Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Anti-ID, in full flower, is Orwell's boot stamping on your face for ever and ever. It is but a seedling as yet. The shoot apical meristem activity now apparent will, under optimum growth conditions, soon be shed and removed with a pinch of the fingers.

0 Replies

I find it funny that the term "anti-id" is used so often - as if the scientific community just decided to launch a war against "intelligent design" when, in fact, it was the other way around. there is no "anit-id" - there is a defense against the assault that ID has launched on evidence and sense. Again, there is no "anti-id" - there is only "anti-evolution".

Science (and by that I mean the community of scientists and the ideal itself) does not seek to destroy religion. It attempts to answer and understand with meaningful experiments, observations and data. It is religion that has waged this war on science without provocation in an attempt to prop itself up as superior although intellectually inferior.

Anyway, I realize that is somewhat of a tangent, but after having read several posts about the "anti-iders" trying to attack creation, I felt it needed.

0 Replies

USAFHokie80 wrote:

I find it funny that the term "anti-id" is used so often - as if the scientific community just decided to launch a war against "intelligent design" when, in fact, it was the other way around. there is no "anit-id" - there is a defense against the assault that ID has launched on evidence and sense. Again, there is no "anti-id" - there is only "anti-evolution".

Science (and by that I mean the community of scientists and the ideal itself) does not seek to destroy religion. It attempts to answer and understand with meaningful experiments, observations and data. It is religion that has waged this war on science without provocation in an attempt to prop itself up as superior although intellectually inferior.

Anyway, I realize that is somewhat of a tangent, but after having read several posts about the "anti-iders" trying to attack creation, I felt it needed.

No, I think if we had some way to rewind and watch all this unfold, I think it was anti-IDers in the classroom that started to stir the pot. ID and Darwin existed quite peacefully all the time that I and my kids were going through school. ID was never taught as science at any time, nor was there any expectation that it would be, but there was no hostility or ridicule directed at it either and children were not discouraged in whatever issues of religious faith they brought to the classroom. Thus there were no issues to deal with.

At some point that began to change and parents became aware that their values and religious faith were actively being brought into question in the classroom. And they objected, a few to the extreme and inappropriately as we see in some of these court cases. Most are happy just to have the status quo re-established where the child's faith is not demeaned or directed in any way by the teacher.

Which is why I continue to say that all that is needed to restore peace is that the educators will acknowledge or at least not attempt to discourage any of the various theories on creation and/or ID held by many hundreds of millions of people of faith while the parents agree that ID has no place in the science curriculum.

I simply don't believe that is too much to ask.

0 Replies

Quote:

It is sad to see you, farmerman, joining the ranks of the ad hom crowd.

I had great respect for you.

Calling me an ad-hominist is an ad hominem, isnt it? welcome to the beach. Very Happy

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

No, I think if we had some way to rewind and watch all this unfold, I think it was anti-IDers in the classroom that started to stir the pot.

I am afraid that you still have it backwards, Foxfyre.

0 Replies

Quote:

No, I think if we had some way to rewind and watch all this unfold, I think it was anti-IDers in the classroom that started to stir the pot. ID and Darwin existed quite peacefully all the time that I and my kids were going through school.

. The key phrase in all that foxy is "you Think", or more correctly, you "believe". As I requested several pages back , you should read the Lenny Flak paper on "WHO ARE THE CREATIONISTS". There was no peace , ever. If it was quiet in your school, its because you were in some intellectual backwater where the Creationists hadnt yet started their infiltration of schoolboards . After Epperson and Aguillard (specifically) the day of teaching Creationism was over , but the day of including ID was just underway.

If you wish to pose incorrect statements please remember that someone will call you on them. Ive got the time and the inclination so Ill be very happy to continue roadbloxcking your assumptions.

0 Replies

WHO ARE THE CREATION SCIENTISTS

This is for foxy to read. ANyone else, absent the baggage of IDjicy, will probably see the use in this site. Foxy will probably deny it , as will RL.
I dont know about spendi and really , its not my month to watch him.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
No, I think if we had some way to rewind and watch all this unfold, I think it was anti-IDers in the classroom that started to stir the pot.

