Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Foxfyre wrote:

The fact is that hundreds of millions, even billions, of people believe in some form of ID. That fact implies nothing other than hundreds of millions, even billions, of people believe in some form of ID. If the fact is correct, there is no reason to not state it. Alternately the teacher could alternately acknowledge that some form of ID is recognized by a majority of people in the world. Would that suit you better?

No, I would prefer to leave the logical fallacy out of any statement that is suggested for science teachers to use.

Foxfyre wrote:

It is a fact that ID cannot be tested, proved, nor falsified using any known scientific method. That fact implies nothing other than ID cannot be tested, proved, nor falsified using any known scientific method. It does provide a valid basis by which the teacher can divert any discussion of ID in science class. But if the fact is correct, there is no reason to not state it.

It is also a fact that ID has been thoroughly debunked as to having any credibility by the scientific community, but I do not suggest that teachers mention that fact, as it goes beyond what is necessary to put an end to ID questions by students.

Foxfyre wrote:

When a child raises the issue during a discussion of Darwin, the teacher can avoid a discussion of the subject and also avoid influencing the child's faith pro or con by matter of factly stating such facts.

Correct. There is no need, nor would it be proper for a teacher to either pump up or tear down a child's faith. Simply stating the reason that ID can not be treated as science does neither and avoids a confrontation.

Foxfyre wrote:

From my personal point of view, I think any person who would have a problem with that would be a person who strongly advocates that students be indoctrinated with Atheism.

In so much as atheism means "without theism", I agree that public school students should not be indoctrinated with theism. Given your past proclivities to link atheists with such unsavory characters as Edi Amin, I am sure that you will try to make more of that statement than what was said. :wink:

0 Replies

I've seen the bullshit online about Plato and "ID" at crackpot christian sites who are attempting to find a philosophical underpinning for their "intelligent design" dog and pony show, since they can't enlist science in the effort. So don't try to feed me some crapola about "your discussion," because the idea is not an original one on your part.

Platonism is incompatible with Buddhism, because Plato's notion of dualism is as between "eternal truths" of order, symmetry and mathematical absolutism and the world of physical objects--it is the dualism of mind versus brain. Buddhist dualism is as between states of consciousness, as between objectifying the world, and seeing the world as a unitary whole. The Buddhist sees the "unaware" state of consciousness as objectifying the world--a rock is separate from the world in which it is found, and the "self" is separate from all other "selves;" in the Buddhist tradition, one is to transcend this dualism, to attain the consciousness which recognizes that all "objects" and "selves" are essentially connected parts of a cosmic whole.

You know as little about Buddhism (and i suspect any religious tradition other than your narrow christianity) as you do about science.

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
The fact is that hundreds of millions, even billions, of people believe in some form of ID. That fact implies nothing other than hundreds of millions, even billions, of people believe in some form of ID. If the fact is correct, there is no reason to not state it. Alternately the teacher could alternately acknowledge that some form of ID is recognized by a majority of people in the world. Would that suit you better?

No, I would prefer to leave the logical fallacy out of any statement that is suggested for science teachers to use.

Foxfyre wrote:
It is a fact that ID cannot be tested, proved, nor falsified using any known scientific method. That fact implies nothing other than ID cannot be tested, proved, nor falsified using any known scientific method. It does provide a valid basis by which the teacher can divert any discussion of ID in science class. But if the fact is correct, there is no reason to not state it.

It is also a fact that ID has been thoroughly debunked as to having any credibility by the scientific community, but I do not suggest that teachers mention that fact, as it goes beyond what is necessary to put an end to ID questions by students.

Foxfyre wrote:
When a child raises the issue during a discussion of Darwin, the teacher can avoid a discussion of the subject and also avoid influencing the child's faith pro or con by matter of factly stating such facts.

Correct. There is no need, nor would it be proper for a teacher to either pump up or tear down a child's faith. Simply stating the reason that ID can not be treated as science does neither and avoids a confrontation.

Foxfyre wrote:
From my personal point of view, I think any person who would have a problem with that would be a person who strongly advocates that students be indoctrinated with Atheism.

