Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Give us a kiss then and answer the question:
Is the Intelligent Designer still involved with the designing process and, if so, what are the most recent products, if not, then what is the role of the Intelligent Designer now?

Joe(is the ID retired or still employed?)Nation

0 Replies

FLORIDA UPDATE

Quote:

Education Board to Listen on Evolution
(By John Chambliss, THE LEDGER, February 15, 2008)

Under pressure from groups opposed to the proposed new science standards, the State Board of Education has decided to hear from both sides before their vote Tuesday.

Ten who support the standards and 10 who are against will each have three minutes to speak.

At a public meeting about the standards Monday in Orlando, dozens of people against the standards urged Education Commissioner Eric J. Smith to allow them to speak before the state board.

The proposed standards require for the first time the teaching of evolution.

Of the seven state board members, so far two support the new standards and two are against them.

Those interested in speaking before board members should arrive at the Cabinet meeting room in the state capitol at 8 a.m. to complete a speaker card.

The science standards are at the top of the meeting's agenda Tuesday so a vote should occur in the morning, said Tom Butler, a spokesman with the Department of Education.

"We have received a lot of good public input on the proposed science standards and have heard from interested citizens who would like the opportunity to speak on these standards before the State Board of Education," Smith said in a news release.

The proposed science standards include evolution as one of the 18 big ideas students need to learn.

"Evolution is the fundamental concept underlying all of biology and is supported in multiple forms of scientific evidence," the standards state.

Evolution, the theory that biological life developed and diversified through small changes over millions of years, is opposed by some evangelical Christians and Orthodox Jews who believe in a literal biblical interpretation of the Earth's creation.

The debate has been brewing throughout the state since the standards were released to the public in October.

At least 10,000 people have provided more than 260,000 ratings and 20,000 comments to the standards online.

0 Replies

Joe (I'm pretty good for a chimp) Nation wrote-

Quote:

Breeders of animals usually are not interested in having any stock around which can no longer produce offspring. That's why you don't see many mares over 25 but you do see stallions.

Do we shoot all the ladies at 50 then Joe? They are animals aren't they?

Simon Raven said that he couldn't understand why women don't take the pills at 35. Still- you won't know about him I don't suppose. Female relatives didn't interfere with his searching eye. His books would be ones that Foxy allowed the fundies to remove from the library shelves without protest. It's called a sliding scale of principles.

I have an autographed first edition of The Islands of Sorrow. I'll dig it out--it might have some good quotes. Which will make a change and change is in the air I gather.

0 Replies

Joe (he hasn't seen my beard) Nation wrote-

Quote:

Give us a kiss then and answer the question:
Is the Intelligent Designer still involved with the designing process and, if so, what are the most recent products, if not, then what is the role of the Intelligent Designer

Well-obviously. The technics of this site are a simple example. The US election as a movie is another. Some aspects wouldn't be suitable for a family thread.

And the role is further refinement.

Ignoring Hutber's Law of course.

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

Chumly: I don't mean to have others ignore your question. I'm sure with all the potions and shots that humans have been taking for 100,000 years, someone has tried figuring out who to breed to in order to have long-lived progeny. All the men in my family live into their 90's unless they fall off a roof (my grandad) or off a ladder (my dad).

Breeders of animals usually are not interested in having any stock around which can no longer produce offspring. That's why you don't see many mares over 25 but you do see stallions.

Joe(Want a long lived pet. Get a parrot.)Nation

Joe Nation wrote:

Chumly: I don't mean to have others ignore your question. I'm sure with all the potions and shots that humans have been taking for 100,000 years, someone has tried figuring out who to breed to in order to have long-lived progeny. All the men in my family live into their 90's unless they fall off a roof (my grandad) or off a ladder (my dad).

Breeders of animals usually are not interested in having any stock around which can no longer produce offspring. That's why you don't see many mares over 25 but you do see stallions.

Joe(Want a long lived pet. Get a parrot.)Nation

I would have thought that perhaps dog breeders might have tried for longevity as a desirable trait. I do think that the genetics of longevity has implications for ID'ers that would be difficult for them to rationalize.

0 Replies

This is a general article on the subject of longevity:
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2006/jul2006_report_longevity_01.htm

One of the characteristics the Border Leichester sheep is its longevity. I don't know if they are purposely bread for that.

Two points:

1) What leads to longevity has only recently been discovered relative to genetics and diet.

