97
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Wed 10 Oct, 2007 06:47 pm
Spendi,

Just once more Very Happy Just to be sure that we are talking about the same thing Exclamation

Moral--(1)Relating to principles or conditions of right and wrong. (2) Expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior. (3) capable of being judged as good or evil in terms of principles of right and wrong action.

Example of moral. Mother feeds, loves and educates baby. Keeps father happy and around as a "breadwinner". Has more babies. Raises them well. They are a family (the simplest social construction) Babies have babies. Become a tribe (more complicated social construction)

Elect chief. Good man, plenty babies, lots to eat, enough people around to keep tigers away. Are fruitful and multiply. Form towns, cities and nations with colleges and hospitals.

Example of immoral. Mother and Daddy are lazy or stupid, baby starves. Society does not exist.

I aver that moral behavior is that which benefits your society or at least ethical behavior which does no harm.

I am sure that Moses, Hitler and Ghenghis Khan were all acting in a fashion that they intended to benefit their society.

Hitler now is regarded as immoral, Moses is revered. However as leaders of their people they both attempted genocide. Moses a bit more successfully. Genocide is now regarded as immoral but it worked for the Jews. The Nazis haven't fared quite as well.

But without what we now regard as a moral system there would never even have been a family, a tribe, a religion or a nation.

I suspect that this system in various forms is innate to human beings. We would not have survived long enough to invent Gods without it.

Religion was created later as societies grew larger and behavior necessarily became more circumscribed but a moral sense was present in the first successful humanoid. Right along with five fingers.

Thats what I mean by your putting the cart before the horse. Morality of some sort is an evolutionary necessity for a social animal. This is also why I take morality as a given in social animals. This does not preclude my differing opinion as to your "moral sensitivity". We can call that "definition".
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Thu 11 Oct, 2007 08:56 am
PBS.org has announced when NOVA documentary on Dover trial will be shown:

Quote:
PBS NOVA: "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial"
Program broadcast date: November 13, 2007

One of the latest battles in the war over evolution took place in a tiny town in eastern Pennsylvania called Dover. In 2004, the local school board ordered science teachers to read a statement to their high school biology students. The statement suggested that there is an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution called intelligent design, the idea that life is too complex to have evolved naturally and therefore had to have been designed by an intelligent agent. The science teachers refused to comply with the order, and parents opposed to intelligent design filed a lawsuit in federal court accusing the school board of violating the separation of church and state. Suddenly, the small town of Dover was torn apart by controversy, pitting neighbor against neighbor. NOVA captures the emotional conflict in interviews with the townspeople, scientists, and lawyers who participated in the historic six-week trial, Kitzmiller, et. al. v. Dover School District, et. al., which was closely watched by the world's media. With recreations based on court transcripts, NOVA presents the arguments by lawyers and expert witnesses in riveting detail and provides an eye-opening crash course on questions such as "What is evolution?" and "Does intelligent design qualify as science?" For years to come, the lessons from Dover will continue to have a profound impact on how science is viewed in our society and how to teach it in the classroom.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 11 Oct, 2007 09:40 am
aka-

I agree about the "simplest social construction".

It seems evident to me that the most important, perhaps the only, aspect of morality is designed, with increasing intelligence and thus forever at the risk of bestiality, for the rulers of society.

To the extent that they are enjoined on the general populace is merely in the service of reinforcing their power on the former.

The rules of incest and consanguinity in marriage customs are of little importance in the common life of the credulous masses but they are of great importance in the lives of Princes and Rulers in order to prevent the sort of instabilities which occured after the death of the Emperor Constantine from which posterity drew conclusions with an intelligent dynamic having no relation to the dynamic of biological evolution.

The fiendish complexities produced by easy divorce, remarriage and general promiscuity are easily managed when there are no considerations of great wealth and power in the matter of inheritance rights. It is mere self flattery to imagine otherwise.

Similarly, it is of little consequence to the fortunes of an Empire whether the subject classes murder each other, steal off each other or indulge in sexual and drug fuelled excesses. Organised crime has never suffered one whit of disadvantage in the ready acceptance of all of those things and, indeed, may have benefited from them.

But it is a different matter entirely when the Rulers of society, who can be assumed to be playing for far higher stakes and thus have such temptations forcing themselves into view, are not inhibited from succumbing to them.

Thus the general condemnation of such vices, inculcated by the very same Rulers, in their wisdom, acts as a restraint upon them and especially upon those Rulers who are concerned to be held in esteem by their subjects or, as is the case in democracies, to depend upon that esteem.