In so much as atheism means "without theism", I agree that public school students should not be indoctrinated with theism. Given your past proclivities to link atheists with such unsavory characters as Edi Amin, I am sure that you will try to make more of that statement than what was said. :wink:

And for those who actually have a thought on this subject, this should clearly illustrate why there has to be a debate on this at all. When an Atheist is so dogmatic as to call a simple statement of fact a 'logical fallacy' because HE reads into it what is not there, it is obvious no serious debate will be possible. When an Atheist makes a statement that he believes but which is an absolute lie that "ID has been debunked" as a basis for argument, it is obvous that no intelligent discussion is likely. And then when a red herring is thrown in to divert from the obvious conclusion to be drawn from all this, you can see that there are likely to be more and more lawsuits diverting school boards and educators from the business of teaching children.

IMO, the fact that no compromise will be allowed by the Atheists will force parents into it.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I've seen the bullshit online about Plato and "ID" at crackpot christian sites who are attempting to find a philosophical underpinning for their "intelligent design" dog and pony show, since they can't enlist science in the effort. So don't try to feed me some crapola about "your discussion," because the idea is not an original one on your part.

Platonism is incompatible with Buddhism, because Plato's notion of dualism is as between "eternal truths" of order, symmetry and mathematical absolutism and the world of physical objects--it is the dualism of mind versus brain. Buddhist dualism is as between states of consciousness, as between objectifying the world, and seeing the world as a unitary whole. The Buddhist sees the "unaware" state of consciousness as objectifying the world--a rock is separate from the world in which it is found, and the "self" is separate from all other "selves;" in the Buddhist tradition, one is to transcend this dualism, to attain the consciousness which recognizes that all "objects" and "selves" are essentially connected parts of a cosmic whole.

You know as little about Buddhism (and i suspect any religious tradition other than your narrow christianity) as you do about science.

This from one who claimed marriage is not a sacrament in the Anglican Church and that there was no Babylonian culture? Why should I assume that you know more than I do about Buddhism? You very well might, but I do have my reasons to believe there is a parallel between Plato's take on the subject and what Buddhism teaches. I won't be discussing this, however, since it's all bullshit in your eyes anyway. So do have a really good day.

0 Replies

Jesus Christ, not only had "ID" been debunked, the witnesses for ID in the Dover case admitted in court that there is no scientific basis for "intelligent design."

You just make this up as you go along, don't you?

Since when are atheists described as "Atheists?" I suppose you consider it a church.

0 Replies

The courts have recognized Atheism as a religion. I'm just going along with them.

0 Replies

While I have learned through many attempts that these discussions go nowhere and so not to get involved I do have to make a comment.

Trying to make it as non judgemental and benign as possible: trying to defend the statement that Buddhism let alone Hinayana Buddhism teach a form, ANY form, of ID is...umm...a...unique interpretation to say the least.

0 Replies

I claimed that marriage is not a sacrament in the Anglican church because it is not, and i provided a link to the Church of England's web site which listed the sacraments, and listed marriage as a sacramental act, not a sacrament. The Anglican church recognizes two, and only two sacraments: baptism and the eucharist. Since you are intent on being obtuse, and playing dumb, here is, once again, the straight skinny from the web site of the Church of England:

Quote:

The two sacraments ordained by Christ himself - Baptism and the Supper of the Lord - are administered with unfailing use of Christ's words of institution, and the elements are ordained by him.

Source at the official site of the Church of England

It is gross errors such as these which lead me to point out that your understanding of religion is a narrow christian view.

There was no Babylonian culture because Babylon was a city, and not a culture. Babylon was a city founded by Sargon of Akkad, and the culture of Babylon was, originally, Akkadian. I don't expect you to understand that, though, because you have displayed an abyssmal ignorance of history throughout your time here. Should you actually be interested in educating yourself, you might look up the Akkadians, a great Semitic people who ruled the middle east while your heroes the Jews were still vicious, ignorant nomadic hillbillies.

Yes, i'm sure you would like to drop a discussion in which you are totally lost. And, yes, i consider your remarks which attempt to equate Platonism and Buddhism to be the very essence of bullshit.

0 Replies

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

While I have learned through many attempts that these discussions go nowhere and so not to get involved I do have to make a comment.

Trying to make it as non judgemental and benign as possible: trying to defend the statement that Buddhism let alone Hinayana Buddhism teach a form, ANY form, of ID is...umm...a...unique interpretation to say the least.

