Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
Panspermia is a form of ID
[No its not

Quote:
Also, Foxfyre has pointed out that ID was represented in Greek thought by non-theists as well.

In your dreams. The argument was rather lame, sort of like your insistence that Newton represents Creationism, when in the time, the very distinction had not been even developed as a comparison to "Evolution".

FM, even a dedicated anti-Theist as yourself cannot possibly defend any presumption that a form of ID was not held by both Plato and Aristotle? And would you not agree that both are credited with some heavy duty Greek philosophy?

And maybe if I type this veeeeeerrrry slooooooooowlly, I might get through the fog to express again that Creationism is one explanation for ID, but it is in no way the ONLY explanation for ID?

0 Replies

to attempt to create a silly argument re:Plato and ARistotle re modern ID "myth" is similar to RL's insistance that Newton was a Creationist. A number of people have already commented upon this and to belabor it , gives it some false credibility.

As far as panspermia being ID, its just the opposite.

0 Replies

Foxfyre has the same delusion as other theists. Oh, they believed in gods, they must believe in god the same way we do. heh.

The gods of the Greeks were nothing like what is worshipped today, we moderns like our one god of three persons perfect. (um, unless you reject the tri-god model, -it's hard to know) The gods running amok amongst the Athenians created, besides the havoc, a great deal of other gods, demi-gods and various sprites by blowing on seafoam and having stones swallowed and expelled from various orifices. Not even reminiscent of separating LIGHT from DARK.

Meanwhile, whilst we have spent all this time on this thread chewing on the tapestries, Craig Venter is stitching genes together to create a genome from scratch. This is going to terrify Spendius.

And A. Garrett Lisi may have come up with the right equations to frame a Grand Unified Theory that actually stays together.
Watch this.

Fox News no less

http://www.foxnews.com/images/325166/0_61_math_e8.jpg

Joe(whilst they studied stones for signs, the biologists made life appear.)Nation

0 Replies

rl

Quote:

Panspermia is a form of ID, and it is believed by a fair number of atheists.

Panspermia includes the "seeding" of the cosmos by living nuclei in dust etc.
Carrying life about in suitcases by ET's out for a Galactic sowing expedition is only one POV that defers the origin of life to an earlier time and different place.
To consider panspermia , you must recognize its various forms in discussion.

, However, ID isnt even your belief is it RL? youre a hardened YEC, (Ive concluded this from your previous posts. Circumstantial but compelling)

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
ID is inherently religious. It doens't belong in our public schools unless it is addressed exclusively in a theology or mythology course.

Panspermia is a form of ID, and it is believed by a fair number of atheists.

farmerman wrote:

No its not

maporsche wrote:

And as I pointed out, the beings required to bring life to the Earth would have to have been intelligent as well, and if humans require a designer, so do these aliens, unless you're suggesting that the only intelligent life that requires a designer are humans.

Of course the designers would have been intelligent. Thus the name Intelligent Design.

The atheistic panspermia IDers that I am referring to realize that life on Earth could not have generated itself in the short amount of time postulated for the Earth's existence.

Generally they answer this by stating their belief that intelligent life evolved elsewhere by completely natural processes, but in a much longer time frame, and then these 'designers' seeded the Earth.

Probably the best known of these atheist panspermia advocates would be Francis Crick.

Of course, his opinion on how difficult it might be for life to self generate from dead chemicals on Earth is worth what?

I mean seriously maybe he just needed to take a chemistry course or two and then he could be 'educated' on how easy it would be for life to self generate from raw chemicals on Earth, right?

0 Replies

What part of the organic you wasn't at some point inorganic?

The carbon?
The calcium>
The zinc?

Joe(think)Nation

0 Replies

Joe-

It takes a bit more than the aptly named Mr Venter to terrify me. Joan Collins maybe. Barbara Stanwyk. You know. Venus and Adonis. Ovid. I can get a wobble on with that lot but Mr Venter---no chance.

I read the link. It has as many holes as the treble twenty in a second hand dartboard.

Quote:

Nonetheless, it still comprises 582,970 chemical units or "base pairs", strung along as a filament.

He's having you on. Venter by name venter by nature. I knew a woman called Mrs P. Jolly and there is a well known tendency to live up to one's name a bit which she did.

