97
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
parados
 
  1  
Tue 12 Feb, 2008 09:08 am
real life wrote:

I think Foxfyre's point is that just because some IDers are religious doesn't mean that all are.

There are IDers who are atheist, agnostic, etc

Not that that should make any difference to you, because you've conceded that it wasn't important to you to exclude the concept of God from the definition of 'natural process'.


Since the time of Thomas Aquinas the definition of what is "natural" has included God. Why do you suddenly think that 500 years of Christian teachings should be wrong and God can not have anything to do with nature?
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Tue 12 Feb, 2008 09:10 am
Foxfyre wrote:
It should be obvious by now that Spendi and I are at odds on some of the fine points of our understanding of ID.


I only quoted this because I have never seen Spendi and "fine points" used in the same sentence! Smile
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Tue 12 Feb, 2008 09:19 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Joe Nation wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Wikipedia touts the Discovery Institute as the platform for ID or something like that. And here I've worked in and around education most of my adult life and I've never heard of it, much less the Wedge, despite a lot of real life discussions and postings. So how mainstream could it be?


I really hate it when foxfyre plays dumb.

The above is like saying "I've been going to the movies my whole life, but I've never heard of this place called 'Hollywood'"

Joe(Like Behe saying he's not familiar with Creationism)Nation


I really hate it when you presume what Foxfyre does. (I double checked to make sure this wasn't a kneejerk reaction to your post.)

I find it interesting that you have never heard about something you posted articles on almost a year ago Fox.

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2646513#2646513

As well as here discussing where Behe worked at the Discovery Inst.
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2653222#2653222
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Tue 12 Feb, 2008 09:23 am
parados wrote:
real life wrote:

I think Foxfyre's point is that just because some IDers are religious doesn't mean that all are.

There are IDers who are atheist, agnostic, etc

Not that that should make any difference to you, because you've conceded that it wasn't important to you to exclude the concept of God from the definition of 'natural process'.


Since the time of Thomas Aquinas the definition of what is "natural" has included God. Why do you suddenly think that 500 years of Christian teachings should be wrong and God can not have anything to do with nature?


Well I might as well jump on the bandwagon to critique other folks' posts here I guess. Of all members here, I'm pretty darn sure that Real Life does not think 500 years of Christian teachings should be wrong or that God does not have anything to do with nature. I believe his intent was to acknowledge that FM did not consider it important to exclude the concept of God from the definition of 'natural processes'.

This however is curious in that FM so strenuously objects to any definition of ID having any credibility. How does one acccept God in the natural process and reject ID? This just doesn't compute.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 12 Feb, 2008 09:24 am
fm wrote-

Quote:
What is your favorite piece of "observable" evidence spendi?


There are scores of those all along my lonesome path down the thread but I am aware that comprehension skills on here are not particularly advanced and I can hardly spell it out in a quick and easy sentence.

The following illuminates it a fraction but I don't hold out any hopes that it will be read by anti-IDers in the spirit in which it was written which is, of course, the only way to read anything. Reading in the spirit of the reader is a total waste of time although I'll admit that it is a pleasant, self congratulatory method of passing it pointlessly.


Quote:
The Craftsman by Richard Sennett Reviewed by Roger Scruton


Richard Sennett's The Craftsman continues an argument begun in the 19th century, when writers such as John Ruskin and William Morris extolled the crafts remembered in our surnames (Smith, Cartwright, Thatcher, Mason, Fletcher) while lamenting the mind-numbing and soul-destroying labour of the industrial process which was replacing them. A long line of thinkers, from Hegel and Marx to Sennett's teacher Hannah Arendt, have sympathised with the argument. But Sennett does not think that craftsmanship has vanished from our world. On the contrary: it has merely migrated to other regions of human enterprise, so that the delicate form of skilled cooperation that once produced a cathedral now produces the Linux software system. Linux, for Sennett, is the work of a community of craftsmen "who embody some of the elements first celebrated in the (Homeric) Hymn to Hephaestus".

