Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

blatham spat-



Thay always use blanks in show business Bernie.

I KNEW IT !!!!

You ought to have, as i told you that before.

By the way, the Scots are called the Scots because the Dalriada was an Irish colony. Legendarily, the Milesian invasion of Ireland was not lead by Mil himself, who had died before it was in the offing. Rather, it was lead by his widow--Scota. Her offspring, and by extension, all of the Milesian Irish were known as na-Scota, the children of Scota. When the Romans encountered them at what became the Antonine Wall, they called them the Ascottii, and Ascotti auxilliaries fought with the Romans on the continent.

The Irish kingdom of the Dalriada (also, Dal Riata) was located in the homeland of my paternal grandfather, County Antrim. After their invasion (c. 285 CE), the name was also given to the new kingdom in Scotland.

A more or less accurate description of the Dalriada.

Edit: NB--it is, of course, entirely possible that both Mil and Scota were legendary as opposed to actual figures--it's always hard to know with oral traditions.

Another link with documentary citation on the Dalriada can be found here.

It wasn't really spitting, more like coughing up bitterish coagulates. George is a fine fellow, though now elderly. Had he been born Maori, he'd be explaining patiently that the earth and the sky had waded into a ferocious disagreement such that they simply could NOT abide each other any longer and so separated eternally, all of which has us therefore traipsing inevitably to the axiom that humanists have bad breath.

The Major General,aka blatham,aka Bernie,aka Lola and occasionally aka The Punk lightened the gloom wafted over me by the view I have had over the last few days of American News broadcasting by the following-"It wasn't really spitting, more like coughing up bitterish coagulates. George is a fine fellow, though now elderly. Had he been born Maori, he'd be explaining patiently that the earth and the sky had waded into a ferocious disagreement such that they simply could NOT abide each other any longer and so separated eternally, all of which has us therefore traipsing inevitably to the axiom that humanists have bad breath."

This made me think that if George had been born of a Greek religious family of the Elusinian persuasion or as a pearl diver on a pacific island,Tonga say,or even as an Aztec or a member of the British Intelligentsia he might well have a completly different explanation and it might be the case that it could only be explained patiently.

Actually,Bernie,your choice of the Maori is inapt for the scenario you suggest.Tonga is in that part of the world and has cultural similarities with the Maori peoples.Their dances are quite consistent with each other as one would expect.You might have been better with the Middle East from about 100BC.I think the pacific nations were too busy with other things to bother about the earth and the sky having a set-to.And I don't think George would be able to explain that,even patiently,precisely because he is a humanist.As we all are,of course.
And I gargle with scented water after meals.

Apart from the indiscriminate use of the words indiscriminate and irrelevant, there is no argument here. The fact is there are substantial cultural connections between the Dissenters (as they were known in England) or Puritans (as they were known here) - as well as of the other protestant sects that populated New England and the Middle Atlantic colonies. Methodisn and the Calvinism of the Scots-Irish settlers of Appalachia all played their part in the so-called awakening of the early 19th century, from which evidently Hofstadter traces so much import. Clearly the mid continent settler experience also had a major part in this phenomenon. Does Hofstsdter consider that too? Perhaps he should also have written a book about Alberta and the Canadian mid continental region.

RIO RANCHO NEW MEXICO UPDATE:

Is seems a great pity that these scientists feel the need to distract themselves from their normal work,which is what they are paid to do,to state such obvious truths.To them it must be the equivalent of rocks coming through the windows.It might be an idea that they consider re-locating to areas where they can be more productive and esteemed and leave the metaphysicians to run their affairs how they see fit.Intellectual environments can become untenable.

Blatham: As a point of methodology, I prefer to lump all members of group X indiscriminately together when the alternative is what your suggestion generalizes to. It generalizes to discriminating between such examples of group X that confirm my prejudices, on which I ground a general theory of Xs -- and such examples of group X that contradict my prejudices, which I label as exceptions. That way lie intellectual atrocities like 'the good nîgger', 'oh, but some of my best friends are Canadian liberals', and 'Massachusetts Puritans were distinct in being pro-intellectual'. I abhor that way of not being "indiscriminate".

George: Tell me, has Hofstader proven a good read so far? Would you agree with Bernie that I should read the book too?

I wonder if George is reading Hofstader, and if so, if Hofstader has done his research. The "Great Awakening" refers to a period of roughly 1730-70. Methodism was a product of the "GA," not a cause. George Whitefield was the great evangelist of the "GA," and he crossed the Atlantic more than once to preach in both England and the colonies. John Wesley did not come to an evangelical epiphany until 1739, and the tenets of Methodism were not promulgated until 1750. By that time, the authorities of the religious establishments were already suppressing the revivalism in the colonies. Presbyterianism more than any other creed made the greatest gains in new converts in the "GA," and that mostly on the frontier. This was little regarded, however, by colonial officials, as so many of the frontier settlers were Scots-Irish, most of whom already were Presbyterians. As these Presbyterians vigorously attempted to suppress dissent, the movement in the "back country" died out of its own vices, especially as such evangelism was deeply resented by the Calvinist Huguenots and the German pietists.

