Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Joe-

it actually is "so complicated". I know you don't like to think so but that has nothing to do with anybody else but you.

As a simple example just take a major sporting event on TV. One gets the impression one knows what's going on but one has no chance. But thinking one does know what's going on enables one to spout about it. Some better than others.

And I'll not "have you believe in anything". I don't know where you get that idea from. I'm making a case. Suit yourself what you think.

Darwinism isn't science. There was science going on all around him. He hadn't the brains to be a physicist or a mathematician. For similar reasons some say that chemistry and biology are not real science. They are lookeesee an does it pay. All chemistry and biology are physics under materialist theory in 2007.

Why am I desperate for Darwin to be wrong? That another of your ideas. I've read the guy, I understand him and he was dead right. There's nothing to it. Except the sexual selection bit applied to humans of course.
And the red in tooth and claw. What has Conrad Black done wrong under evolution theory. The Roman senate would have cheered him if he used the profits to put on games. Or buy kit for the legions and pay their wages. Only a Christian morality says he's done wrong. I know other moralities might but not all. Not by a long shot.

If you won't admit that the ideas in the Sermon have gained ground since they were articulated, whenever that was, there is nothing I can say.

Every philosopher I've read recognises theology as a science.

And I'm not poor either.

How many mistakes are you going to make Joe.

spendi: Every philosopher I've read recognises theology as a science.


Please name them - the top six if you like.

There's so many c.i. I am not qualified to rate a top six.

You name one who hasn't. That should be easier.

Just one. Even if he is the 690 th.

spendi, You do understand the basics of logic don't you? You are the one that made the claim, so it's up to you to provide the "evidence." Once you provide the evidence, I can either support or refute it with my own "evidence."

It's the same with science; once a theory is proposed, it is supported by evidence. It's up to those who question the theory to show evidence to prove it wrong.

Names, dates, and supporting documents will suffice. Rate as many or as few as you like; just a sampling will be sufficient.

c.i.

Just for once answer an easy question.

What has Mr Conrad Black done wrong in terms of evolution theory?

Even trees **** on any other life form which wants the light. And they are really stupid.

Trees are like the Yorkshire entrepreneur supporter of Darwin who "regretted every drop of water that passed the mill wheel".

As did his Pompadour who is about to get off scot-free.

How many people do you know c.i. who think porrige is better with salt and maple syrup and that sitting on a comfy couch is better than sitting on an electrified pin cushion?

Well- the percentage of philosophers who think that theology is an over-arching science is in that league. How the hell would I know who are the top six? Do you know who are the top six in the salt and maple syrup fans.

What does the word "better" mean anyway?

A philosopher who dissented would be a "stand out" philosopher and you would have heard of him. Name him.

spendi, Are you on the sauce again? Just answer the simple question; who are the "Every philosopher I've read recognises theology as a science."

Since "every" is all inclusive, name some of them - or as many as you wish?

I have a directory of philosophers going from A to Z. 800 pages. All of them.

I can't imagine a philosopher who doesn't reckon theology as a science.

He would be unknown. Which is why you can't name him.

Please, turn to page 666 and tell me the philosopher listed at the top.

Hmmm. Still can't come up with one name of one philosopher who "recognizes theology as a science". How odd? One would have thought Spendius would have some name and a pithy quote to go with it.
I'm sure the current holder of the Science of Theology Chair at Oxford would suffice. Oh, wait. There isn't a Science of Theology Chair. There are, scattered hereabouts, some Philosophy of Science Chairs at the various sites of higher learning, but alas, no one seems to have a department teaching the theology as a science.

Wait!! Tom Cruise is a Scientologist, is that who Spendius is referring to or perhaps the pastor from down at the Church of Christ, Scientist or maybe one of the many Science of Mind adherents in his neighborhood pub??

Joe(do not get the above three confused or conflated)Nation

spendi, Does the 800 page directory have a cover that says DC Comics?

It doesn't but if it did it would be the same story. Most people who write comics are philosophers and concern themselves with the absurdity of the human condition and thus concede the need to have as coherent a theology as possible to deal with such an unwieldy beast.

