned to the collapse of the theory of evolution is that this theory constitutes the basis of all anti-spiritual philosophies. Since Darwinism rejects the fact of creation, and therefore the existence of God, during the last 140 years it has caused many people to abandon their faith or fall into doubt. Therefore, showing that this theory is a deception is a very important duty, which is strongly related to the religion. It is imperative that this important service be rendered to everyone. Some of our readers may find the chance to read only one of our books. Therefore, we think it appropriate to spare a chapter for a summary of this subject."

The same preface and the same anti-evolutionary chapter, "The Misconception of Evolution" (with different illustrations) appear in Islam Denounces Terrorism (3rd edition, Bristol: Amal Press, 2002). In this book, Yahya treats the reader not only to standard apologetics about Islam being a religion of peace, but in his chapter "The Real Roots of Terrorism: Darwinism and Materialism" exposes the true culprit behind events like September 11: evolution. Apparently, "the way to stop acts of terrorism is to put an end to Darwinist-materialist education, to educate young people in accord with a curricula [sic] based on true scientific findings and to instil in them the fear of God and the desire to act wisely and scrupulously." (p. 147)

What then, of opposition to Yahya, particularly in Turkey, where his name is known best? Unfortunately, this is weak. Turkey is a "developing country," a polite term to describe a place which is economically a colony administered by the IMF, politically unstable, and poor. The Turkish scientific community is weak, unable to find even a unified voice in fighting the creationists, let alone muster comparable resources. Occasionally, political secularists complain about Yahya, but secularists can do little else lately but wring hands and hope against hope that the European Community will let Turkey become a member, and maybe then everything will be all right. At the time of writing, Turkey was poised for elections at the end of 2002, and an Islamist party was expected to come out with the largest share of the vote.

Still, friends of Darwin can find a few reasons to be optimistic. After all, creationism is a reaction, and the very fact that a Harun Yahya exists is evidence that evolutionary ideas have penetrated far enough into Turkish culture that religious conservatives feel a need to take action. And Yahya becoming known throughout the Islamic world might mean that evolution is making inroads there as well.

On the other hand, there are even more reasons to be pessimistic. Yahya seems successful in grabbing public attention, with little opposition. As the degree of conservatism of Turkish governments fluctuates, the degree of creationism in high school biology texts also goes up and down, but evolution, if present, will inevitably be relegated to the last chapter the class will not have time to cover. And the notion that the complexities of life and the universe can only result from divine design runs very deep in Islamic apologetics. Muslims will, by and large, to continue to see Darwinian evolution as obviously false, and maybe even evil, for a long time to come. With Harun Yahya, we have a phenomenon which we in the Western world we should carefully watch and learn from as we celebrate "Darwin Day." For here we have a creationism which threatens to be successful in its ambitions to drive evolution out of the culture.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sun 22 Jul, 2007 07:16 am
One cannot go from-

Quote:
. Plus the intellectual prowess of leaders of religious orders are commonly exaggerated -- tales of incredible intellectual productivity serve as a kind of modern miracle story, bolstering the stature of charismatic teachers


to

Quote:
So Yahya is not really a person but the flag under which the most prominent Turkish creationist activities set sail.


One can try to of course but it is just another example of assuming an uneducated audience. So it is.

Even if the second statement is true one needs more evidence for it than the first one provides.

So, (nice word eh?) Mr Edis is either a bit thick or a bit devious.

Quote:
The Turkish state, notoriously unable to bring the underground economy under control, or even collect taxes from most businesses, is also unable to enforce regulations on religious foundations.


I think that might mean anything anyone wishes it to mean.

Quote:
ICR-style creationism, which we tend to think of as a sectarian, evangelical Protestant peculiarity, turns out to be pre-adapted to an Islamic environment.


Yes-well. That's a head scratcher. The rules of football have turned out to be pre-adapted to the Islamic situation. Turkey has hosted the European Cup Final.

Quote:
Yahya also promotes other beliefs far from mainstream science and scholarship, besides creationism.


Don't we all? Take monogamy for example which is contra scientific principles as any stud farm owner will confirm.

Quote:
These tend to be his versions of conspiratorial ideas popular in the Muslim world, such as Masonic plots and holocaust denial.


Neither are the exclusive preserve of the Muslim world.

Quote:
But even when indulging these politically-colored fantasies


Harry Potter and The Da Vinci Code are both popular and politically coloured fantasies.

Quote:
Yahya explains that evolution is at the root of evil today:


Obviously. Scientific theory has no concept of evil just as evolution hasn't.
The black heart of human animal nature, which evolution theory must endorse, can only be bleached by religious belief and even then only to a limited extent. It can be regulated by terror of course but the regulators will always define their own actions as "good".

Quote:
The reason why a special chapter is assigned to the collapse of the theory of evolution is that this theory constitutes the basis of all anti-spiritual philosophies.


Obviously. Although "many" is required instead of "all". Anti-spiritual philosophies existed long before Darwin.

Quote:
." For here we have a creationism which threatens to be successful in its ambitions to drive evolution out of the culture.


And supporters of evolution are unwilling to describe society when evolution has been driven in. Their failure in that regard, and it is striking on this thread, means that they are up for a leap in the dark on the basis of "trust us". And they won't even be here when the effects come to pass.
They are indulging in an abstract mind-game with practical politics hidden under a cute veil usually of that design known as "tart's knickers".