This is why the subject classes expect stricter adherance to morality in their leaders than they are generally prepared to accept for themselves. Even a conviction for petty theft will disqualify any person from seeking the highest offices. This expectation is catered for by the surveillance our investigative journalists bring to bear on those in high office and those seeking high office which they wouldn't bother to interest themselves in regarding the ordinary person unless cases come to their notice which involve lurid details preferably of a perverted sexual colouration and are thus, as such, an aspect of the entertainment industry. Even the investigative journalist himself would baulk at having his own behaviour subject to such scrutiny for the very good reason that it is of little importance to society as a whole precisely because he is not a Ruler.

The growth of atheism in society, which by definition can have no morality and only have recourse to expediency will inevitably lead to a society having leaderships with the dispositions I have mentioned and which would be characterised, as we have seen on this thread, by intolerance, assertiveness, impatience and ignorance which, when allied to power and scientific methods of persuasion and enforcement, can only lead to the most dangerous attack on freedom it is possible to imagine.

Anyone preaching atheism is perforce preaching amorality and is a harbinger of a full-blown police state which is, as we all know, that short-lived experience preceeding complete bankruptcy and anarchy where might comes into its own.

I'm inclined to think that the US and the UK will never elect an avowed atheist to the supreme office for these reasons.

And events such as Abu Graib, Blackwater gunfights, Guantanamo Bay, Enron and Extraordinary Rendition, the apologetics of sophists notwithstanding, are reminders of how close we are coming to weakening Christian morality and thus paving the way for our demise.

Power corrupts absolutely and I'm at a loss to understand how anyone can attack Christian morality, which is the agenda of the weak and powerless, and at the same time complain about the abuses mentioned, which could easily be multiplied, and which are the obvious consequences of such attacks being successful.
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Thu 11 Oct, 2007 09:51 am
We've gone over this before, Spendi. We've gone over it thousands of times.

Atheism =/= amorality.

May I also point out to you, Spendi, that despite the fact that police states (of the Soviet nature, anyway) tend to disavow the existence of God, they tend to enforce almost exactly the same morals as a theocratic state? Which clearly shows that a belief in God has nothing to do with morals.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 11 Oct, 2007 10:07 am
wande quoted-

Quote:
For years to come, the lessons from Dover will continue to have a profound impact on how science is viewed in our society and how to teach it in the classroom.


One presumes that the name Judge Jones will echo down the canyons of our culture for thousands of years if that bit of bald puffery is believed.

Wolf wrote-

Quote:
despite the fact that police states (of the Soviet nature, anyway) tend to disavow the existence of God, they tend to enforce almost exactly the same morals as a theocratic state?


That isn't a straw I would clutch at mate.
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Thu 11 Oct, 2007 10:22 am
spendius wrote:
That isn't a straw I would clutch at mate.


Says the person who clutches at nothing but straws.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Thu 11 Oct, 2007 10:24 am
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
We've gone over this before, Spendi. We've gone over it thousands of times.

Atheism =/= amorality.

May I also point out to you, Spendi, that despite the fact that police states (of the Soviet nature, anyway) tend to disavow the existence of God, they tend to enforce almost exactly the same morals as a theocratic state? Which clearly shows that a belief in God has nothing to do with morals.



Well not quite. The "police states" to which you referred acknowledged no authority greater than their own. They proclaimed themselves to be the vanguard of the new "socialist man" who would lead the revolution and the transformation of the world. They were thus also unaccountable to anyone or any thing but themselves. Without any moral restraints they applied truly unprecedented horrors to their own people. The "elimination of the irreconcilables" (in Lenin's phrase) involved the state-directed extermination of about 6% of the populations of Russia and China, and similar fractions of other states to which this awful contagion spread. In addition a similar number was imprisioned because of their perceived resistance to the state, usually under rather horrific conditions.

The socialist "morality they applied in civil affairs to which you referred was thus less a characteristic of the atheistic system itself than that of the humans who populated it. This fact argues not for the supposed morality of atheism, but rather for some innate sense of morality among human beings themselves - something nearly the opposite of what you suggest.
0 Replies
 
TheCorrectResponse
 
  1  
Thu 11 Oct, 2007 10:26 am
Quote:
Without any moral restraints they applied truly unprecedented horrors to their own people.