Well, there are so many different forms of Buddhism that there is no way to go into it in any detail without derailing the thread, but basically it is in the more or less geneal belief that everything comes into existence through awareness. Plato's concept was that everything first exists as 'idea'.

Religious Tolerance Org. leaves out some important details in their discussions of various religions, but did sort of grasp what I'm getting at with this:

Quote:

This religion teaches a range of beliefs about origins: That creation occurs repeatedly throughout time. At the beginning of each kalpa (cycle) land forms, in darkness, on the surface of the water. Spiritual beings who populated the universe in the previous kalpa are reborn; one of them takes the form of a man and starts the human race. Unhappiness and misery reigns. This is the interval that we are experiencing today. Eventually, the universe dissolves; all living creatures return to the soul life, and the cycle repeats.

Lama Shenpen Hookham of Buddhism Connect writes: "The Buddhist view is that everything emanates from the Primordial expanse of Openness Clarity Sensitivity and is illusionlike- never really coming into existence, but the illusion is created by infinite intricate connections that are not anywhere and not in time. Time and space are part of the illusion that is emanating from that Primordial expanse - so it is all very mysterious. From the Buddhist perspective there is no problem with life on earth having evolved somehow - but evolution is not in itself a full story or full account of life on earth. It leaves quite basic questions left unanswered. In a way one might want to argue that Buddhism is closer to creationism because our world is created by awareness - the awareness of the beings that inhabit it. Evolution only gives a kind of history of how that illusion unfolds.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_denom2.htm

And of course all this ties in with my argument that ID can but does not have to include any concept of a supreme being.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The courts have recognized Atheism as a religion. I'm just going along with them.

Got a source for that, or are you just making it up as you go along once again?

I'm atheist, although i don't "practice atheism," because it is not a philosophy or a religion, it is simply a refusal to subscribe to your imaginary friend superstition.

0 Replies

P.S. to Setanta: I previously posted documents from the Anglican church clearly stating that marriage is a sacrament. and from credible historical sources identifying Babylonian culture I accept that you don't believe either and don't care to look up those sources again.

Here's a few more though:

http://www.ballaratanglican.org.au/?id=services
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_sacraments#Matrimony

(I have and do concede that in some Anglican churches, the definition of 'sacrament' as it applies to marriage is a little fluid. In others, it is rock solid.)

And Babylonia was not just a city but an entire and, at one time, quite prosperous region.
http://www.livius.org/ba-bd/babylon/babylonia.html

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
The courts have recognized Atheism as a religion. I'm just going along with them.

Got a source for that, or are you just making it up as you go along once again?

I'm atheist, although i don't "practice atheism," because it is not a philosophy or a religion, it is simply a refusal to subscribe to your imaginary friend superstition.

Here ya go
http://originoflifefairness.org/

http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/court36.htm

0 Replies

Marriage is not a sacrament in the Church of England. Everybody knows that. Why do you think it is so confused? Why are you arguing about it? That's as bad as arguing what time the tide's coming in.

Have you only just found out? You're the last to know in that case. You should prick up your ears a bit more if you think you are qualified to discuss the education of 50 million kids.

It is only in the Roman Catholic Church that marriage is a sacrament.

In the C of E it is a deal. A sordid swap. Whoring, not to be too cowardly about it. Pandering. Pimping parents. Like in Titanic. Flogging your daughter off to the highest bidder so you will have benefits accruing from the punter's estates and investments. Attempting to live off immoral earnings and if you are good at it succeeding.

Complete load of anti-evolution, anti-Darwinian bullshit. The Roman Catholic Church leaves it to natural forces as much as it can. It's the only pro-evolution science body I have ever seen.

C of E = sexual selection exterminated. Chinless wonders arise.

You don't even need to read past the first sentence of Pride and Prejudice to know simple things like that.

0 Replies

Foxy wrote-

Quote:

Perhaps. But there is nothing to be gained by encouraging them to think that their distortions and misinterpretations are unnoted or, even worse, accepted. You'll note Mesquite accepts what HE says at face value, but feels free to write in his preferred interpretation of what I write. He won't allow me to interpret what he really meant by what he says, but feels free to do that to me.