The quotation illustrates the range and boldness of this book. Sennett defines craftmanship as "an enduring, basic human impulse, the desire to do a job well for its own sake". His interest in the subject arises from his work as an academic sociologist, but this says only the barest minimum about his expertise. He is at home in historical, philosophical and psychological literature, and has a lively interest in music, architecture and urban planning, all of which have influenced and broadened his conception of craft. He believes that craft is as vital to the healthy functioning of modern societies as it was to the medieval guilds lauded and romanticised by Morris and Ruskin. And he chooses modern examples to illustrate his thesis. He criticises computer-aided design as the enemy of the eye-guided craft of architectural composition, in terms that recall Ruskin's assault on neoclassicism. He praises Nokia's way of innovating through free cooperation in terms that might have been applied to the drafting of the Rule of St Benedict. His argument moves with consummate ease from the anecdotal to the theoretical and back again, and whether he is reflecting on the origins of the scalpel, on the technique of jazz piano, on disgruntlement in the National Health Service, on Diderot's concerns in the Encyclopédie, on Schiller's theory of play or Raymond Tallis's theory of the hand, his thoughts are always lively, engaging and pertinent. A lifetime's learning has gone into the writing of this book, and it is not surprising if its argument eludes any simple summary.

Craft, as Sennett sees it, belongs to the category of "social capital": knowledge and skill that are accumulated and passed on through social interaction, and which are easily lost when social customs change. He gives the illuminating example of the Stradivari and Guarneri violin workshops, whose secrets have not survived the death of those who exploited them - not because the secrets were known to the few, hidden from the many, and then carelessly lost, but because, in an important sense, they were not explicitly known. Social capital of this kind is an example of what the scientist and philosopher Michael Polanyi called "tacit knowledge": knowledge that exists in a social practice, but is not detachable from it, like the knowledge of the human heart that is contained in the practice of good manners. Such knowledge confers authority on the one who possesses it, and, as Sennett illuminatingly argues, craft traditions have been as much under threat from the modern suspicion of authority in all its forms, as from the industrialisation of the productive process. Originality and "doing your own thing" have replaced obedience and perfection as the standards to live up to, and this is everywhere to be observed in the deskilling of modern societies and in the marginalisation of those who truly know their job, and know it as something more interesting than themselves.

In various places, Sennett points to the importance of religion and ritual in the transfer of tacit knowledge, and he recognises that the great craft cultures of medieval times, in which the legacy of tacit knowledge was kept in place by the self-policing guilds, went with a form of life that we can no longer recuperate. The household of the medieval craftsman was not a place of domestic love, but a place of authority, in which the relation of master and apprentice was more fundamental than that of father and son. Civic pride counted more than domestic contentment, and the crafts themselves were fully incorporated into the religion of the town, taking their place among the rituals and sacraments whereby the community renewed its sense of legitimacy and its devotion to God. Sennett does not linger over what this means for us, who have lost all forms of tacit knowledge that depend upon a shared public faith. And for some unaccountable reason (unaccountable in a man of such broad culture), he does not mention the greatest of all artistic presentations of the phenomenon that he is describing: Wagner's Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg. Had he looked to that exemplary source he would, I think, have recognised more clearly that craftsmanship is more than the desire to do a job well for its own sake. It involves the desire to make a gift of the result, a gift to God, and to the community that has sought God's protection.

That is the burden of Ruskin's argument in The Seven Lamps of Architecture, a source that Sennett respectfully discusses. For Ruskin, architecture serves the community only when approached in a spirit of piety and sacrifice. Architecture must set effective boundaries to public space, and it does so by relinquishing the desire to show off, to stand out, to record the artistic flair of some temporary ego. Architecture succeeds in its public task through humility and devotion, of the kind that can be observed in the moulding, firing and laying of a properly proportioned brick, but which is violated at every point by Frank Gehry's bombastic Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao. Sennett writes beautifully of bricks and their manufacture. But a residual sympathy for modernism leads him to praise Gehry's costly extravaganza. He is entitled to his taste; but he should be clear that Gehry's building is not an exercise in craft but an attempt at art, and exemplifies the same kind of "look at me expressing myself" that has led everywhere to the death of those virtues - humility, piety, obedience - without which no tradition of craftsmanship can really survive.


One might usefully, in the context, refer to Veblen's essay The Instinct of Workmanship and the Irksomeness of Labour which can be found in the collection of short pieces entitled Essays in Our Changing Order.

I see anti-ID as the new priesthood with a religion to suit the mind-numbing and soul-destroying labour of the industrial process which they see themselves controlling and not, definitely not, participating in. The work load involved in composing the trite cliches they blurt out at every opportunity, seemingly written with no attempt to interest or amuse, never mind educate the reader, is a sufficient demonstration of that.

But there are other viewers here and perhaps the curiosity which led them to look at Able 2 Know will be piqued in a few cases. Even if only in the future. Anyone who is really up for it will see Dr Scruton's review as a whole course in ID and without ever mentioning it.

It's an albumen in which to re-gestate.

And-"He not busy being born is busy dying". So Bob said anyway.
0 Replies
 
TheCorrectResponse
 
  1  
Tue 12 Feb, 2008 09:30 am
Quote:

I only quoted this because I have never seen Spendi and "fine points" used in the same sentence!