2) Longevity alone is not necessarily a worthwhile goal. In dogs as in most animals longevity leads to debilitating diseases and a reduced quality of life. It seems one would have to work on a healthy longevity for it to have meaning.

Most companion animal medicine is directed at promoting and aiding a quality life over its normal lifespan, rather than an increase in lifespan, or increasing the lifespan by better general health and nutrition.

Most food animals are slaughtered long before old age. Vet meds in this area are mainly focused on increased productivity/quicker fattening/highest quality coat. For example, why would a cattleman want to keep a steer past the time it has reached its maximum weight? At that point he is actually reducing his maximum rate of return.

0 Replies

wande quoted-

Quote:

"Evolution is the fundamental concept underlying all of biology and is supported in multiple forms of scientific evidence," the standards state.

That is not true. What on earth people who put that on the record with their names signed on the bottom are doing in charge of education is a complete mystery to me. I guess it is to do with the offspring of the lower-middle class having to be found a nice job with a title and opportunities to express their control freakery as any association with "work" is considered to be in bad taste.

Such a system self-evidently requires immigrants to run essential services at the street level. And complaining about immigrants is a nice job too. The Romans had the same difficulty.

0 Replies

Chum wrote-

Quote:

I do think that the genetics of longevity has implications for ID'ers that would be difficult for them to rationalize.

Like what?

High sounding drivel means nothing to me and it shouldn't to anybody else.

To what do we owe this sudden resurgence of your interest in this thread Chum?

0 Replies

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

What leads to longevity has only recently been discovered relative to genetics and diet.

I am not wholly convinced of this assertion given the long history of breeding plants for specific traits as well as breeding domestic animals for specific traits.

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

Longevity alone is not necessarily a worthwhile goal.

You have made no claim here at all because longevity alone is not necessarily not a worthwhile goal also. However ask a dying man if he would want to live another 50 years.

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

In dogs as in most animals longevity leads to debilitating diseases and a reduced quality of life.

In humans there has been a substantive increase in longevity and it has not necessarily lead specifically and directly to debilitating diseases and a reduced quality of life as compared to when man had a shorter lifespan.

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

It seems one would have to work on a healthy longevity for it to have meaning.

Negative, because longevity in and of itself can elevate meaning, witness Steven Hawkings.

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

Most companion animal medicine is directed at promoting and aiding a quality life over its normal lifespan, rather than an increase in lifespan, or increasing the lifespan by better general health and nutrition.

In the context of a man-engineered/influenced animal (such as the dog) the word "normal" takes on a different connotation. The dog is not natural but man derived, at least in part. Thus whatever man engineers in a specific dog breed is "normal" for that dog breed.

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

Most food animals are slaughtered long before old age. Vet meds in this area are mainly focused on increased productivity/quicker fattening/highest quality coat. For example, why would a cattleman want to keep a steer past the time it has reached its maximum weight? At that point he is actually reducing his maximum rate of return.

I'm not making reference to food unless you eat Chow.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Chum wrote-

Quote:
I do think that the genetics of longevity has implications for ID'ers that would be difficult for them to rationalize.

Like what?

Given that man can and does change the "natural" lifespan of creatures then man by definition man must also have some of the attributes of an intelligent designer.[/quote]

spendius wrote:

High sounding drivel means nothing to me and it shouldn't to anybody else.

Spendi's folly is illuminated.

spendius wrote:

To what do we owe this sudden resurgence of your interest in this thread Chum?

I'm getting another Chow Chow, probably. Daizey died some 6 - 8 months ago.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Joe (I'm pretty good for a chimp) His books would be ones that Foxy allowed the fundies to remove from the library shelves without protest.

Spendi, I will not allow you to misquote or mischaracterize me with impunity. I have not nor did I allow 'fundies' to remove anything from the library shelves without protest. This is the second time you have said it and it is a lie.

0 Replies

Well you may not be convinced of the assertion but its not mine it's the people doing the work.

Your right I have made no claim, hence the word "necessarily".

It's not hard to find medical articles stating that the increases in the last century of some specific diseases i.e. some cancers, brain diseases, etc. are attributable, at least in part, to a population that reaches a significantly older age.

I provided the article so you could see what experts were saying. Genetics and physiology are not my fields chem./physics/computer sciences are.

I just thought I would give you some things to think about relative to the question.