It isn't a matter of personal pride but is rather a deep conviction that this debate is not what the anti-IDers wish it to be. The principle at stake here is the battle to preserve the integrity of the classroom. For us to capitulate to their overt or covert attempt to insert indoctrination in Atheism into the classroom would be a dereliction of duty. For us to allow them to dictate the terms of what is and is not acceptable as an argument, or for us to allow them to pretend, with impunity, to discredit any argument they do not like is capitulation and surrender.

I don't take the slightest notice of Mesquite's trite simplicities Foxy. You can hear stuff like that in the commonest quarters of the land and I should know because I frequent such places on a daily basis and have done for so long I can't remember much about what came before. The idea that a debate that has been raging for 150 years can be just swept aside in a phrase of the utmost banality is too ridiculous for me to deal with. With babies I give them their dummy back and if they throw it out of the pram again I leave them to it. I don't give a shite how much distortion is employed. The audience is the judge of that.

Nor do I think that viewers to this thread will have the impression that I am about to capitulate or surrender. There won't be any deriliction of duty at this end and if that isn't obvious try reading the thread if you have a week to spare.

And I don't care either what anti-IDers wish the debate to be. If wishes were any use I would advise them to wish they had won the jackpot. The simple fact that they can't read Shaw's great analysis tells me everything I need to know. And when they go running off kicking and squealing as soon as I mention "psychosomatic problems" their scientific credibility is in the garbage bin.

And I am not a fan of the "integrity of the classroom" type of idea. You can easily slide into error on things like that. Segueing into your own idea of "integrity in the classroom" is not only tempting but, from the point of view of kids who are going to have to work with their '40s, '50s, 60's ( a new permissive decade) and the rest, it might be a bit dangerous. My idea of "integrity in the classroom" would not be the same as yours and I can assure you of that.

It's late. I'm a bit tired.

See you tomorrow. I hope.

0 Replies

With regard to your drivel about Anglican sacraments, i have provided a link to the official site of the Church of England. I have little interest in your ability to find an unreliable source from which you can torture an agreement with your claim. It is worth noting that the Wikipedia article which you selectively linked has a rubric at the top of the page which lists two, and only two sacraments: baptism and the holy eucharist. It lists marriage under rubric: "Commonly called Sacraments that are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gos

As for your reference from the Livius site, it clearly shows what i have already pointed out, which is that the language, culture and religion of Babylon were those of the Akkadians, the Semitic people who dominated the middle east until overrun by the Assyrians. It is certainly no fault of mine if you lack the reading ability to understand the point.

Foxfyre wrote:

Setanta wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
The courts have recognized Atheism as a religion. I'm just going along with them.

Got a source for that, or are you just making it up as you go along once again?

I'm atheist, although i don't "practice atheism," because it is not a philosophy or a religion, it is simply a refusal to subscribe to your imaginary friend superstition.

Here ya go
http://originoflifefairness.org/

http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/court36.htm

Sucker. If you consider that this is a definitive statement, then you'll have to accept that "ID" had been debunked in the Dover case, during the trial of which the proponents of ID called as witnesses admitted that there is no scientific evidence for ID, and in the decision of which Judge Jones reiterated that ID has no scientific support, and is not science, but religion. So, if you want to consider "the courts" to be a definitive source when it suits your argument, then you'll have to accept "the courts" as a definitive source when it doesn't suit your argument.

By the way, your two links refer to a single case, so it is dubious whether or not the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh District making a single decision constitutes evidence that "the courts" have decided this. If you are going to make this claim based on the single decision of a single Federal court, then you cannot deny the decision of Judge Jones that ID has been debunked.

Sucker.

0 Replies

Dr George Cary, Archbishop of Canterbury, in an interview stated:

Quote:

And blessing, you see, I think is undermining our sacrament of marriage. That's why the issue is a theological one, and it's not a minor matter in the hierarchy of Christian truth.

from http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/news.cfm?mode=entry&entry=FF78468A-0DFE-DBB2-FB7FDAE6CC8B437E

Seems like the Archbishop of Canterbury would know what a sacrament is.

And then we have:

Quote:

In a letter accompanying the rite, Bishop Ingham distinguished between the blessing of gays and lesbians, and marriage, which in the church is a sacrament for heterosexual couples.

from http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/news.cfm?mode=entry&entry=1934D624-0091-1971-5A4EF41355F0548F

Quote:

A Guide to the Sacraments
Anglican Theological Review, Fall 1999 by Evans, Stephen J

A Guide to the Sacraments. By John Macquarrie. New York: Continuum, 1997. viii + 245 pp. $24.95 (cloth).