I wouldn't give the spiel cupboard space Turkish-American physics professor notwithstanding. It's just more flattery for anti-IDers to wallow in complacently.

I accept that it is suitable for trying to bury-

Quote:
What is not a minor matter is how will an anti-ID world, which is being argued for on here, regulate the sexual drive and reproductive function within a social organisation of great wealth and power using exclusively scientific methods where the pure truth is the only ruling principle.


into the limbo of the last page. And that is another underestimation of the readers on here which seems to be a spiritual belief on its own account commonly associated with anti-IDism.

I can use words like "commonly" too. Unless the anti-ID Thought Police claim the exclusive right to use it.

Still-it was 2002.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Sun 22 Jul, 2007 07:34 am
The American mail-out had apparently occured in this year . I only recieved my copy in June .

I see that spendi has taken wandels post and extracted his bites in an all night frenzy of " contemnity". Spendi has, in his C&P- athon , produced nothing but spittle on a stick.
Might I suggest spendi, that, in the future, you consider providing us a table of contents for your rants. I wanna get to the funny parts quickly and dont much need to go through your trappist vows of PCandO
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sun 22 Jul, 2007 08:01 am
Had I engaged in an " all night frenzy" fm I could have easily wrung the thing out so thouroughly that not one drop of meaning remained.

I'm surprised that a scientist could have used language as loose as that.

I have little doubt though that it went down well with the already converted whose seeming need for continual confirmation suggests a scintilla of doubt somewhere. The Sunday service is supposed to have that function too.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Sun 22 Jul, 2007 09:55 am
well spendi, we had no trouble discerning his point and seeing his evidence. You, , for some reason unknown to me, hold your writing style as exemplar of best practice , yet you seem to only amuse and instruct yourself. As I said many times before, thats not communication, thats pathology.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 22 Jul, 2007 10:13 am
farmerman: As I said many times before, thats not communication, thats pathology.


Well stated in a single sentence. We still don't know which mental institution spendi spends most of his time besides the local pub.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sun 22 Jul, 2007 01:02 pm
fm wrote-

Quote:
yet you seem to only amuse and instruct yourself.


It is true that I do amuse and instruct myself. I do everything along those lines. It is a great loss to yourself that you don't even try to do the same.
I do things in my compositions, little technical things which I study to find out about, which you don't even know exist. It is my duty to any readers I may have to try my best. Your underestimation of everyone is what causes you to grind along in that very low gear you left school with. I have been watching the Open golf championship all afternoon and all those great players do exactly what I take it you think is some sort of weakness. They presumably amuse themselves and they never stop instructing themselves as well. You must have read stuff where you don't know a tenth of what is going on. And put it down thinking you have read it.

What's it like on a bed of nails in sackcloth and ashes with your head in a soundproof bag. That's something like not amusing or instructing yourself I suppose. It gives a flavour of it.

Where you did go wrong though, and really very badly, is to use the word "only". The "seem" gets you out of it a little but not by much as it was probably merely a fortunate error. You do not know whether or not I amuse and instruct any out of our large number of viewers or not. Some people are very willing to learn and they are the best sort of people. Once you get into the know-all state of mind you are degenerating. I don't write for people like that. You can't communicate with them. They are shut off. And that's pathological.

I see you have your claque clapping you on with one hand. That's like all flattery. Useless. And he knows I only do the last hour at the pub so his "most of the time" was just a lie.

Mr Edis's point was very easy to understand. It was part of some battle in Turkish academic politics. It was written for dimwits otherwise.. Possibly a bit of both. What was the "evidence" you had in mind? The first thing I quoted was a non-sequitur. And to publish it says he didn't know or was being devious.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Sun 22 Jul, 2007 01:05 pm
Although spendi was ranting, he did give us one statement that sums up his position on evolution:

spendius wrote:
Scientific theory has no concept of evil just as evolution hasn't. The black heart of human animal nature, which evolution theory must endorse, can only be bleached by religious belief and even then only to a limited extent.


Is it fair to say that this is what you are basically arguing, spendi? (Evolutionary theory teaches about the dark, animal side of human nature that can only be softened through religion.)
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 22 Jul, 2007 01:45 pm
Evolution is neither good or evil; it's simply nature.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sun 22 Jul, 2007 02:07 pm
wande wrote-

Quote:
Is it fair to say that this is what you are basically arguing, spendi? (Evolutionary theory teaches about the dark, animal side of human nature that can only be softened through religion.)


Not quite. It doesn't teach it. As I said-it endorses it. Justifies it. The people who jumped on it first were the industrialists. They saw it as justifying their exploitation of the weak and powerless.

Christian morality softened it up considerably. The only other way was revolution. The motivation for the changes to working conditions and wages had a Christian base.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sun 22 Jul, 2007 02:15 pm
BTW- I don't overlook the motivation to have fitter fighting men and motivated workers but that consideration is associated with competition between nations who needn't compete in that regard if they agree not to.

The industrialists who latched onto to Darwin would be easily defeated in a war with a Christian country all other things being equal. All their soldiers would run away quoting Darwin and the industrialists were mostly big fat slobs like Darwin who needed treatments to get down to breakfast so they wouldn't manage much on their own. And they were few in number.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 07/17/2025 at 01:35:15