Somebody taking it more seriously than Mrs Jolly did could easily have come to realise that talking about stopping us all carking is a tried and tested route to fame and fortune. You don't even have to know how to open a pull-top beer can to know a simple thing like that.

After that it is basic hypnosis. You dangle a flattery before their eyes and under they go. And you get better at it the more you practice. Like in snooker. It flatters them to think they know what-

Quote:

Nonetheless, it still comprises 582,970 chemical units or "base pairs", strung along as a filament.

actually means.

New research which "might" or "could" "bring us one step nearer" to not having to cark it and reported in a language that only literary connoisseurs can interpret is the bit before your critical faculties start drifting into a deep, deeep. deeeep sleeeeeeeep.

One might easily understand though why anti-IDers are supine subjects. And sympathise with their plight.

Any serious sign that an artificial method of prevention of the cark-time has peeped out will produce a clampdown by Governments who will obviously seek to prevent the masses finding out. As Caligula said "Oooh!! if the Romans had but one neck."

In other words--you reading about it is empirical evidence that it isn't happening. Just look at your neighbours at 300 years of age and you will see how the Government might look at it. Especially if they are all anti-IDers.

Mi knees is knocking and mi teeth is chattering like a lemur monkey.

0 Replies

FLORIDA UPDATE

Quote:

Board Opposes Evolution Being Taught As Fact
(By Marc Valero, Highlands Today, January 25, 2008)

Four of five members of the School Board of Highlands County oppose the proposed change in the state's science standards that would present evolution as fact to students.

Some school board members across the state have opposed the proposed revisions to the science curriculum that specifies that evolution be taught as "fact" as opposed to a "theory," School Board Attorney John McClure said at a recent school board meeting.

Would the board consider a resolution opposing the proposed change in the Sunshine State Standards that would present evolution as fact? he asked.

"I would for one," would support such a resolution, School Board Member Richard Norris said.

Norris, who is also a Lutheran minister, has stated that evolution should not be taught as fact and that students should be able to discuss creationism in class.

School Board Member Donna Howerton said she would also entertain supporting such a resolution.

School Board Chairman J. Ned Hancock said Thursday he would support the resolution to encourage the state not to approve the science standard of evolution as fact.

School Board Vice Chairman Andy Tuck said Thursday, "as a person of faith, I strongly oppose any study of evolution as fact at all. I'm purely in favor of it staying a theory and only a theory.

"I won't support any evolution being taught as fact at all in any of our schools."

School Board Member Wally Randall could not be reached for comment and he was not present at Tuesday's school board meeting.

McClure said he would draw up a resolution for the board's consideration.

The current standards call for teaching the concept of "biological changes over time."

The proposed new standards state: evolution is the fundamental concept underlying all of biology and is supported by multiple forms of scientific evidence.

Intelligent design, the idea that life began as a result of an intelligent force or being, is not part of the proposed new standards.

The proposed science standards can be viewed at flastandards.org.

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

Foxfyre has the same delusion as other theists. Oh, they believed in gods, they must believe in god the same way we do. heh.

The gods of the Greeks were nothing like what is worshipped today, we moderns like our one god of three persons perfect. (um, unless you reject the tri-god model, -it's hard to know) The gods running amok amongst the Athenians created, besides the havoc, a great deal of other gods, demi-gods and various sprites by blowing on seafoam and having stones swallowed and expelled from various orifices. Not even reminiscent of separating LIGHT from DARK.

Meanwhile, whilst we have spent all this time on this thread chewing on the tapestries, Craig Venter is stitching genes together to create a genome from scratch. This is going to terrify Spendius.

And A. Garrett Lisi may have come up with the right equations to frame a Grand Unified Theory that actually stays together.
Watch this.

Fox News no less

Joe(whilst they studied stones for signs, the biologists made life appear.)Nation

Had you actually read my arguments including Plato, Aristotle et al, you would have seen that my discussion of why ID does not have to be about God or gods in any theist sense. FM's arguments express so much fanaticism re despising theists that it appears that he, even with his scientific background, is incapable of seeing and/or acknowledging any concept beyond his own prejudices. As one whom I have not seen as especially prejudiced, I had hoped for better from you Joe. Guess not?

