Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

A true Atheist realizes when he is being imaginative. The imagination is full of ideas, even ideals. May even make a buck off it someday

aka wrote-

Quote:

A true Atheist realizes when he is being imaginative. The imagination is full of ideas, even ideals. May even make a buck off it someday

Imagination is the capacity to consider things not present to the senses or not taken to be real. In the first case memory of things that have been present to the senses is usually involved in some way and recombined in novel forms. An atheist must object to the second case.

Why must an Atheist be unable to imagine things that are not real
Isaac Asimov, Arthur C.Clarke, and and a host of other SF writers would be surprised at your reasoning. The difference is that they, and their readers know it isn't real, whereas the muezzins and the preachers and their congregations think that their view or reality actually exists.

The imaginary is set up against reality and the imagination against perception and understanding. Both Kant and Hume resorted to imagination to explain how we can know anything. OK so

The Behaviourists do without it entirely. OK so

Imagination is a process of mind strongly associated with emotions and with hopes and fears. I have seen it defined in terms of a person examining the contents of his own mind as a theatre.

No argument here, do it myself occasionally

Both "imagination" and "romantic" are grand concepts and much is disputed about both. I used the latter word in its ordinary mundane sense of thinking of such things as the love object in an opposite way to Schopenhauer or VIZ and ZIT's more objective appraisal.

When an atheist rejects these objectivities in favour of a more useful romantic notion he then allows rejection of objectivity in principle and thus he has no real objection to romantic notions of celestial bliss except that of them not being his bag of tricks.----

It is the promising of celestial bliss by a person who cannot imagine that he is only imagining the words of God that I object to. Hallucinating if he is an honest fellow, Selfish if he's not

I think bringing up the idea of transubstantiation is rather extreme. Is nationhood a hallucination?--- No, it's more of a society. Usually rather artificially contrived.

Or being "married"?

It's an economic unit that takes a lot of hope, romance, and imagination to keep viable

Or that gas comes from a gas station rather than from somewhere it has to be fought for?

Most rational people wish to sell it to those who think they need it. Most rational people buy it if they think they need it. It's called business and there are pecuniary rewards for both parties involved.

How about the individual being a way station between the agricultural industry and the sewage works with periodic visits to medical servicing bays and jollied along by the entertainment industry in much the same way that babies have rattles. The entertainment industry being a much wider conception than most people might accept. Bread and circuses eh?

That concept would probably work, realistically. The novels 1984 and Brave New World both examined it rather superficially.

Only a fastidious atheist would object to that and once you are fastidious you are lost in an intellectual debate. You become a "pick and choose" atheist objecting to the choices of others on a playing field of your own choosing.

I have no objection

What's your objection to people believing they are eating the body and blood of Jesus, assuming they do believe it. It's no different than you believing you are eating a posh meal rather than chomping your way through the nutrient bed.

Today's Bob Jones "Biology for Christian Schools" Howlers
(by Mike Dunford, ScienceBlogs.com, September 16, 2007)

I've been continuing to put some time into criticizing Michael Behe's expert report on the creationist texts involved in the California Creationism Case. This is a slow process, partly because I'm also working on other projects and partly because it's difficult to read the Bob Jones "Biology for Christian Schools" text without encountering a range of unpleasant side effects. I've been fighting the increased blood pressure and the nausea, and soldiering on. Along the way, I've encountered some real gems that I thought I'd share with you.

Today, I'm going to give you two quotes: one on Darwin, and one on sexually transmitted diseases. The two are connected only by the surreal nature of what's being said. As you read them, please remember that this is material that's being taught to high school students, and that the folks who are teaching this stuff are suing the University of California, because for some strange reason UC doesn't think that people who have been taught this stuff have adequately completed an actual college preparatory class in biology. All quotes are taken from the most recent (3rd) edition of the text. I'm transcribing by hand, so unless indicated otherwise, all typos are mine.

On page 225, in the section titled, "Analysis of Darwin's Theory," we find this:
Today scientists know that the inheritance of acquired characteristics by pangenes is false. When introduced, however, Darwin's pangenes sounded interesting and scientific. The abundant examples of natural selection he gave in his works were accepted as adequate proof of pangenes. Examples of natural selection, however, have little to do with proving the inheritance of acquired characteristics through pangenes.