I am afraid that you still have it backwards, Foxfyre.

Well I've been a student in the classroom. I have taught in a classroom. I raised kids who went from pre-school through grad school. I've served on a school board. And I'm telling you, this was never an issue until the school itself made it into one. But give it your best shot to show whether the chicken or egg came first. So far you have elected not to answer a single difficult question I've directed at you, however, so I'm not too encouraged that you actually wish to debate the issue rather than just throw stones.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

wandeljw wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
No, I think if we had some way to rewind and watch all this unfold, I think it was anti-IDers in the classroom that started to stir the pot.

I am afraid that you still have it backwards, Foxfyre.

Well I've been a student in the classroom. I have taught in a classroom. I raised kids who went from pre-school through grad school. I've served on a school board. And I'm telling you, this was never an issue until the school itself made it into one. But give it your best shot to show whether the chicken or egg came first. So far you have elected not to answer a single difficult question I've directed at you, however, so I'm not too encouraged that you actually wish to debate the issue rather than just throw stones.

There is no debate on how the controversy began. Farmerman and others have referred you to excellent resources on the background of the controversy. There is nothing I can do, if you ignore their recommendations.

0 Replies

Hokie wrote-

Quote:

It attempts to answer and understand with meaningful experiments, observations and data.

Only what it wants to answer and understand. It steers well clear on this thread of trying to understand religion. Instead it simply demonises it and in the face of it being a gigantic fact in human social existence.

But if you also want to conflate ID with Creationism you are perfectly entitled to do so but you're off topic here and even if you have a hundred agreeing with you.

As far as I remember I invented the term anti-ID because it was a waste of time keep typing out "opponents of intelligent design" or "proponents of intelligent design". It was a shorthand. I explained it too. Everybody understood it and began using it. And other terms dreiving from it. It means anti-evolution taught to kids who's families are religious and who live in religious communities, especially by militant atheists.

I think it bad manners to jump into a well established discussion where a term like that is accepted and start criticising it. We all know what it means. As far as I know it isn't used anywhere else.

Just to set the record straight, Darwinism is a full-frontal assault on religion and has been percieved to be since its origin and still is to this day. Some religions have responded to it in a proper way and others haven't. So now you are left with two wings of your anti-evolution. ID represents the wing that has responded properly but that wing has sympathy to the other wing because they have the same aim. To hold back the forces of atheism and those forces have a lot of friends.

Tell us what you think an atheist world would look like. None of the other anti-IDers will even think about it. We don't fancy jumping over a cliff into the dark. Shine your light.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Hokie wrote-

Quote:
It attempts to answer and understand with meaningful experiments, observations and data.

Only what it wants to answer and understand. It steers well clear on this thread of trying to understand religion. Instead it simply demonises it and in the face of it being a gigantic fact in human social existence.

But if you also want to conflate ID with Creationism you are perfectly entitled to do so but you're off topic here and even if you have a hundred agreeing with you.

As far as I remember I invented the term anti-ID because it was a waste of time keep typing out "opponents of intelligent design" or "proponents of intelligent design". It was a shorthand. I explained it too. Everybody understood it and began using it. And other terms dreiving from it. It means anti-evolution taught to kids who's families are religious and who live in religious communities, especially by militant atheists.

I think it bad manners to jump into a well established discussion where a term like that is accepted and start criticising it. We all know what it means. As far as I know it isn't used anywhere else.

Just to set the record straight, Darwinism is a full-frontal assault on religion and has been percieved to be since its origin and still is to this day. Some religions have responded to it in a proper way and others haven't. So now you are left with two wings of your anti-evolution. ID represents the wing that has responded properly but that wing has sympathy to the other wing because they have the same aim. To hold back the forces of atheism and those forces have a lot of friends.

Tell us what you think an atheist world would look like. None of the other anti-IDers will even think about it. We don't fancy jumping over a cliff into the dark. Shine your light.

