Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

fm expressed a degree of startled surprise that-

Quote:

a possibility that science may , in actuality be governed by supernatural law.

He obviously goes into posher pubs than I do. There's no rhyme nor reason to what I witness never mind rationality.

If you only look at what you choose to look at there's a danger that you will only see what you want to see.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

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.

Sorry but I have not done a l80 on this issue at any point and your interpretation of the cherry picked phrases to 'prove' that I did just don't wash. Yeah I was trying to be funny way back then. I should know better when dealing with fanatical, leftwing, anti-religion, Atheist radicals. Smile

And yes, I do modify and try to improve my arguments as I go along, especially on a long thread. It isn't that much different than a formal debate in which your opponent's argument gives you a foot in the door to address a different point or inspires a different one. Sometimes an effort to enlarge on a thought or concept actually does help expand a point of view or even bring one to a different conclusion.

In this case however, I have been consistent.
I believe in ID and have good reason to believe based on observation, reason, and personal experience. (And no, there is nothing to link as support for any of those things.)
I do not expect anyone else to believe in ID who does not want to do so.
I do see ID as something that can be considered on a much larger scale than narrow Biblical interpretation.
I do not think that ID and/or Creationism is appropriate in the science curriculum.
I do not think it is appropriate for a science teacher (or any other teacher) to deny ID as a reality to a student nor express any ridicule or contempt for a student's faith. I think this was happening all too often in a manner such as some here have expressed and that is what prompted parents to start infiltrating school boards and resort to other measures in protest that have sometimes taken inappropriate forms.
I think it is appropriate for the teacher to acknowledge that hundreds of millions of people think as the student thinks but it cannot be tested or proved or falsified scientifically and therefore it is not science and it won't be on the test. Darwin will.
And I accept that the radical anti-IDers on this thread don't agree with any of this and consider me an Idjit.

But oh well.

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

you , like spendi, take occasional voyages into intellectual inconsistency.

Perhaps you might be good enough fm, in order that viewers can have something real to bite on, to explain that remark.

Leaving out the explanation of how easy it was to assert.

Obviously. It is a science thread and if assertions ever become facts we really have looped the loop.

0 Replies

Foxy wrote-

Quote:

I should know better when dealing with fanatical, leftwing, anti-religion, Atheist radicals.

That's much better Foxy. You are getting into the swing of things.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Foxy wrote-

Quote:
I should know better when dealing with fanatical, leftwing, anti-religion, Atheist radicals.

That's much better Foxy. You are getting into the swing of things.

This didn't work out very well for Darth Vader as I remember.
K
O

0 Replies

Foxy wrote-

Quote:

I do not expect anyone else to believe in ID who does not want to do so.

Neither do I. A leap off a cliff in the dark is alright by me if that's what turns somebody on. We IDers are nothing if not tolerant.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

In this case however, I have been consistent.
I believe in ID and have good reason to believe based on observation, reason, and personal experience. (And no, there is nothing to link as support for any of those things.)

That tells it all right there.

What was it that Spendius said.

"If you only look at what you choose to look at there's a danger that you will only see what you want to see."

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Foxy wrote-

Quote:
I should know better when dealing with fanatical, leftwing, anti-religion, Atheist radicals.

That's much better Foxy. You are getting into the swing of things.

Only if the smiley face is included. Even fanatical, lefwing, anti-religion, Atheist radical idjits are entitled to their opinions. Smile

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

In this case however, I have been consistent.
I believe in ID and have good reason to believe based on observation, reason, and personal experience. (And no, there is nothing to link as support for any of those things.)

That tells it all right there.

What was it that Spendius said.

"If you only look at what you choose to look at there's a danger that you will only see what you want to see."

And out of that entire post that is all that you could see that I saw? And you think I am the one who is in danger of seeing only what I want to see? Smile

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

JTT wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:

In this case however, I have been consistent.
I believe in ID and have good reason to believe based on observation, reason, and personal experience. (And no, there is nothing to link as support for any of those things.)

That tells it all right there.

What was it that Spendius said.

"If you only look at what you choose to look at there's a danger that you will only see what you want to see."

And out of that entire post that is all that you could see that I saw? And you think I am the one who is in danger of seeing only what I want to see?

You have good reason to believe based on observations you can't observe, reasons that don't exist, and personal experience that is colored by the fact that you simply want to believe.

Mmmm-huh. You call this reason, good reason.

0 Replies

Foxy wrote-

Quote:

Even fanatical, lefwing, anti-religion, Atheist radical idjits are entitled to their opinions.

That's reasonable. Preaching such tripe is another matter.