0 Replies

The answer is staring you in the face wande. Get anti-IDers onto the school boards. It's easy.

Why do you keep retailing this guff. It's microcosmic and your topic is macrocosmic. It's as if seeing a monkey dusting the furniture in an advert informs you that all monkeys do it. I've seen monkeys having philosophical discussions and trying to write coherently.

What happens in Highlands County has as much to do with your topic as the football results do. In fact I could do a bit of sophistical thinking and show that the football results have more to do your topic than what happens in Highlands County does.

You are "provincialising" an intellectual discussion to suit your own position. Which seems to be that you have very little to say on your own account about the topic you posted.

Anti-IDer posts are invariably little capsules, circular in shape around the centre, where the meanings of the words used are assumed to be the meanings others will attach to them and which refer back and forth to each other, the bouncy-effect, and purport to present a burnished image, in their total effect, of the superior mind of their creator. I do it myself quite a lot. In the pub mainly. But at least I know I'm doing it. I would never do it on a science forum thread though.

0 Replies

Bernie posted-

Quote:

Quote:
biology is a very strange subject.

That's a very strange sentence fragment.

Why would you say that Bernie? Do you not think biology is a strange subject?

The sentence actually read- " And biology is a very strange subject."

I might agree that the expression was more conversational than compositional from a pedantic point of view.

0 Replies

In the Sunday Times recently the TV critic, AA Gill, wrote about the sit-com Damages which he says is set in " the magical, mythical never-never land of the American civil legal system".

My, he says-

Quote:

the legal profession has moved on since Perry Mason and Ally McBeal. First Shark and now this. They've done away with any pretence that attorneys might be the knights of justice, Robin Hood in suits, or that the law is there to protect the weak and is the same for everyone. Now, lawyers are simply rabid, vicious, amoral pit bulls, motivated by vanity, spite and cash.

Swap bananas for cash and your back to square one. A combination of Uncle Sam and the soaring eagle.

Whether it is a question of life imitating art or the other way round makes little difference to whether the school boards, and other characters who star in wande's quotes are, in the main, drawn for the sort of milieu in which lawyers are a key component and maybe team leaders. Book publishers, journalists, TV producers, advertising executives and such like also operative in their respective weight categories.

Which raises the issue of what are sugar-coated fluffed up presentations of rabid, vicious, amoral pit bulls doing on a science thread except as Darwinianism in action possibly.

It is worth noting that Glenn Close, who plays Cruella De Vil, has form for this sort of role. Perhaps Venus Whiplash is on the horizon.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Bernie posted-

Quote:
Quote:
biology is a very strange subject.

That's a very strange sentence fragment.

Why would you say that Bernie? Do you not think biology is a strange subject?

The sentence actually read- " And biology is a very strange subject."

I might agree that the expression was more conversational than compositional from a pedantic point of view.

Well, 'conversational' gets you some ways off the hook. It's pretty hard to make sense of 'strange' used as you used it there.

0 Replies

Bernie-

I was alluding to the ongoing debate concerning the connection between the psychogenic and the physiogenic aspects of human organisms. Obviously a debate about religion and science has no room for any other organisms.

I presume you are aware, perhaps more than most, that the intensity of an idea depends upon the quantity of somatic excitement it causes. Emotions derive from instincts which are in the somatic sphere. Ideas derive from the psychic sphere. Evolution presents no example of black stockings and garter belts for example so it is difficult to understand just how an anti-IDer could derive a response to them within the somatic realm.

Further, that ideas provoking such a response are intensified and made more vivid by that response in a rising crescendo which nature has seen fit to limit at a certain point.

Do you deny this connection, as DM Armstrong does in his Materialist Theory of Mind thesis, as, indeed, he was logically driven to in order to keep all his balls in the air?

Or, if like me, you don't deny it do you not think there is a certain "strangeness" about it which the scientifically driven ladies on the various school boards, and their allies in overlapping "circulating elites", might not have yet fully appreciated? In view of the volume of such ideas in media do you think such ladies are thrusting at the frontiers of American science with their "birds and bees" biology?

And further still, to give you pause for thought whilst you chew on your pencil, do you think that the idea of getting onto a school board could, of itself, create pleasureable somatic effects and thus become subject to the crescendo I mentioned but with the difference that nature has not provided a limiting mechanism for its full and free expression.