There is no "explanation" for faith. Nothing scientific at any rate. "Faith" (with respect to religion) and science are mutually exclusive.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
wandeljw wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
No, I think if we had some way to rewind and watch all this unfold, I think it was anti-IDers in the classroom that started to stir the pot.

I am afraid that you still have it backwards, Foxfyre.

Well I've been a student in the classroom. I have taught in a classroom. I raised kids who went from pre-school through grad school. I've served on a school board. And I'm telling you, this was never an issue until the school itself made it into one. But give it your best shot to show whether the chicken or egg came first. So far you have elected not to answer a single difficult question I've directed at you, however, so I'm not too encouraged that you actually wish to debate the issue rather than just throw stones.

There is no debate on how the controversy began. Farmerman and others have referred you to excellent resources on the background of the controversy. There is nothing I can do, if you ignore their recommendations.

Okay. If random dart throwing instead of arguing a point of view is your thing, I can ignore darts from you as well as I can ignore darts from anybody. Everybody needs a hobby I guess. Carry on.

0 Replies

Hokie - Good point.

Fox - Moot point. I'm not sure how your post refuted Hokie's.

I'm getting to the point, where I think that if the ID crowds want children to be exposed to "multiple theories" in school, then I want "multiple theories taught in church.

T
K
O

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
No, I think if we had some way to rewind and watch all this unfold, I think it was anti-IDers in the classroom that started to stir the pot. ID and Darwin existed quite peacefully all the time that I and my kids were going through school.
. The key phrase in all that foxy is "you Think", or more correctly, you "believe". As I requested several pages back , you should read the Lenny Flak paper on "WHO ARE THE CREATIONISTS". There was no peace , ever. If it was quiet in your school, its because you were in some intellectual backwater where the Creationists hadnt yet started their infiltration of schoolboards . After Epperson and Aguillard (specifically) the day of teaching Creationism was over , but the day of including ID was just underway.

If you wish to pose incorrect statements please remember that someone will call you on them. Ive got the time and the inclination so Ill be very happy to continue roadbloxcking your assumptions.

I imagine my observations, experience, and conclusions drawn from them are probably based on more solid evidence than your conclusions about what "intellectual backwater" I may have existed in. I have at no time suggested that Creationists have not infiltrated the school boards for the purpose of installing Creationism in the curriculum and I have been consistent that I do not condone that.

What you do not seem to wish to acknowledge are the dynamics that prompted that kind of behavior that I believe existed. And I don't care whether you consider my observations invalid or baseless. I know they are not at least in my world. And you can continue to cite case after case and history out your ears ad nauseum, and none of it will relate to what I am saying in any form.

You have expressed that you are among the anti-IDers who are unwilling to consider any form of compromise to cool the fires. You are unwilling to consider any point of view of parents who do not want their children indoctrinated with Atheism. Several others have joined you in that conviction. And that, again in my opinion, makes you as much a part of the problem as those people inappropriately trying to interject Creationism into the science curriculum.

I rather think a more reasoned and practical viewpoint is the preferred one rather than radicalism and dogamatism from either camp.

0 Replies

foxfyre

Quote:

I rather think a more reasoned and practical viewpoint is the preferred one rather than radicalism and dogamatism from either camp.

This is a ridiculous stance. The only "reasoned" position , in your estimation, is to permit IDjicy in the classroom as a "perfunctory" statement that underscores a possibility that science may , in actuality be governed by supernatural law.
For this position you have no evidence nor basis of fact. So why must it be considered a reasoned and practical viewpoint??

Quote:

And I don't care whether you consider my observations invalid or baseless. I know they are not at least in my world. And you can continue to cite case after case and history out your ears ad nauseum, and none of it will relate to what I am saying in any form.

or, more succinctly , you just said was "DONT CONFUSE ME WITH THE FACTS"

foxy first said

Quote:

No, I think if we had some way to rewind and watch all this unfold, I think it was anti-IDers in the classroom that started to stir the pot.

later, on the same page, she says

Quote:

I have at no time suggested that Creationists have not infiltrated the school boards for the purpose of installing Creationism in the curriculum and I have been consistent that I do not condone that.