Yes its to bad they didn't show the moral restraint of the church during the inquisition. Laughing
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Thu 11 Oct, 2007 10:33 am
The Inquisition and the British extermination of the Catholic Clergy under Elizabeth I (which involved a much higher body count than the former) are recognized as anomolies in the history of the religion, and not its avowed standard practice - as was the case with Lenin's "Elimination of the Irreconcilables". In addition, even on a relative scale, they were trivial in comparison. (If you are looking for some real religious horrors consider instead the elimination of the Gnostic or Albagensian heresy in Southern France.)
0 Replies
 
TheCorrectResponse
 
  1  
Thu 11 Oct, 2007 10:36 am
Hmmm...These were "anomalies in the history of religion" to which you could quickly describe two more that you say were "much worse". Must be a new way of using the term "anomaly".
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 11 Oct, 2007 10:49 am
Wolf wrote-

Quote:
We've gone over this before, Spendi. We've gone over it thousands of times.


In actual fact Wolf the subject of the post to which you were referring has never been mentioned on this thread before. Nor has there even been a hint of it.

It is your careless reading which has led you to the sort of assertion which I mentioned in that post as being a characteristic feature of the atheist and a great danger when allied to power.

And your remark about the Inquisition is not only a non-sequitur, as George points out, but a product of you reading the sort of things you wish to read and not the actual history itself.

As Gibbon so wisely points out-

Quote:
The same passions and prejudices have engaged the partial writers of the times to connect the public profession of Christianity with the most glorious or the most ignominious era of the reign of Constantine.


Partial people read the writers who cater to their taste and their taste is generally directed by self interest.

What do you know about the Inquisition that we might rely on?
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Thu 11 Oct, 2007 02:48 pm
wandeljw wrote:
PBS.org has announced when NOVA documentary on Dover trial will be shown:

Quote:
PBS NOVA: "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial"
Program broadcast date: November 13, 2007

Oh good. That should be fun Smile
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 11 Oct, 2007 04:54 pm
It would be ros if we could follow what the profits were put to the service of.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Thu 11 Oct, 2007 06:11 pm
rosborne979 wrote:
wandeljw wrote:
PBS.org has announced when NOVA documentary on Dover trial will be shown:

Quote:
PBS NOVA: "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial"
Program broadcast date: November 13, 2007

Oh good. That should be fun Smile


It should bring back great memories for all of us, rosborne.

(even for you, spendi: the documentary will be narrated by bob dylan Smile )
0 Replies
 
TheCorrectResponse
 
  1  
Thu 11 Oct, 2007 06:24 pm
Does that mean Dylan's new album with songs from the plagiarized documentary script will be in stores for Xmas???
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Thu 11 Oct, 2007 07:13 pm
spendius wrote:
aka-

I agree about the "simplest social construction".

--- Thanks, its pretty obvious


It seems evident to me that the most important, perhaps the only, aspect of morality is designed, with increasing intelligence and thus forever at the risk of bestiality, for the rulers of society.

----Yes, but perhaps the consent of the governed means something.

To the extent that they are enjoined on the general populace is merely in the service of reinforcing their power on the former.

---Usually Sad

The rules of incest and consanguinity in marriage customs are of little importance in the common life of the credulous masses but they are of great importance in the lives of Princes and Rulers in order to prevent the sort of instabilities which occured after the death of the Emperor Constantine from which posterity drew conclusions with an intelligent dynamic having no relation to the dynamic of biological evolution.

---The Princes also form a little, rather exclusive society amongst themselves. Athiests also know better than to marry their cousin-sister-mother-father.

Similarly, it is of little consequence to the fortunes of an Empire whether the subject classes murder each other, steal off each other or indulge in sexual and drug fuelled excesses. Organised crime has never suffered one whit of disadvantage in the ready acceptance of all of those things and, indeed, may have benefited from them.

But it is a different matter entirely when the Rulers of society, who can be assumed to be playing for far higher stakes and thus have such temptations forcing themselves into view, are not inhibited from succumbing to them.

--- If a ruler or a gang leader impoverishes his people he stands a good chance of losing his head, or an election.

Thus the general condemnation of such vices, inculcated by the very same Rulers, in their wisdom, acts as a restraint upon them and especially upon those Rulers who are concerned to be held in esteem by their subjects or, as is the case in democracies, to depend upon that esteem.

---Nothing new there. Kind of runs into your next sentence.


This is why the subject classes expect stricter adherance to morality in their leaders than they are generally prepared to accept for themselves. Even a conviction for petty theft will disqualify any person from seeking the highest offices. This expectation is catered for by the surveillance our investigative journalists bring to bear on those in high office and those seeking high office which they wouldn't bother to interest themselves in regarding the ordinary person unless cases come to their notice which involve lurid details preferably of a perverted sexual colouration and are thus, as such, an aspect of the entertainment industry. Even the investigative journalist himself would baulk at having his own behaviour subject to such scrutiny for the very good reason that it is of little importance to society as a whole precisely because he is not a Ruler.