If your humor was a Martini the Vermouth bottle wouldn't even be allowed in the building! DRRRRRRYYYYY. Laughing
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Tue 12 Feb, 2008 09:40 am
FLORIDA UPDATE

Quote:
Evolution backers, opponents make points at Orlando hearing
(Leslie Postal, Orlando Sentinel, February 12, 2008)

They came from one end of Florida to the other, and with views on evolution as far apart as the 800 miles that separate the Keys from the Panhandle.

The Florida Department of Education held its final public hearing Monday on new science standards that for the first time require evolution to be taught in the state's public schools.

More than 80 people spoke at the five-hour hearing. More spoke against the new evolution standards than for them, but those in favor also had plenty of representatives. The comments -- often met with applause -- touched on religion, science and even fruit.

"The standards deny academic freedom to students and teachers," said Patricia Weeks, chairman of the Baker County School Board.

Her board, like a number of other school boards in North Florida, has passed a resolution asking for revised standards in which "evolution is not presented as fact."

Like other opponents, they want evolution presented as one theory on how life on Earth developed. Some speakers said they wanted creationism or intelligent design taught, while others said they just wanted what they called weaknesses in the theory of evolution talked about, too.

But Debra Walker, chairman of the Monroe County School Board, urged passage of the new standards as is. She said the current "political meltdown over Darwinian theory" was proof that too many people had received a poor-quality science education.

She noted that the school districts with some of the lowest science scores on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test were the ones complaining loudest about the new standards.

"Do we want these boards setting science policy in Florida? I think not."

The state wants revised science standards -- which serve as a blueprint for science education statewide -- to help beef up lackluster lessons. Florida students typically struggle on national science tests and many also do poorly on the FCAT science exam. The new standards list evolution as one of 18 "big ideas" students must understand by the time they graduate.

The State Board of Education is scheduled to vote on the standards at its meeting next week in Tallahassee.

Christopher Parkinson, a biology professor at University of Central Florida, was one of many scientists and science educators who spoke in favor the new standards. Many people misunderstand what scientists mean by "the theory of evolution," he said.

"It is not a belief system," he said. It is a "theory with a capital T" that has been tested repeatedly.

Florida, he added, needs better science education because too many students arrive in college unprepared. "They don't understand science," Parkinson added. "They don't know how to think their way out of a paper bag."

Most of the scientists and educators who helped write the new standards signed a letter to the board urging they be adopted unchanged. Gerry Meisels, a chemistry professor at University of South Florida, read it at the hearing.

"There is no longer any valid scientific criticism of the theory of evolution," he said. Failing to adopt the standards will give Florida a reputation as a "backward state" and hurt economic-development efforts, he said.

But many other speakers said presenting evolution as the "fundamental concept underlying all of biology" clashed with their religious views.

"I'm a Christian who believes that God created the world in seven days," said Julie Williams, who came from Perry in the Panhandle to speak against the standards. "There are a lot of proven facts in the Bible."

Dallas Ellis, another Panhandle resident, also urged rejection of the new evolution standards. He held up two oranges and said, "I have irrefutable evidence that they are related to somebody's pets."

Kim Kendall, a mother from St. Johns County who has been active in the opposition effort, was part of a group of parents and pastors who held a news conference before the meeting to complain that state board members would not be in attendance.

"All I want to do is have my voice heard and before the seven people who will make the decision," she said.

Education Commissioner Eric Smith said the board has not decided whether to allow public comment at its meeting next week. But the Education Department did schedule Monday's hearing because the board could not listen to as many speakers at its Feb. 19 meeting given the full agenda.

"This is good public input," Smith added.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Tue 12 Feb, 2008 09:43 am
parados wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Joe Nation wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Wikipedia touts the Discovery Institute as the platform for ID or something like that. And here I've worked in and around education most of my adult life and I've never heard of it, much less the Wedge, despite a lot of real life discussions and postings. So how mainstream could it be?


I really hate it when foxfyre plays dumb.

The above is like saying "I've been going to the movies my whole life, but I've never heard of this place called 'Hollywood'"

Joe(Like Behe saying he's not familiar with Creationism)Nation


I really hate it when you presume what Foxfyre does. (I double checked to make sure this wasn't a kneejerk reaction to your post.)

I find it interesting that you have never heard about something you posted articles on almost a year ago Fox.

