97
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sun 28 Oct, 2007 10:16 am
You must have read Doors of Perception then Bernie.

Quote:



Huxley reported on taking LSD at great length-

Quote:


"Oh no", says the scientist, "it has a myriad of names. Just look at our catalogues and our species index. We have them all taped. Defined. Reduced to our will. "

Ergot. St Anthony's fire. Ancient Greeks knew about it all.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Mon 29 Oct, 2007 04:29 pm
Quote:
Here purple threads that Tyrian vats have dyed
Are woven in, and subtle delicate tints
That change insensibly from shade to shade.
So when the sunshine strikes a shower of rain,
The bow's huge arc will paint the whole wide sky,
And countless different colours shine, yet each
Gradation dupes the gaze, the tints that touch
So similar, the extremes so far distinct.


Ovid.. Metamorphoses. Book V1.

There is "irreducible complexity". 2,000 years old. We still don't know the "tints that touch". We might chop them up into Angstrom units but we don't know what they are and never will.

James Joyce used the phrase -" the ineluctable modalities of the visible".

If I'm asked what I'm looking at I always reply -"the light patterns".

And that Design for Monument to Isaac Newton by Boulllee is supposed to make a similar point.

Does a rainbow even exist for any form of life other than humans to give it a name. And certainly not as an image of joy. That's religious.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Mon 29 Oct, 2007 06:02 pm
Ain't Ovid beautiful? Magical even.

Eludes categorisation.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Tue 30 Oct, 2007 08:57 am
UK UPDATE

The Association for Science Education, an organization for UK science teachers has issued the following statement on Intelligent Design:
Quote:
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Tue 30 Oct, 2007 09:03 am
spendius wrote:
Ain't Ovid beautiful? Magical even.

Eludes categorisation.


Here we agree.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 30 Oct, 2007 10:23 am
That all bullshit wande.

It is posited on the notion that science education is separated from the rest of the educational process just as sex education is posited on the notion that the sterilised mechanical aspects of copulation are separated from the romantic side.

Why can't these people just get on with teaching science. It isn't as if there is a shortage of subject matter. Nor of scientists. They just want to be making waves.

Quote:


In making such a divisive and pedantic statement as that they rely on the complexity of the refutation of it being so difficult to explain and to understand that most people will give it the go-by.

Like carbon dioxide turns lime water milky the concept of a designing intelligence bubbling through the earth's treasures turns them into the luxuries of modern life which include the very schools and colleges these dingbats derive their living from and the very knowledge they have partially derived from their own education.

Their heads are too big for their cap size.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Tue 30 Oct, 2007 11:41 am
wandeljw wrote:
UK UPDATE

The Association for Science Education, an organization for UK science teachers has issued the following statement on Intelligent Design:


This should be interesting.

wandeljw wrote:


I can name several well known scientific principles that evolution violates.


wandeljw wrote:
or explanations to support it.


I'm the first to admit that I can't explain HOW creation was done.

How is that different from when evolutionists say: 'well we may not know HOW evolution happened, but we just KNOW that it did.' ?

wandeljw wrote:
Furthermore it is not accepted as a competing scientific theory by the international science community


An appeal to authority, quite nicely done. By this logic, no idea that goes against the status quo can be entertained. Quite a few major scientific advances would be out in the cold on this score.

wandeljw wrote:
nor is it part of the science curriculum.


My personal favorite here. Great circular reasoning. 'It should not be part of the curriculum because it's not part of the curriculum.' Laughing

wandeljw wrote:
It is not science at all.


This is what evolutionists do best. Just say it's not open to discussion.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 30 Oct, 2007 12:08 pm
In the Sunday Times Felipe Fernandez-Armesto reviewed The Bible by Karen Armstrong. This was included-

Quote:
The most striking of Armstrong's revelations are that nobody until recently treated the Bible as literally true, and that fundamentalists - far from defying science and modernity - reflect and embody the arrogance of scientism and the seductions of assumed certainty.

Great minds have leapt to the challenge of making sense of scripture. The multiplicity of readings has intrigued them. The stories inside the Bible have inspired and enthralled readers - especially the sacred histories of exile and sufferings that spoke to the souls of oppressed Jews, enslaved blacks and Puritans. Above all, perhaps, every ambitious reader craves the chance to reach, however tentatively, for evidence about a remote and numinous past. Whatever its human failings, the Bible takes us as close as most of us can get into the baffling, infuriating, subtle, childish, cosmic, infinite, eternal and incomprehensible mind of God.


Anti-IDer's blithe assumption that their opponents take The Bible literally is a bit like looking for a baby to fight with.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Tue 30 Oct, 2007 12:08 pm
There is an invisible, undetectable pink dwarf sitting on my shoulder who brought into being all of the shadows in the world.

