Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Oh no it isn't.

It was a slippery use of language which shows that the writer, his editor and any reader, who goes along for the ride, to save his brain being involved in any unnecessary work, doesn't understand their own speech patterns or that somebody is taking the piss and it is unlikely to be the reader as he is paying and it thus logically follows that it is one of the other two as both of them get the folding money.

The writer is statistically, probably, a simpleton, but his editor is supposed to be above all that and he must have passed it cynically and, hopefully, with a smirk.

Have you ever met any "teachers and school staff" mappie? Most of them are just painting the bridge. Building it is something they forget about. Obviously.

It distracts attention from their personages. It's as if only "teachers and school staff" can educate.

Bollocks!!!!

Morals and ethics merely reflect a persons obligations to his society not to a God.

Since I have already shown that societies are constrained by the same general rules that constrain ordinary species then the developement of morals and ethics are quite satisfactorily explained as a "survival mechanism" for societies. No more obscure than a fish developing fins

Council of Europe to vote on creationism next week
(By Tom Heneghan, Reuters, September 25, 2007)

Europe's main human rights body will vote next week on a resolution opposing the teaching of creationist and intelligent design views in school science classes.

The Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly will debate a resolution saying attacks on the theory of evolution were rooted "in forms of religious extremism" and amounted to a dangerous assault on science and human rights.

The resolution, on the agenda for October 4, says European schools should "resist presentation of creationist ideas in any discipline other than religion." It describes the "intelligent design" argument as an updated version of creationism.

Anne Brasseur, an Assembly member from Luxembourg who updated an earlier draft resolution, said the vote was due in June but was postponed because some members felt the original text amounted to an attack on religious belief.

Only minor changes have been made to the initial draft.

"There are different views of the creation of the world and we respect that," she told Reuters. "The message we wanted to send was to avoid creationism passing itself off as science and being taught as science. That's where the danger lies."

The Council, based in the eastern French city of Strasbourg, oversees human rights standards in member states and enforces decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.

If passed, the resolution would not be binding on its 47 member states but would reflect widespread opposition among politicians to teaching creationism in science class.

Creationism says God made the world in six days as depicted in the Bible. Intelligent design argues some life forms are too complex to have evolved according to Charles Darwin's theory and needed an unnamed higher intelligence to develop as they have.

Some conservatives in the United States, both religious and secular, have long opposed the teaching of evolution in public schools but U.S. courts have regularly barred them from teaching what they describe as religious views of creation.

Pressure to teach creationism is weaker in Europe, but has been mounting. An Assembly committee took up the issue because a shadowy Turkish Muslim publishing group has been sending an Islamic creationist book to schools in several countries.

Supporters of intelligent design want it taught in science class alongside evolution. A U.S. court ruled this out in a landmark decision in 2005, dismissing it as "neo-creationism."

"The aim of this report is not to question or to fight a belief," Brasseur wrote in a memorandum added to the new resolution. "It is not a matter of opposing belief and science, but it is necessary to prevent belief from opposing science."

She said the resolution also shortened references in the resolution to "evolution by natural selection" to "evolution" because some members had misunderstood the reference to natural selection to be an attack on their religious beliefs.

Meaningless. Void of content. Writing on the backside of ads.

View disinterestedly and with objectivity, mindless drivel.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE UPDATE

Quote:

Council of Europe to vote on creationism next week
(By Tom Heneghan, Reuters, September 25, 2007)

...the resolution also shortened references in the resolution to "evolution by natural selection" to "evolution" because some members had misunderstood the reference to natural selection to be an attack on their religious beliefs.

There are aspects of science that are much less proven than evolution, yet you don't see any religious people try do disprove for example how your television works. IMO proves that religious people do have an agenda when it comes to evolution, those who claim they want to fight 'bad science' are simply lying.

If Natural Selection is an attack on their religious beliefs, then isn't science itself an attack on their religious beliefs?

We do not know whether or not light is altered, diminished, or extinguished in the immensities of space. We do not know whether our earthly conceptions of the nature of light, and therefore, all the theories and laws deduced from them, have validity beyond the immediate environment of the earth. What we "see" are merely light-indices; what we understand are symbols of ourselves.

aka wrote-

Quote:

Morals and ethics merely reflect a persons obligations to his society not to a God.

Why would anyone feel any moral obligations to society or a God or anything else. It isn't as if we applied to be a human being.

You don't have to feel it, you just HAVE to behave like you do or---- A fish without fins if he belongs to a species (society) that places a premium on fins, a fish without fins is at a disadvantage. (Other fish will catch more food and more mates) A human with no morals or ethics will also find himself at a disadvantage in a society (species) that places a premium on morals or ethics. He's likely to end up dead or in jail which reduces considerably the chances of his leaving offspring.

Since all successful societies have some sort of moral or ethical constraints you will either act as if you "believe" in them or else you will be removed from the society (species). You will be "shunned" (Anabaptists), excommunicated (Roman Catholic) confined away (many societies) executed (again, many societies). No matter what form the societies attempt at correction takes it will be rather discouraging as to regards your leaving many descendents. :wink:

Quote:

Since I have already shown that societies are constrained by the same general rules that constrain ordinary species then the developement of morals and ethics are quite satisfactorily explained as a "survival mechanism" for societies. No more obscure than a fish developing fins

You haven't shown it to me. I don't agree with that statement. The fish develops fins, if it does, unconsciously. If it developed fins consciously it would get some flippers. Leaves maybe. The invention of flippers is the equivalent of 400 million years of evolution. At least. Just like that. How many species have gone extinct? We will never go extinct short of an asteroid breaking the earth in half or the sun blowing up.

Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin

There is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on earth.