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2646513#2646513

As well as here discussing where Behe worked at the Discovery Inst.
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2653222#2653222


And these had to with the "Discovery Institute" and "the Wedge"...what?
0 Replies
 
TheCorrectResponse
 
  1  
Tue 12 Feb, 2008 09:44 am
Foxy said:
Quote:

Well I might as well jump on the bandwagon to critique other folks' posts here I guess.

OR you could acknowledge that Parados' post shows that you were either:

a) Mistaken when you said you never even heard of the Discovery Institute (the gracious choice to let you off the hook)

b) Lying through your teeth because you must be right about everything at all costs (the non-thinkers', mean spirited, anti-ID, communist sympathizing, devil worshiping choice to show that the righteous ain't always right)
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Tue 12 Feb, 2008 09:51 am
Foxfyre wrote:
parados wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Joe Nation wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Wikipedia touts the Discovery Institute as the platform for ID or something like that. And here I've worked in and around education most of my adult life and I've never heard of it, much less the Wedge, despite a lot of real life discussions and postings. So how mainstream could it be?


I really hate it when foxfyre plays dumb.

The above is like saying "I've been going to the movies my whole life, but I've never heard of this place called 'Hollywood'"

Joe(Like Behe saying he's not familiar with Creationism)Nation


I really hate it when you presume what Foxfyre does. (I double checked to make sure this wasn't a kneejerk reaction to your post.)

I find it interesting that you have never heard about something you posted articles on almost a year ago Fox.

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2646513#2646513

As well as here discussing where Behe worked at the Discovery Inst.
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2653222#2653222


And these had to with the "Discovery Institute" and "the Wedge"...what?


You must be referring to FMs reference to the Discovery Institute? That honestly didn't register with me as I know nothing about it and precious little about Behe other than what I looked up when his name surfaced.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Tue 12 Feb, 2008 09:52 am
TheCorrectResponse wrote:
Foxy said:
Quote:

Well I might as well jump on the bandwagon to critique other folks' posts here I guess.

OR you could acknowledge that Parados' post shows that you were either:

a) Mistaken when you said you never even heard of the Discovery Institute (the gracious choice to let you off the hook)

b) Lying through your teeth because you must be right about everything at all costs (the non-thinkers', mean spirited, anti-ID, communist sympathizing, devil worshiping choice to show that the righteous ain't always right)


I think I hear your mommy calling you.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Tue 12 Feb, 2008 09:56 am
foxy
Quote:
FM did not consider it important to exclude the concept of God from the definition of 'natural processes'.

. No no no. Just the opposite. I dont consider it important to INCLUDE god in the definition of natural. You all (in the RL school) have a desire to make this a point of debate and want us to stipulate to it. While I really dont have an opinion about the entire point(since it doesnt affect me and my lifestyle or workaday world). Im just gonna let you carry this debate with parados, its his area of interest, and besides, I dont think he needs any help with your platoon approach. Hes maded a rather good accounting of himself and , were I RL, Id just say shut up and deal.

Joe and parados have nicely exposed your convenient "dumb attack" whe you feigned a lack of familiarity with the Disxovery Institute and its ID mission.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 12 Feb, 2008 10:03 am
wande wrote-

Quote:
Foxfyre wrote:
It should be obvious by now that Spendi and I are at odds on some of the fine points of our understanding of ID.


I only quoted this because I have never seen Spendi and "fine points" used in the same sentence!


Well wande--it is most unlikely. "Fine points" are by definition going to slip past the attention of most people in the ordinary course of events. That is what "fine points" mean.

I tried in the pub last night to make a fine point in relation to the production costs of screen image time, the Primaries, media not only choosing the candidates but setting their agendas as well, profit and loss accounts, pot pissing, irrational money quantities and so forth but I could tell nobody had a clue and when I mentioned Sky TV I was interrupted, as often happens in pubs, and the discussion petered out in miasma of boredom my point being one of those "fine points" mentioned as sliding by the attention spans as they do on here to those who respond to them.

The benefit of my "fine point" was for me only. In the course of making it I clarified my own foggy thoughts on such matters and it helped me to appreciate what a fine job media has done in the casting department and with the plot so far.

It really is a fine movie. Only an anti-IDer would think it hadn't been intelligently designed and was merely a series of random happenings with no purpose or reason.

The public will decide who is the hero or heroine on the Wisdom of Groups theory and after 8 years of living with the result, I presume, a new cast will be assembled for the next one and all this will become part of the dead become about which you are all so obsessed because the dead become has no "fine points" so no brain stretching is required and no sensible animal in evolution ever stretches its brain when it's in the comfort zone on $80,000 a year.