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
JTT wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:

In this case however, I have been consistent.
I believe in ID and have good reason to believe based on observation, reason, and personal experience. (And no, there is nothing to link as support for any of those things.)

That tells it all right there.

What was it that Spendius said.

"If you only look at what you choose to look at there's a danger that you will only see what you want to see."

And out of that entire post that is all that you could see that I saw? And you think I am the one who is in danger of seeing only what I want to see?

You have good reason to believe based on observations you can't observe, reasons that don't exist, and personal experience that is colored by the fact that you simply want to believe.

Mmmm-huh. You call this reason, good reason.

Oh I can observe, I can support my conclusion based on my observations, and you sir have absolutely no basis whatsoever to conclude what I have or have not experienced and indicate a great deal of arrogance and ignorance by presuming that you do.

But you can pick one sentence out of a summary and hold it out as evidence for your prejudicial conclusion. And again, you worry that I might see only what I want to see? Rolling Eyes

(I absolutely despise the rolling eye thingee, but sometimes it is sooooo damn appropriate.)

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Oh I can observe, I can support my conclusion based on my observations,

Hang in there with your faith, FF. Ganbatte kudasai!

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Oh I can observe, I can support my conclusion based on my observations,

Hang in there with your faith, FF. Ganbatte kudasai!

I will indeed. Thank you.

0 Replies

Ganbarimasho!

T
K
O

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

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.

I've commented on your behavior, not labeled you.

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

Then start your own church and do so.

Until churches are supported from the public purse , they still have the right to determine what they will teach.

Public schools are a public trust, are run with public money and an elected board.

If you don't like public oversight of public schools you should really be living somewhere where democracy isn't so rampant.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

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

Then start your own church and do so.

Until churches are supported from the public purse , they still have the right to determine what they will teach.

Public schools are a public trust, are run with public money and an elected board.

If you don't like public oversight of public schools you should really be living somewhere where democracy isn't so rampant.

So wait. You're saying that children already have an opportunity to be exposed to alternatives?

As for churches, they don't pay their taxes, we do. It's not like they don't exchange legal tender for goods or services.

They should be so happy to have a place where they can teach their religion(s). Why they feel the need to teach in other places (schools) is what bother's me.

You want to tell your son or daughter what to believe, fine. Just don't mess with my son or daughter's educational curriculum as a means to validate your ideas. These actions don't speak well of the confidence in said beliefs.

T
K
O.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:
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

Then start your own church and do so.

Until churches are supported from the public purse , they still have the right to determine what they will teach.

Public schools are a public trust, are run with public money and an elected board.

If you don't like public oversight of public schools you should really be living somewhere where democracy isn't so rampant.

So wait. You're saying that children already have an opportunity to be exposed to alternatives?

As for churches, they don't pay their taxes, we do. It's not like they don't exchange legal tender for goods or services.

They should be so happy to have a place where they can teach their religion(s). Why they feel the need to teach in other places (schools) is what bother's me.

You want to tell your son or daughter what to believe, fine. Just don't mess with my son or daughter's educational curriculum as a means to validate your ideas. These actions don't speak well of the confidence in said beliefs.

T
K
O.

What I'm saying is that your attempt to equate the accountability of public schools to the taxpayer with your wish that churches be accountable to the taxpayer , is bogus.

Churches don't owe taxes, so you don't 'pay their taxes'.

You think churches 'ought to be happy they have a place to meet'. If it were up to you, they might not.

Thank God the Founding Fathers did not think as you do.

If your kids go to public schools, then the public will have the say so how they are educated. Get used to it.

If you don't like it, enroll them in a private school.

btw I practice what I preach. Rather than send my daughter to the cesspool public school, she was privately educated in a school that runs on a shoestring budget. When she was ready for college, she scored a 32 cumulative score on the ACT, including a 36 (perfect score) on the Science portion, 32 in English and 28 on the Math portion.

0 Replies

You're splitting hairs about the tax issue. I don't really care about that though. I'll be happy to give a church a tax break and long as other non-profit orgs can bennefit too.

I just think that some churches and individuals overstep their place when they start trying to damage the core curriculum for students.

I'm not fond of what you suggest about "if it were up to me." I don't care what is taught from the pulpit. I have no desire to end any religion by force. I'm not so insecure in my convictions.

The founding fathers also knew that our country is a democracy, not the truth. Truth does not bend so easily to public favor. The world isn't flat. Or should I say, the world is not flat anymore. Like the myths of old, when exposed to the facts of the universe, they fade away. This is just too scary for some people of faith.

So scary that don't want to think about it. So scary that tey would rather keep believing the world is flat and fight tooth and nail to keep from having to hear about it. Anything to just stay where they were comfortable.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know