----I agree with the truism "to those whom much is given, much is expected".

The growth of atheism in society, which by definition can have no morality and only have recourse to expediency will inevitably lead to a society having leaderships with the dispositions I have mentioned and which would be characterised, as we have seen on this thread, by intolerance, assertiveness, impatience and ignorance which, when allied to power and scientific methods of persuasion and enforcement, can only lead to the most dangerous attack on freedom it is possible to imagine.

--- I very seriously disagree with your assumption that Atheism has no morality.----I explained how morality came about in social animals. I seriously doubt the morality of anyone that claims morality issued forth from an imaginary Deity.

Anyone preaching atheism is perforce preaching amorality and is a harbinger of a full-blown police state which is, as we all know, that short-lived experience preceeding complete bankruptcy and anarchy where might comes into its own.

--- That is a seriously debateable assumption.


You are assuming Atheists have no morals and Diests do. Kosovo, Iraq, Somalia all put that paragraph down as simply wishful thinking that has absolutely no basis in observations. Indeed it runs counter to observations. This is a characteristic of most religion.

I'm inclined to think that the US and the UK will never elect an avowed atheist to the supreme office for these reasons.

--- I hope you are wrong Exclamation but time will tell.

And events such as Abu Graib, Blackwater gunfights, Guantanamo Bay, Enron and Extraordinary Rendition, the apologetics of sophists notwithstanding, are reminders of how close we are coming to weakening Christian morality and thus paving the way for our demise.

-Zero IMO. It would take too long to explain that dehumanizing persons is an accepted military tactic. Cowboys will be cowboys. I have no ready alternative to Guantanamo but I think something of this sort is regrettably necessary. Christian morality is often an oxymoron, and usually incomprehensible.

Power corrupts absolutely and I'm at a loss to understand how anyone can attack Christian morality, which is the agenda of the weak and powerless, and at the same time complain about the abuses mentioned, which could easily be multiplied, and which are the obvious consequences of such attacks being successful.


---Add the power of a God to your already bleak view of human nature and it's really terrible. Sad At least Atheists cannot claim a higher power as justification for their immoral actions.
0 Replies
 
Vengoropatubus
 
  1  
Thu 11 Oct, 2007 09:31 pm
Except when that higher power is that natural law that the strongest shall prevail.

What I wonder at, is Spendius alternating description of evolutionism as atheism and then as its own religion. It seems to me that he should pick sides, and decide whether evolutionism is secular and therefore in his view corrosive to society, or its own religion, and therefore, in his view, hypocritical.
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Fri 12 Oct, 2007 03:34 am
spendius wrote:
It is your careless reading which has led you to the sort of assertion which I mentioned in that post as being a characteristic feature of the atheist and a great danger when allied to power.


It has nothing to do with atheism, Spendi. Religious people are also equally as guilty, which is something that isn't coming across clear in your posts. You make it sound as if its solely an atheist characteristic, when it's not. It's a characteristic of people, not atheism.

Quote:
And your remark about the Inquisition is not only a non-sequitur, as George points out, but a product of you reading the sort of things you wish to read and not the actual history itself.


The same could be said for you. You have no evidence to prove that atheism is linked to amorality. You point to historical cases, reading what you wish from them, but not what the cases actually point out.

When an atrocity appears on the surface to have Christian causes, you blame something else and accuse the accusers of not looking at the bigger picture and the politics that lie behind. Yet you do what you accuse other people of when it comes to atrocities that appear to have an atheist cause on the surface.

You put the blame on atheism, when if you look carefully at the history, it's the politics behind it.
0 Replies
 
TheCorrectResponse
 
  1  
Fri 12 Oct, 2007 06:12 am
Veng:
Please give spendi a break he is using this web site to work through some personal "issues"!
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 12 Oct, 2007 07:06 am
I'm a bit busy today what with one thing and another so I'll provide you with something to ponder while I whistle while I work

"It's no go the Yogi-Man,
It's no go Blavatsky,
All we want is a bank balance
And a bit of skirt in a taxi.

It's no go the Herring Board,
It's no go the Bible,
All we want is a packet of fags
When our hands are idle.

It's no go the picture palace;
It's no go the stadium,
It's no go the country cot
With a pot of pink geraniums.

It's no go the Government grants,
It's no go the elections,
Sit on your arse for fifty years
And hang your hat on a pension.

It's no go my honey love,
It's no go my poppet;
Work your hands from day to day,
The winds will blow the profit.

The glass is falling hour by hour,
The glass will fall for ever,
But if you break the bloody glass
You won't hold up the weather. "

Louis McNiece.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 07/29/2025 at 06:50:11