No sir! Not one. That's why anti-ID is a dead duck and will run science into the buffers on the principles enshrined in The Theory of the Leisure Class now that they have trickled down into every respectable corner of the land from sea to shining sea.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Tue 12 Feb, 2008 10:04 am
farmerman wrote:
foxy
Quote:
FM did not consider it important to exclude the concept of God from the definition of 'natural processes'.

. No no no. Just the opposite. I dont consider it important to INCLUDE god in the definition of natural. You all (in the RL school) have a desire to make this a point of debate and want us to stipulate to it. While I really dont have an opinion about the entire point(since it doesnt affect me and my lifestyle or workaday world). Im just gonna let you carry this debate with parados, its his area of interest, and besides, I dont think he needs any help with your platoon approach. Hes maded a rather good accounting of himself and , were I RL, Id just say shut up and deal.

Joe and parados have nicely exposed your convenient "dumb attack" whe you feigned a lack of familiarity with the Disxovery Institute and its ID mission.


Okay so RL misunderstood. And honestly the connection between Behe and the Discovery Institute simply did not compute when you mentioned it. I was focused on Behe's impressive credentials coupled with his concept of ID and your argument for how Darwin's black box was discredited. I am terribly terribly sorry and profusely apologize for forgetting that there was mention of a Discovery Institute in all that. I still know nothing about that nor do I recall ever being informed of such a thing as "The Wedge".

Now you and the others can continue to have a field day excoriating me for dishonesty. I screwed up which I am sure you all find delightful. I forgot it had been mentioned and that makes me a terrible person and deserving of having that pointed out for several more pages. So everybody knock yourself out. I have appointments I need to get to.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Tue 12 Feb, 2008 10:08 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Now you and the others can continue to have a field day excoriating me for dishonesty. I screwed up which I am sure you all find delightful. I forgot it had been mentioned and that makes me a terrible person and deserving of having that pointed out for several more pages. So everybody knock yourself out. I have appointments I need to get to.


It is not delightful for me, Foxfyre. I only think that you waste too much energy defending yourself. Stick to the plain subject matter.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Tue 12 Feb, 2008 10:08 am
relax, we will be here .
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Tue 12 Feb, 2008 10:10 am
Joe Nation wrote:
I really hate it when foxfyre plays dumb.


I don't hate it, just note it.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 12 Feb, 2008 10:34 am
Foxy wrote-

Quote:
It should be obvious by now that Spendi and I are at odds on some of the fine points of our understanding of ID.


I think we might be at odds on some of the cruder points as well but the coalition against atheistic materialism over-rides such minor matters just as is the case with the coalition in the ME.

fm wrote-

Quote:
whe you feigned a lack of familiarity with the Disxovery Institute and its ID mission.


I'm not feigning my ignorance of the DI. When it went into Dover with a glass bat it struck me as a business enterprise. Not that I'm surprised mind you. They say the war is a business enterprise don't they?

PS. Is it proper etiquette on A2K to quote fm as written or to correct his typos? Stendhal was at pains to point out the importance of Christian etiquette and Mr Scruton nods in that direction in the post above.

I thought of-

Quote:
when you feigned a lack of familiarity with the Discovery Institute and its ID mission.


but thought better of it in the end.

What's the best form? Both his typos could have been jokes in which case it would be bad-mannered to adjust them.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Tue 12 Feb, 2008 10:46 am
spendi
Quote:
I'm not feigning my ignorance of the DI


I dont recall anyone talking to you e: this point
Quote:
I thought of-

Quote:
when you feigned a lack of familiarity with the Discovery Institute and its ID mission.


but thought better of it in the end.

What's the best form? Both his typos could have been jokes in which case it would be bad-mannered to adjust them.


I apologize for all my typos. My left hand is quite crippled and missing several digits so I often make these unforgivable errors in spelling. Besides, I suppose Im too lazy to go back and correct when Im typing in a
expositry response. I think it was Timber who "decoded" my spelling errors as a function of a keft hand limitation and I thus often move my right hand to cover larger portions of the keyboard and its actually right hand errors that aboun because Im just skipping over the keys not in any proper order.

Im glad that you were able to correct my errors and I hope I didnt cause you any problems.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 12 Feb, 2008 10:46 am
wande quoted-

Quote:
She said the current "political meltdown over Darwinian theory" was proof that too many people had received a poor-quality science education.


I wonder if any time will ever come when such a stupid statement could not be blurted out. For the lady to think such drivel will have meaning for us is grossly insulting.

Still- she's an anti-IDer so that's the sort of hoof policy will be galloping on if anti-IDers come to power. The sound of their voice alone. That's all there is left when there's no meaning.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 08/16/2025 at 05:33:18