Professor Macquarrie's stated aim in writing this book is to provide a 11 guide to clergy, students and lay people who are seeking a clearer understanding of the sacraments................................Macquarrie explores the dictum that Christ is not only the author and minister of each sacrament, but equally the exemplar of the grace which each sacrament is designed to realise, by naming explicitly the grace or virtue conveyed in and through each sacrament. Thus, for example, in Baptism the special grace given and already realized in Jesus is faith; in Confirmation: perseverance; in Reconciliation: repentance; in the Eucharist: self-giving; in Unction and Anointing: wholeness; in Ordination: service, and in Marriage: love

from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3818/is_199910/ai_n8859591

But what do I know? I'm no Anglican, they are.

I think part of the misunderstanding is in the faulty interpretation of the statement:

Quote:

The two sacraments ordained by Christ himself - Baptism and the Supper of the Lord - are administered with unfailing use of Christ's words of institution, and the elements are ordained by him.

This simply means that Christ never performed a marriage, nor was married. It does not exclude other sacraments than the two directly performed by the Lord.

0 Replies

spendi, having a hair burning day

Quote:

In the C of E it is a deal. A sordid swap. Whoring, not to be too cowardly about it. Pandering. Pimping parents. Like in Titanic. Flogging your daughter off to the highest bidder so you will have benefits accruing from the punter's estates and investments. Attempting to live off immoral earnings and if you are good at it succeeding.

JEEZus Mary and Sweet Saint Joseph, hes gone out of his nut. SOmebody give im a Gobsmack and water im with a pint or three before he goes completely over the wall and starts speaking in tongues Laughing

Everybody knows that without the aid of the Holy Roman Catholic Church youre all doomed to burn in the lakes of Hell because youve eaten the Protestant Soup.

0 Replies

Look fm- the principle sub-plot of Titanic was that the heroine's mother was looking and conspiring with others to force her daughter into that particular trade and that the girl was prepared to commit suicide to avoid it.

It is a basic theme in a large amout of literature and we are invariably encouraged, by the casting and other plot devices, to sympathise with the girl. Tom Jones, all of Jane Austen, the movie Quills are three that spring to mind for the purpose of this post. Where would Romance be without it?

Gentlemen Prefer Blondes was watered down so as not to upset sensibilities.

I presume from your Mathew Hopkins style of expression that you don't sympathise with the real lovers, a Darwinian concept if ever there was one, and are in favour of the fat, greaseball millionaire getting her despite his money coming from war profiteering.

It is consistent with a materialist view I suppose. Monkey females of all ages settle for the bozo with the clout as also happens in those cultures untouched by Christianity.

You are seemingly oblivious to the magical world you have been delivered into by Christianity. Only those who are fully aware of that can appreciate the despair of the first four lines of Ain't Talkin' and the sheer beauty and power of such a poetic compression.

Would a literature teacher be banned from exposing kids to that verse in an atheist controlled educational system. If I was running such a system it would be. What literature could be said to breach the Establishment Clause if taught in public schools?

You have been having it soft with this Darwin malarkey. Footballer's Wives got banned not long after I wrote about it on this very thread and you all thought I was off topic. How comforting for you. And you being so obsessed with facts and all. Most acceptable teachers are Christian on sight.

You really should read better stuff fm than you evidently do for it must be said that ill-read persons are singularly ill-qualified to enter discussions pertaining to the education of 50 million kids. The curriculum ranges far, far wider than the subjects you specialise in.

0 Replies

fm-

Would you not say, with Rembrandt, that a person's appearence is a much more revealing autobiography than all their words put together?

I haven't seen any turbans or nose rings in the race to the WH yet. Perhaps it is a joy that awaits us.

New teacher walks in. Slouches. Courdroy baggies, long hair, beard, sandles sans socks, open neck shirt with floppy collar.

Mention his name when the kids ar 40 and that's what they will remember and a portion of the bag of tricks that go with it.

Bi-valvular molluscs are an item of wit by then. Especially with those who have had one snap shut on them.

0 Replies

for spendi's amusement, Im posting the screenplay by James CAmeron. SPendi has some kind of psycho dissonance that doent allow him to make the distinction between life and show business.TITANIC, the screenplay

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know