As a matter of fairness and intellectual consistency, this theory must join creationism and evolutionism as a credible subject for science classes.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Tue 30 Oct, 2007 12:12 pm
I'd like somebody here to disprove the Maori theory of beginnings.
Quote:
Ranginui and Papatuanuku prevented light from reaching the world because of their close embrace, and their offspring lived in a world of darkness and ignorance between the bodies of their parents. And they plotted against their parents in order to let light into the world.

It is said that some of the sons decided that their situation could be remedied only if they separated their parents, so that Ranginui would be pushed up to become the sky and Papatuanuku remain as their Earth. They set about their task. Tane it was who finally rendered them apart by resting his shoulders upon Papatuanuku and thrusting his legs upwards and pushing Ranginui to the sky. By this deed Tane, of many names, came also to be known as Tane-te-toko-o-te-rangi (Tane the prop of the heavens).
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Tue 30 Oct, 2007 12:44 pm
It is no more fantastic than the scientific notion that a "singularity" did it all. Both are indeed metaphors for the unexplained - and are therefore equivalent.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 30 Oct, 2007 12:48 pm
There are thousands of those creation myths Bernie. If you can invent your own there must be billions. But your's has no style so it won't do. It won't catch on. Your pinkie is you ego.

Quote:
For why, this lumpe of flesh and bones, this bodie, is not wee;
Wee are a thing, which earthly eyes denyed are to see.
Our soul is wee, endewd by God with reason from above;
Our bodie is but as our house, in which wee worke and move.
T'one part is common to us all, with God of heaven himself;
The t'other common with the beastes, a vyle and stinking pelf.
The t'one bedect with heavenly gifts and endlesse; t'other grosse,
Frayle, filthie, weake and borne to dye as made of earthly dross.
Now looke how long this clod of clay to reason dooth obey,
So long for men by just desert account our selves wee may.
But if wee suffer fleshly lustes as lawlesse lordes to reigne,
Than are wee beastes; wee are no men, wee have our name in vaine.
And if wee be drownd in vice that feeling once bee gone,
Then may it well of us bee sayd, wee are a block or stone.


Preface to Arthur Golding's 16th century translation of Ovid's Metamorphoses.

The book Shakespeare used and especially for A Midsummer Night's Dream and which Ezra Pound said was the most beautiful book in the English Language.

The Association for Science Education can shove it.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Tue 30 Oct, 2007 01:42 pm
My favorite creation myth is that we were all made out of clay.

http://www.businessinnovationinsider.com/Wallace%20Gromit.jpg
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Tue 30 Oct, 2007 02:25 pm
spendi is the one wearing the vest.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Tue 30 Oct, 2007 03:27 pm
blatham wrote:
There is an invisible, undetectable pink dwarf sitting on my shoulder


If undetectable, how did you detect it?

If invisible, how is it pink?
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Tue 30 Oct, 2007 04:07 pm
real life wrote:
I can name several well known scientific principles that evolution violates.

I can name several well known scientific principles that RL thinks evolution violates, when in fact he is simply misrepresenting the scientific principle or evolution itself.

How much you want to bet our lists are identical. Smile

Nice try RL. Evolution doesn't violate any scientific principles, and you know it.
0 Replies
 
Vengoropatubus
 
  1  
Tue 30 Oct, 2007 04:13 pm
real life wrote:
blatham wrote:
There is an invisible, undetectable pink dwarf sitting on my shoulder


If undetectable, how did you detect it?

If invisible, how is it pink?


He knows it's there because it's the simplest explanation for the weight he feels on his shoulders.

As far as how it can be pink, that all depends on what it's invisible to. If it does interact with photons on some interval, we might reasonably assume that since sound and music both have something to do with wave phenomena, the musical concept of an octave exists with light too, in that any two frequencies that are related by a factor of two may be interpreted as the same note or color, depending on the context. It's just too bad that human sight only ranges from 380nm to 750nm wavelengths, comprising almost the entirety of an "octave".
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Tue 30 Oct, 2007 04:19 pm
real life wrote:
blatham wrote:
There is an invisible, undetectable pink dwarf sitting on my shoulder


If undetectable, how did you detect it?

If invisible, how is it pink?


It spoke to me when I was wandering in the desert. It revealed to me the things I have told you. Soon, more will be revealed and it will be my holy task to write these words and carry them forth.

So, now I demand inclusion in science curricula.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Tue 30 Oct, 2007 04:23 pm
Quote:
the weight he feels on his shoulders.

Oh yes, the weight is there. Yet it leaves me unbowed. This is, I have been told, but the first of many miracles.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 30 Oct, 2007 04:32 pm
Vengo- thou weaver of the winds-

Quote:
So when the sunshine strikes a shower of rain,
The bow's huge arc will paint the whole wide sky,
And countless different colours shine, yet each
Gradation dupes the gaze, the tints that touch
So similar, the extremes so far distinct.


You're in Bernie--I'm sure it will be more interesting that cichlid blood clottings and 600 million year old bat's knuckle bones. When it comes to child minding good stories are worth their weight in gold nipple bling at the Superbowl.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 08/06/2025 at 11:42:20