On pages 779 and 780, we find this material in a box on "Sexually Transmitted Diseases":
When the AIDS epidemic began, some people said that the disease was God's judgment on the sins of homosexuals and fornicators since they were the primary ones affected by the disease. Many were offended by such an analysis, claiming that it is unreasonably cruel to tell people in pain that they have caused their own disease. Nevertheless, the Bible does teach that diseases that result from sexual impurity are part of God's punishment of sin (Rom. 1:27). Such punishment is in fact evidence of God's grace. It allows the sinner to experience the offensiveness of his sin and points him to the need for a Savior - "the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" (John 1:29).

Bob Jones University Press: spreading "God's grace" one abstinence only class at a time.

Today scientists know that the inheritance of acquired characteristics by pangenes is false. When introduced, however, Darwin's pangenes sounded interesting and scientific. The abundant examples of natural selection he gave in his works were accepted as adequate proof of pangenes. Examples of natural selection, however, have little to do with proving the inheritance of acquired characteristics through pangenes.

Such students may meet admissions requirements by taking a test instead.)

Vitter earmarked federal money for creationist group
(by Bill Walsh, New Orleans Times-Picayune, September 22, 2007)

WASHINGTON -- Sen. David Vitter, R-La., earmarked $100,000 in a spending bill for a Louisiana Christian group that has challenged the teaching of Darwinian evolution in the public school system and to which he has political ties.

The money is included in the labor, health and education financing bill for fiscal 2008 and specifies payment to the Louisiana Family Forum "to develop a plan to promote better science education."

The earmark appears to be the latest salvo in a decades-long battle over science education in Louisiana, in which some Christian groups have opposed the teaching of evolution and, more recently, have pushed to have it prominently labeled as a theory with other alternatives presented. Educators and others have decried the movement as a backdoor effort to inject religious teachings into the classroom.

The nonprofit Louisiana Family Forum, launched in Baton Rouge in 1999 by former state Rep. Tony Perkins, has in recent years taken the lead in promoting "origins science," which includes the possibility of divine intervention in the creation of the universe.

The group's stated mission is to "persuasively present biblical principles in the centers of influence on issues affecting the family through research, communication and networking." Until recently, its Web site contained a "battle plan to combat evolution," which called the theory a "dangerous" concept that "has no place in the classroom." The document was removed after a reporter's inquiry.

The group's tax-exempt status prohibits the Louisiana Family Forum from political activity, but Vitter has close ties to the group. Dan Richey, the group's grass-roots coordinator, was paid $17,250 as a consultant in Vitter's 2004 Senate race. Records also show that Vitter's campaign employed Beryl Amedee, the education resource council chairwoman for the Louisiana Family Forum.

The group has been an advocate for the senator, who was elected as a strong supporter of conservative social issues. When Vitter's use of a Washington, D.C., call-girl service drew comparisons last month to the arrest of Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, in what an undercover officer said was a solicitation for sex in an airport men's room, Family Forum Executive Director Gene Mills came to Vitter's defense.

In a video clip the group posted on the Internet site YouTube, Mills said the two senators' situations are far different. "Craig is denying the allegations," he said. "Vitter has repented of the allegations. He sought forgiveness, reconciliation and counseling."

Vitter's office said it is not surprising that people he employed would also do work for Louisiana Family Forum, which shares his philosophical outlook. He said the education earmark was meant to offer a broad array of views in the public schools.

"This program helps supplement and support educators and school systems that would like to offer all of the explanations in the study of controversial science topics such as global warming and the life sciences," Vitter said in a written statement.

The money in the earmark will pay for a report suggesting "improvements" in science education in Louisiana, the development and distribution of educational materials and an evaluation of the effectiveness of the Ouachita Parish School Board's 2006 policy that opened the door to biblically inspired teachings in science classes.

"I believe it is an important program," Vitter said.

Critics said taxpayer money should not go to support a religion-based program.

"This is a misappropriation of public funds," said Charles Kincade, a civil rights lawyer in Monroe who has been involved in church-state cases. "It's a backdoor attempt to push a religious agenda in the public school system."

Educators and others have decried the movement as a backdoor effort to inject religious teachings into the classroom.

wande quoted-

Quote:

Educators and others have decried the movement as a backdoor effort to inject religious teachings into the classroom.

That makes it sound like anyone who injects religious teachings into the classroom is not an educator.

Which is self-evident rubbish and suggests Mr Walsh should start taking English lessons before he starts pontificating on educational matters. One presumes that the "others" are not educators so it is difficult to understand why they are brought forth on educational matters.

If it is deemed worthy of comment how much Mr Richey has been paid then how much is Mr Walsh being paid for demonstrating his ignorance of English expression?

Parents are educators, self-evidently.