I can't understand Thomas's post aside from the last sentence.On that I would say that a lot of other books should have priority on your reading list over Hofstader,who I have read and have a copy or two of.

Wande-It is possible for a scientific mind to consider ID theory introduction from the point of view that its deployment would strengthen the society irrespective of whether one agreed with it or not.Not that I think that would be the case:on the contrary I think it would weaken society but I would be open to persuasion.It may be that the stresses and strains of a scientific materialism are too much for the average citizen to bear for long without the aid of pharmaceuticals which themselves cause a range of other problems.But then I'm back to Marx aren't I?

This is probably a naive query.

ID claims there is(or must be) an Intelligent Designer (without invoking the G word). It makes no scientifically verifyable predictions (as has been mentioned in this thread before).

Suppose (for the sake of considering a possibility) that there is an "Intelligent Designer" who we need to invoke in order to address the complexities of this world. If this "Intelligent Designer" didn't appear out of thin air magically, what is the scientifically verifiable origin of this "Intelligent Designer" ? This "Intelligent Designer" is likely to be a complexer entity capable of creating/assisting in the implementation of this worlds complexities. If complexity implies design (as ID suggests) and if the Designer is complex, who designed this Designer ? What stops one from assuming the existence of an endless hierarchy of more "Intelligent Designers" that designed the lower level "Intelligent Designers" of ID ? Does ID address this issue ?

No it doesn't and it never will.The limits of absurdity know no bounds obviously.One is contemplating an infinite series of intelligent designers.Obviously again.

The "great Awakening' to which I referred occurred from 1800 to 1830. After a reference check I find that this event is called "The Second great Awakening", the first occurring, just as Setanta noted, nearly a century earlier. Together these events remind us of the rather continuous influence Evangelists have had on American cultural development.

I have not yet begun to read Hofstadtler's book I have, however commited to read it once Lola confirms that Bernie has stayed off smoking for a month. If he does that I will read it with an open mind (for me) and provide you with my evaluation on a thread I will open for the subject. Normally I steer clear of political and social scientists, preferring history, literature and my own analysis. There is so much of these genres that I have not yet read that indulgence in the predigested analyses of people with no more abilities or experience than my own seems a waste of time. I'll also confess to an adversion to those who style themselves as intellectuals, preferring to judge people by what they do as opposed to what they profess (often after the fact) to think.

The "second great awakening" was an evangelical phenomenon in England first--both Jane Austen and George Eliot (Mary Ann Evans) were products of that era, Austen at the beginning and Eliot at the end. Austen's Anne Elliot of Persuasion is sometimes thought to be a type of autobiographical sketch, and she is the quietly evangelical type of woman that Austen may have seen herself to be. Eliot's Dorothea in Middlemarch may also have been semi-autobiographical--she is a fervid evangelical, who marries Casaubon, a very much older man, and a theological scholar of high repute. She becomes disillusioned, however, and develops a strong and willful charcter after his death leaves her wealthy and influential in her community. She is still evangelical, but with a cynical, hardnosed pragmatism. Miss Evans had been that fervent type of evangelical, before becoming estranged from her family. The evangelical movement which George Whitefield had started in England in 1737, and which drew in John Wesley, never subsided. The Victorian era evangelicals would push for the abolition of slavery, a policing and an eventual end of the sea-born slave trade by the Royal Navy, and provide early social service workers in the slums which abounded in England's grimy industrial heartland.

Evangelical revivalism began in Congregationalist areas of the colonies as early as the 1680's. It's itinerant preachers did not draw the crowds of tens of thousands which Whitefiled would draw when just a young man in his 20's, but the fire and brimstone style of preaching was there, and so was the opprobrium of established religious authority. When Whitefield came to the colonies with his performance art style of preaching, it electrified the itinerant evangelic preachers, who emulated his dramatic style. By the 1750's, deep splits had developed in most congregations in settled areas, and some portions of the Congregationalists and Baptist went on to form new sects. But disapproving reaction was strong, as well, and the Anglicans and "old light" Congregationalists made gains in their adherents, too. In urban areas, the Baptists and Quakers were the largest gainers from revivalism, being seen as evangelical by nature. But the Stamp Act crisis distracted the attention of the Americans, and pushed revivalism off the center stage. The arrival of the Methodists circa 1770 assured that evangelicalism would not die away, however.