.
I gotta get some Rolaids, scuse me while I go away for a bit.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Hokie - Good point.

Fox - Moot point. I'm not sure how your post refuted Hokie's.

I'm getting to the point, where I think that if the ID crowds want children to be exposed to "multiple theories" in school, then I want "multiple theories taught in church.

T
K
O

I was not attempting to refute Hokie. I was attempting to explain an additional point of view that I am convinced is pertinent to this discussion.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

foxfyre
Quote:
I rather think a more reasoned and practical viewpoint is the preferred one rather than radicalism and dogamatism from either camp.

This is a ridiculous stance. The only "reasoned" position , in your estimation, is to permit IDjicy in the classroom as a "perfunctory" statement that underscores a possibility that science may , in actuality be governed by supernatural law.
For this position you have no evidence nor basis of fact. So why must it be considered a reasoned and practical viewpoint??
Quote:
And I don't care whether you consider my observations invalid or baseless. I know they are not at least in my world. And you can continue to cite case after case and history out your ears ad nauseum, and none of it will relate to what I am saying in any form.

or, more succinctly , you just said was "DONT CONFUSE ME WITH THE FACTS"

foxy first said
Quote:
No, I think if we had some way to rewind and watch all this unfold, I think it was anti-IDers in the classroom that started to stir the pot.

later, on the same page, she says
Quote:
I have at no time suggested that Creationists have not infiltrated the school boards for the purpose of installing Creationism in the curriculum and I have been consistent that I do not condone that.

.
I gotta get some Rolaids, scuse me while I go away for a bit.

Maybe if you were a little less ill tempered, you wouldn't need the Rolaids? Smile

I'm not going to restate my position or what I said again FM. You can pluck things out of context and attempt to show that I said something I didn't, but I simply don't find that sort of thing constructive. I am certainly capable of misspeaking or misunderstanding, but I do try very hard not to intentionally misrepresent what another member says even if I disagree with him or her.

So let's just leave it that you think I'm an idiot unless there is some other point that can be discussed. I have no problem whatsoever with any source you or anybody else has posted. And I am as convinced as ever that they mostly represent the symptoms of the problem than the root cause. And no amount of any similar posts will change my mind about that since I've seen it all develop first hand in my corner of the world and suspect that has been the case in most places.

0 Replies

Foxy wrote-

Quote:

I rather think a more reasoned and practical viewpoint is the preferred one rather than radicalism and dogamatism from either camp.

Don't include me in that sentiment.

I'm not for compromising with atheists. I can give or take on the vagaries of the mysteries, even the more esoteric variations, I'm not a prude, but not on that there aren't no mysteries if only enough funds were to be granted.

I know what happens to funds if you lot don't.

And I'm as dogmatic as dogmatic gets on that subject. The price of beer and fags is ridiculous. They tried charging for gambling but they reckoned without human ingenuity in a case where they couldn't claim to be saving anybody's life. They found one or two chaps who they tried to claim had gassed themselves for gambling debts but everybody knew that the cause was a woman.

As if they could save anybody's life. How bloody unscientific is that?

0 Replies

The new word is IDjit. ( mod from Timbers original term)

Foxy, I believe that you are sincere and quite intelligent. Otherwise you wouldnt have continued on at great length with your arguments> I am only here to remind you that you , like spendi, take occasional voyages into intellectual inconsistency.

First you started with a "mild" critique of evolution ,v-a-v, a comment about contemporaneous species and ancestral species, that was originally credited to your granddaughter(We do remember your first posts). This has morphed into a new tack that is seeking a "compromise " position in which ID can be introduced into science class. The intermittent diversions, such as your 180(degree) variable statetment such as the one above, makes consistency a difficult target for you to attain.

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

I dont know about spendi and really , its not my month to watch him.

Respect at last.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know