If you insist on a name I'll open the book at random-- Prof Swinburne of Oriel College, Oxford. But Spengler and Henry Fielding not at random. Shakespeare, Dante, Rabelais, Joubert, Arnold. Anybody with an ounce of common sense actually.

Joe(running steady) Nation wrote-



You presumed I would "have you believe" something and that I don't understand Darwin and that I'm desperate for Darwin to be wrong. And that's just yesterday.

In reality, Spendius, something that I know you have heard of, but not fully experienced lately, I only report on what evidence you have offered.

I was hoping for awhile that you were Conrad Black (if he had no children with that dragon lady of a wife, that would be counter-productive evolutionarywise. No pun intended. Wouldn't you say?).

Meanwhile, this thread, which had a lot of valuable and interesting commentary, has descended into the Spendius Show.

Perhaps you are Christopher Hitchens, although I don't know how you would have the time to both eviscerate the concept of god or gods AND hold forth as an intelligent design hero.

Yes. Yes. I know, you are not a champion of ID, you just pray (the right word) that they are right.

Joe(see you around)Nation

The lawsuit by Christian schools against University of California admissions policy will go to trial beginning the last week of September.

The high school subject requirements in the UC policy are:


Christian schools are protesting that credit for laboratory science has been denied for biology courses in their schools that rely on creationist textbooks. The UC admissions director gave the schools the following explanation:

Well Joe (Do as I say but not as I do) Nation did presume that I would "have you believe" something and that I don't understand Darwin and that I'm desperate for Darwin to be wrong. And that's just yesterday.

And they are all wrong. I don't care what you believe. I take no credit for understanding Darwin because it's a piece of piss, as Huxley said, and I think Darwin was right within the limits of his work and have said so a few times.

I have had a brief correspondence with Mr Black (about three letters apiece concerning encroaching feminism in his rags) and an even briefer one with Ms Amiel when she "wrote" for the S Times. I would still like to know what he has done wrong outside of Christian morality but I'm not expecting any answers soon.

It is blindingly obvious that our species might be more adapted to its environment if we all had less children given current consumption patterns so Mr Black's example might be positive evolutionarywise.

I do not pray at all and if I did it wouldn't be for ID being right.

wande-

All official pronouncements on education are characterised by their utopian ideas, flattery of as many people as possible, especially the writers themselves and wall to wall bullshit. Your quote is a near perfect example. It fails to take account of the students and the instructors. It is pie-in-the-sky.

One only has to imagine-



to see how superficial it actually is. I spewed school at the earliest opportunity. It does your head in and especially if it leads you to believe all that crap in your post. One of the temp barmaids in the pub is at university. It's mind boggling. It must have been her body shape that got her in.

Very good, spendi! You finally gave us some names. Now all you have to do is to provide the quotes from these eminent philosophers about their claim that "theology is science."

Joe (blowhard) Nation wrote-



"Descending" is hardly appropriate when going on for 170,000 views is taken into account. Is it a record for a debate thread?

I would say that "descended" is another false presumption.

Look c.i.

I gave you a long quote from Joubert on the very subject not so long ago. Your attention must have been diverted. Even if I did spend time rooting through all my books you would still start nit-picking.

I'm reading the Ellmann biography of Joyce for the second time at the moment and that subject often comes up. The best biography of the 20th Century Mr Burgess called it). Joyce was seriously anti-Church but even he bows to its skills on a number of occasions. He has Bloom (a stand-in for the mature Joyce where Stephen is the young Joyce) say, after an anti-Church diatribe (see next post) "still- there's something in it" or somesuch. It's not an idea that anybody spells out too much in words of two syllables. It underlies everything they say in one way or another.

You should read Joyce if you want to find out how to do proper anti-Church stuff. You lot are rank amateurs at the game. He even uses Father Conmee's name unchanged in Ulysses. Geddit? Eh? (Elbow in ribs).

If you want a good laugh read Joyce's description of Hell in Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man. It's funnier than Bosch.