They do say that power and the public display of it is an aphrodisiac.

You do know One More Cup of Coffee I presume.

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

What part of the organic you wasn't at some point inorganic?

The carbon?
The calcium>
The zinc?

Joe(think)Nation

I've always been organic.

So have all my parts. Laughing

I'm a lean, sheen organic machine. Cool

0 Replies

I notice that nobody wants to tackle Crick's panspermia.

It just kills the idea that ID MUST be religious, or that it is 'creationism undercover'.

Same thing with Plato. Good job, Foxfyre.

0 Replies

I compared the nose of a dog to the nose of a bear, then I compared the skeleton of a rabbit to the skeleton of a cat. God has no imagination. We need more three eyed, five legged animals.

0 Replies

Captain Irrelevant wrote:

I compared the nose of a dog to the nose of a bear, then I compared the skeleton of a rabbit to the skeleton of a cat. God has no imagination. We need more three eyed, five legged animals.

It's been tried

http://www.education.umd.edu/blt/pic/Echinoderm.jpg

Rap

0 Replies

The anti-IDers here seem to be hell bent to stay on (their) message that IDers are delusional, religious fanatics, ignorant uneducated klutzs or they call them some really unflattering terms. They won't accept that most IDers are actually not Biblical Creationists but see things in far more educated and reasoned terms than could those ancient writers who were limited in both scientific knowledge and experience.

Nevertheless, I believe that most pro-IDers are satisfied with or would be, and would even push for a reasonable compromise. The science teacher will teach Darwin as science. S/he will acknowledge that Darwin cannot answer all questions any more than any scientific theories can answer all questions. S/he will acknowledge that there is almost certainly more yet to learn than what we already know. S/he will acknowledge that there are other theories out there such as ID; however, these cannot be tested scientifically and therefore will not be discussed in science class.

This is a reasonable approach to the problem that should be acceptable to all reasonable people. I think if this approach was taken we would see most of these silly court cases go away.

Most of the anti-IDers won't accept that compromise, however. Why do you suppose that is?

0 Replies

foxfyre

Quote:

Nevertheless, I believe that most pro-IDers are satisfied with or would be, and would even push for a reasonable compromise. The science teacher will teach Darwin as science. S/he will acknowledge that Darwin cannot answer all questions any more than any scientific theories can answer all questions. S/he will acknowledge that there is almost certainly more yet to learn than what we already know. S/he will acknowledge that there are other theories out there such as ID; however, these cannot be tested scientifically and therefore will not be discussed in science class.

This is a reasonable approach to the problem that should be acceptable to all reasonable people.

Most of the anti-IDers won't accept that compromise, however. Why do you suppose that is?

Up until your last sentence in your first paragraph, you were ok. ID is not even a theory. Please dont infuse it with any undeserved credibility.

There is no body of evidence supporting ID(the "scientrists" ahve been promising same but its always being debunked.

A theory , in science, is an explanation for a phenom. Its composed of laws, evidence, and is a scientific fact in which all the evidence is in support and no evidence refutes. ID doesnt even get out of the starting block.

Panspermia has some very limited evidence , but as Wickramsinghe and Hoyle, and Crick, and Alvarez have SPECULATED, Evidence of panspermia is all very speculative as of now. (The Martian meteorite from 1996 that Zare et al analyzed, was actually a carbonotite and not a tracing of bacteria from space). Panspermia , as Hoyle concluded, was merely the "Seeding" of organisms originating as brainless nucleii from another galactic center, NOT as some conclude, the purposeful seeding by sentient beings.

ID is a weak "science wannabe" and has absolutely no credibility. Thats why its not brought up a an "alternative theory". In the ID language (and here Im amazed at your continued ignorance), its a purposeful design by an intelligent being (substitute GOD , whether you deny it or not).

What is, or is not "satisfactory to proponents of ID" is of no concern to me. I teach Historical Geology based upon good evidence and facts. If you want some satisfaction, go buy a macaroon theys goooood.
As far as your attempts at making cogent arguments for your POV,theyre no more compelling or credible than spendis rants and disjointed attempts at logic.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know