When the new wave of evangelical fervor arrived on our shores, many a charlatan took the opportunity to exploit the credulity of people in newly opened territories--western Tennessee, Alabama and Mississippi, the Northwest Ordinance territories and states, and Missouri. By 1830, the movement was in disrepute as established denominations made concerted efforts to woo evangelicals to their congregations, and camp meeting preachers got a reputation for fraud and venality. The description of the camp meeting in Huckleberry Finn is not hyperbole on the part of Clemens.

During the American civil war, however, the evangelical fervor arose again, and in the South. Thomas Jackson, who had been unchurched as a boy, a notional Anglican because of his attendance at the USMA, a friend and confidant of the Archbishop in Mexico City, finally became a Presbyterian, although remaining a close friend of William Nelson Pendleton, the Episcopal minister of Grace Church in Lynchburg. As with so many others in the South, he constantly called for prayer and piety in the people to ensure that God would bless their arms and crown their struggle with victory. Unlike the others, Jackon inspired confidence and emulation in the people and in the army. This is fairly well-known. What is less well-known is that Jackson's best friend among officers of his grade was James Ewell Brown Stuart. Although "Beauty" Stuart is remembered as a bold, dashing and dapper cavalier, he was also a devoutly religious man, an evangelical Episcopalian. He could kid Jackson publicly because his genuine affection for the man was understood by Jackson, and they shared a piety which Jackson considered the greatest personal quality in a man. Jackson, with Stuart's encouragement, organized a chaplain's service in the Second Corps of the Army of Northern Virginia, and their camp meetings were well attended. The private soldier quickly came to know that Jackson's piety was not for show--often a man would look around to see to his surprise that the most famous infantry commander and the most famous cavalry commander in Confederate arms were standing quietly at the back of the meeting with their heads bowed, or sharing a seat on a log and listening intently to the sermon. As Confederate fortunes declined, the tent meeting revivalism grew, and the deaths of both Jackson and Stuart in the war had the effect of increasing the popularity of the large, open-air meetings, which now drew many civilians in whatever area the army was then located. After the war, such tent meeting revivalism became a feature of life in the South, long after such evanglical fervor had died away or become institutionalized in the North.

No observations on the meaning of this, i'm sure George will tell us of its crucial significance for the national character. Just some information to be put out for consideration.

Inefficient. Simply drink l'eaudiferous with meal.

Polynesians, melanesians, micronesians and elysians
piss-tank priests and drunk cartesians
a'gambole gals with grievous lesions
may or may not have bumped into god coming around a corner.

As for me, my story is the story of Joseph. When stopped and asked by an excited local townswoman regarding his personal experience of the wonderous birth immaculate, Joseph spat (a real case of spitting this time), "Vy ask me? I vasn't dere."

thomas

We both understand the pitfalls of 'differentiation' born out of the desire to marginalize or demonize some subset of a group. And, on the other hand of course, the pitfalls of insufficient discrimination.

We are commonly distracted and set in the direction of mistaken generalization simply through simple or (let's call it) 'primitive' language, eg "christians" or "religious people" or "Americans" etc etc. Analysis will tend to show up differences not acknowledged by the too-simple language. To lump the Puritans in with other groups termed 'evangelical' is to confuse far more than to illuminate as regards the subject at issue.

Both yourself and george (and anyone else who loves exceptionally good writing and who has a taste for american history) will, I have no doubt at all, end up cherishing Hofstadter and this book.

blatham wrote-



As I qualify to the terms set out and having read Hofstader I would be most interested in why I ought to "cherish" his book.I'll definitely read it again,and with more care,if I can be persuaded.I have quoted from the book on these threads somewhere way back but I can't yet say I "cherish" it.It does constitute a use of my precious time to re-read it and I will listen to anything which justifies my making that investment.

What makes it so special to some people.I know it is good and almost a must read but "cherish",as I do Veblen,I have not seen but would like to.There are so few books to "cherish" I think.Enthuse me.

I am reading Flaubert's letters at this time and that is a book I do "cherish".

BTW Bernie-if you can,why was that thread locked last night?I've read the rules a couple of times and I didn't see much wrong?

spendie

Sheesh...talk about an invitation to mouth cliches...but I'll brave it out.

Which books a reader might 'cherish' greatly depends, I think, upon what the reader finds illuminative...what (I don't much like this word) enriches his/her experience of the world. And there are as many valid points of address to such intellectual growth as their are specific curiosities and questions we each might have. For some, geology is the thing, for another it's Lear and Hamlet, and for another it is astro-physics. I have a curiosity regarding how human groups are structured and how such structures function.

As regards the locked thread...I wasn't online through most of yesterday so don't know the incident in specifics. The moderators are a fairly free-wheeling group with a preference for keeping things moving but they are as arbitrary sometimes as either you or I would be. Normally, it is a rising emotional heat that tips the thing.