Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Foxfyre wrote:

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?

This does not sound like a compromise. It sounds like a list of demands. Science teachers should be allowed to teach their subject in a straightforward manner. Why would anyone ask teachers (of any subject) to read a long list of disclaimers, Foxfyre?

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

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.

ID has not been 'debunked' any more than Natural Selection has been 'proved'. I certainly hope that you teach historical geology more competently than you accurately represent what I or Spendi or any of the other pro-IDers are saying here. You cannot seem to comprehend, for instance, that at no time and in no sense have I EVER suggested that ID be taught as science. Yet you keep coming back to that argument presumably because you don't have a leg to stand on otherwise?

0 Replies

Its Dover redux. She doesnt read the transcripts or the summaries. Id suggest that the book "Monkey Girl" is a good read , full of information on how the real IDers see themselves and their mission.wandel

Quote:

This does not sound like a compromise. It sounds like a list of demands

good point wandel.

0 Replies

Quote:

You cannot seem to comprehend, for instance, that at no time and in no sense have I EVER suggested that ID be taught as science

Yet you insist that your "manifesto" be presented in science classes as alternatives, Its no more unique than what they tried to do at DOver. Yet you act like youve just "thought it up".

I dont teach geology any differently , Im just presented with students with far more open minds than you (and your ilkness).
Nat Selection has never sought to be proven, Its EVIDENCED. All evidence is, or is not compelling. I say that ID has been debunked because ALL of its quasi scientific tenets have been destroyed by evidence
Eye evolution
Irreducible complexity

Flagella
Blood clotting etc etc

If you wish to blindly disregard the good work in the debvunkery and still cling to the false hopes of Dr Behe, go for it lady, just dont present this a s a "reasonable compromise" to well evidenced science.

0 Replies

Foxy wrote-

Quote:

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 have to Foxy. It's their straw man. Bigtime. They have painted themselves into a corner on it. It could even be that they've done it precisely to provide opportunities to rant about "delusional, religious fanatics, ignorant uneducated klutzs and call them some really unflattering terms" thus setting up an implied invidious comparison with themselves who must, logically, be the opposite of all those things. In some cases it become a pressing need.

Quote:

Nevertheless, I believe that most pro-IDers are satisfied with or would be, and would even push for a reasonable compromise.

Count me out on that. I can see no usefulness teaching Darwinism to school kids and especially bright, sexually mature ones. Saying that to teach it is vital to American science is another of their straw men. Notice Foxy how they have stayed clear of my recent posts. Where is the explanation of Dr Aidley never even mentioning the subject? They have other fish to fry.

It surprises me that you favour teaching this tiny corner of biology and the moreso in view of my raising the hydra-headed monster of biopsychic activity in humans which I have been hinting at for 3 years. You can only discuss Darwin as science in relation to other organisms besides humans and even then it gets a bit iffy in the plant world and breaks down completely in the micro-organism world.

If that makes me unreasonable so be it.

Quote:

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

As I said-- they have other fish to fry. I've speculated upon that all down the thread and like the proverbial ostrich they have hid their heads from any of it.

I don't know whether they read my posts but if they do they show not the slightest sign of understanding them either because of poor comprehension skills or inhibitions of one sort or another.

Listen to this-

Quote:

ID is not even a theory. Please dont infuse it with any undeserved credibility.

Not only is that a cracked old 78rpm gramaphone record with cobwebs but it is tautological, as all their posts are as I explained yesterday. If they hide their head from any explanation that ID has scientific credibility, and I have given a few, how can they possibly think ID has any credibility. It automatically has no credibility to anybody who refuses to deal with evidence that it has.

Quote:

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

They can't even avoid repeating their tired mantra from one paragraph to the next. What fm means is that his conclusion there is from what he has observed and he carefully avoids observing anything from which other conclusions might present themselves. He's a walking tautology.

Quote:

ID is a weak "science wannabe" and has absolutely no credibility.

He can't even use the language properly as anybody can see from that insulting stupidity. How does "weak" fit in with "no" and the "whatsover" suggests there are grades of "no" which there aren't. The use of "whatsoever" is entirely tautological.

And-

Quote:

no more compelling or credible than spendis rants and disjointed attempts at logic.

is just another cheap assertion derived from not reading my posts properly or not understanding them and based on the notion that what fm can't follow is, per se, not credible and illogical.

His whole response to your post is shot through with characteristics which have no place in the education of young people. He even offers his position as evidence of his credibility and as we all know from experience it is not. Nowhere near. All sorts of headbangers can be met with in the teaching profession. I knew a geography teacher who went to Hitler memorial rallies and he infused his teaching with some notions of fascism. Another one I knew supported apartheid. The idea that because one teaches Historical Geography, which is about done and dusted stuff anyway, and cribbed out of books, one is competent to be let loose on a bunch of unsuspecting kids is laughable.

0 Replies

Look who's bringing out the word "straw man" euphemism in the reverse. Their whole belief system crumbles under the word.

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

Eye evolution
Irreducible complexity

Flagella
Blood clotting etc etc

If you wish to blindly disregard the good work in the debvunkery and still cling to the false hopes of Dr Behe, go for it lady, just dont present this a s a "reasonable compromise" to well evidenced science.

You see Foxy. That's their playing field. IDers allowed them to play there at Dover. And they want to stay there. They feel safe. They made no attempt to deal with my idea that Mr Behe was a fall guy. Somebody who would play their game and thus lose. I have never said that the eye is an example of irreducible complexity. Nor have I said anything about blood clotting in flagella except to debunk it as irrelevant to the kid's educational needs.

You play with them on that sort of thing Foxy and you are not on the same side as me. I think Mr Behe is a plonker. Okay fm? Can you understand that?

Listen fm-- explain why no other culture has lingerie shops on every high street of every town, and in some villages, and are a pure institution of Christianity. Never mind bloody flagella.

I think the American educational system is in dire need of root and branch reform because it is turning into a tower of Babel.

0 Replies

And here it is again-

Quote:

Im just presented with students with far more open minds than you (and your ilkness).

The implied invidious comparison from which we are supposed to deduce that one of the most bigoted, stubborn and closed minds I have come across in a long time is open-minded.

Boy oh boy. What utter dross. You're not big enough for the pedestal you have got yourself up upon fm.

0 Replies

fm-

Why no response to Post3060229 of yesterday?

Your failure is one almighty "gap". The biggest "gap" there is in any grown up debate about religion.

Religion is a giant fact in the human world. Do you really think its existence is due to a few cynics exploiting the masses simply because that is the only explanation you can understand. That the Pope waved his arms about and millions of people, kings even, went under his spell. You must be off your head if you think that.

0 Replies

I put this up on the Obama 88 thread-

Quote:

Is there a possibilty that Hedge-Funders are financing these campaigns and don't care who wins in a similar way that bookies finance horse-racing journalism.

About 60 posts later not a peep. Don't want to know. Don't even wish to consider it. Why-- it's a sensible question. Campaign financing is peanuts to Hedge-funders.

Obvious answer is that they don't know what Hedge-Funds are or how they work and if they did they wouldn't be able to continue posturing as if they know something about politics.

Same problem on here regarding phsysiogenic and psychogenic tensions which are what religion is all about. In fact it is about nothing else. And the science is slightly more difficult than arranging fossils in cabinets with labels on them using "funds", dreaming up theories about them and taking on cleaners to dust them everyday, make the tea and calling you Sir in a reverential tone.

I used "slightly" ironically. I apologise for feeling the need to point that out.

0 Replies

spendi, Here, again, you're using words like "gap" as if you comprehend the word.

0 Replies

The post I referred to c.i. was in response to Bernie's question.

He seems to be having a "gap" day on here.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
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?

This does not sound like a compromise. It sounds like a list of demands. Science teachers should be allowed to teach their subject in a straightforward manner. Why would anyone ask teachers (of any subject) to read a long list of disclaimers, Foxfyre?

I would agree if I had said anything remotely similar to anybody reading a long list of disclaimers. I didn't. And what list of demands?

The compromise assures parents that the science teacher won't be actively tearing down the parent's values and the child's faith system while there is NO form of demand that ANY form of creationism be taught in science class. I think with such assurance you will be seeing little pressure from parents re what the science curriculum should be.

What specifically do you object to in the proposed compromise?

0 Replies

Science teachers don't tear down the parent's values; they do that all by themselves by trying to enforce ID into science class.

0 Replies

wande wrote-

Quote:

Science teachers should be allowed to teach their subject in a straightforward manner.

Typical. Teachers in the abstract. Some idealised concept in wande's mind and nothing to do with the vast range of invividual differences in the thousands of science teachers in the nation most of whom, and their supervisors, have little or no idea about science if this thread is anything to go by. And all with ideas of their own concerning a range of matters. Some prim New England maidens, some dirty old men like me, some respectably married with daughters, some gamblers, some fascists, some communists, some Catholics, some atheists, some obese, some elderly, some stupid, some in it for extra cash, some feminists, some sadists, some control freaks, some well off, some smartly dressed and all along the range of those and many more to their opposites. And that's superficial.

Copying out of books and old lesson notes. Body language as well developed as in any monkey colony and just as important

And look at the "straightforward" a bit. wande didn't. A moment's thought would have have shown that it means what wande thinks is straightforward. The grand tautology again and that after a brief lesson in tautology has been presented this very day.

Imagine, if you will dear viewer, the concentration of the sexually mature kids on a warm afternoon listening to a straightforward lesson about blood clotting in flagella when posters who have come on a site seeking to be Abled 2 Know something can't even be bothered to concentrate on the last post but a few concerning that most important aspect of science, namely tautology.

There's nothing staightforward about any of this.

Although there would be if straightforward was defined by the guy who had all the guns and tanks and I know quite a few people, and fictional characters created out of a high class author having observed a few himself, who have that fantasy buried away and who are much given to assertion, tautology, (it was a really nice restaurant &Co), tantrums, bluster, bombast and inflexibly rigid opinions which, when mixed together, boiled up, stirred, strained through muslin, evaporated and the resultant tiny speck of grit placed under a microscope, presents an image of how they see themselves from where they are looking and they are pleased with what they see.

All my pub mates are like that. It really is good fun. Especially after a couple of looseners. They know how everything should be done in a straightforward manner.

By the way wande. Give us an idea of it in action. Take a lesbian fatty, inner-city, class of hooligans, skint, scarred in love and can just about read and write.

0 Replies

The kids who take no notice, get a job at a gas station and flaunt their credentials rather than those of their Moms and Pops are what evolution is all about. You can pick Darwinism up in a jiffy. Like Mr Huxley intimated when he said--"Why didn't I think of that?"

Denial takes many forms and anti-ID is one of them.

But it is a fact that Mr Darwin gave the world as big a dose of his genes as he could manage, given all the circumstances, which I will refrain from even alluding to in any practical, down-to-earth scientific manner, and that it is fair to say that he was a fundie Darwinist. With a private income.

The fact that he looked like a complete idiot is neither here nor there in the context of a science thread.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Science teachers don't tear down the parent's values; they do that all by themselves by trying to enforce ID into science class.

*snaps*

T
K
O

0 Replies

Quote:

Education Report: Creationism, intelligent design have no place in science courses

0 Replies

note that theres a period at the end of wandel's post. Very Happy

Foxfyre wishes to keep the debate going by providing her statement that ID is "another available theory" to explain the origins of life.

. If the science teacher provides kids a decent understanding of the factual basis of nat selection and its available evidence from all the other interwoven science disciplines, that's quite enough,If the teachher wishes to satte that some "gaps" in the evidence for the theory exist, thats ok too. However, beyond this,The teacher need go no further No need to get blatantly religious and invoke any more lawsuits than your local school district can afford.
I dislike frivolous lawsuits when precedents from a whole slew of court rulings provide a stare decisis on this issue.

As far as saying that ID can be presented in a fashion that doesnt include religion, Id like to see where thats happened in the past. SOmebody point it out.

Cant, can you foxy.

I know that past performance doesnt guarantee future results , but its a good starting point.

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

If the science teacher provides kids a decent understanding of the factual basis of nat selection and its available evidence from all the other interwoven science disciplines.

What does "a decent understanding" mean?

What is "the factual basis of natural selection"?

What is "the available evidence"?

Which are the "other interwoven science disciplines"?

Whatever they do mean at least the kids will be able to put on their CVs that they were given a decent understanding of the factual basis of natural selection and its available evidence from all the other interwoven science disciplines just like my pal in the pub who said that he had had lessons on the formation of fossils.

Regarding humans, which is likely to be the aspect of most interest and use to the kids, would the "factual basis" include the lingerie shops I mentioned recently and which are so common that they are obviously a key component of the matter and relate to psychic happenings as the somatic realm is the same whatever temporary carapace is deployed in the selection process.

The general trend is the removal of all non-human animals from the scene (where possible) except those animals of use to us and with those humans do the selecting for them based on criteria of our choosing.

The top class racehorse for example would not survive a week in the wild. It would have sore legs after the first gallop.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know