You seem to have posted the question to argue/prove others wrong. I'll leave you to it then. I'm sure Spendi will give you all the arguments that you could want.

0 Replies

So what, it's not hard to find articles stating that early man had specific diseases and lessened quality of life attributable, at least in part, to a population that was unable to reach a significantly oder age.

As to your Straw Man argument / Ad Hominem argument re: "You seem to have posted the question to argue/prove others wrong" your penchant for logical fallacies won't be reciprocated.

Either you are able to substantiate your views in the light of scrutiny or you are not.

0 Replies

Foxy wrote-

Quote:

Spendi, I will not allow you to misquote or mischaracterize me with impunity. I have not nor did I allow 'fundies' to remove anything from the library shelves without protest. This is the second time you have said it and it is a lie.

You have your wires crossed Foxy. I know you prevented fundies removing some books. Any "lie" is in you having the wrong end of the stick. Seemingly twice.

The point I was making is that your protests, which I approve of, against fundies removing books, has to be qualified by enquiring about other books, some of which I mentioned, or their authors, which you would not have protested about and, indeed, been in favour of having them removed despite my protests. Which shows a sliding scale of principles and that involves partisan indoctrination.

The big laugh is that anti-IDers, in search of truth in all things, would willingly assist in removing the works of that greatest of all republicans, and the only martyr anti-IDers have, The Marquis de Sade, from the shelves of public libraries never mind those in schools and would likely help out in the burning of them.

The general point is that institutionalised education is a vehicle for indoctrination.

0 Replies

Chum wrote-

Quote:

spendius wrote:
Chum wrote-

Quote:
I do think that the genetics of longevity has implications for ID'ers that would be difficult for them to rationalize.

Like what?

Given that man can and does change the "natural" lifespan of creatures then man by definition man must also have some of the attributes of an intelligent designer.

I asked "Like what".

What implications of the genetics of longevity would be difficult to rationalize for an IDer I meant? Your answer there does no justice to the question. The original statement you made thus becomes another high sounding piece of drivel.

Is it not obvious that the attributes of an intelligent designer are those which Christian mankind has chosen to grant the being and chosen them moreover with the aim of worldly success.

And-

Quote:

Spendi's folly is illuminated.

isn't even high sounding.

As far as I'm concerned all pet dog owners are barmy and Veblen was of the same opinion along with most of the people I know.

0 Replies

We're in trouble if you know people, honorable vendettas notwithstanding.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Foxy wrote-

Quote:
Spendi, I will not allow you to misquote or mischaracterize me with impunity. I have not nor did I allow 'fundies' to remove anything from the library shelves without protest. This is the second time you have said it and it is a lie.

You have your wires crossed Foxy. I know you prevented fundies removing some books. Any "lie" is in you having the wrong end of the stick. Seemingly twice.

You are the one who said this:

Quote:

"His books would be ones that Foxy allowed the fundies to remove from the library shelves without protest."

and your previous post on this said essentially the same thing.

What would I or anybody else presume from this other than I allowed the fundies to remove books from library shelves? This after I had expressly stated that I opposed such censorship, which you now acknowledge with this,

Quote:

The point I was making is that your protests, which I approve of, against fundies removing books,

But now you follow that with this:

Quote:

has to be qualified by enquiring about other books, some of which I mentioned, or their authors, which you would not have protested about and, indeed, been in favour of having them removed despite my protests. Which shows a sliding scale of principles and that involves partisan indoctrination.

Which my friend, is also making a huge presumption about what I would or would not do in addition to being patently absurd. As I am pro-ID and also pro-science, it is unlikely that I would consent to banning ANY book, short of hard core pornography, from the school library. Marx should be there as well as Frankl. Balance Neitzche with Augustine or Luther. Etc.

I allow you to be anti-Darwin and appreciate that there are some left who will continue to demand that the religion of natural selection will be continually scrutinized and questioned lest it become gospel at the expense of greater truths yet to be learned. I will continue being Christian secure in the experienced reality and truth of ID as well as wanting all children to be taught the basics of good science, including Darwin.

I will continue to believe that there is nothing that is not worth knowing and that children benefit most from being taught all aspects of every subject along with encouragement to think and reason critically. If education does its job, unindoctrinated children invariably become those who contribute their own special gifts and knowledge adding to the sum total of what humans can know in the world. Indoctrinate them and they will not likely be capable of any original thought.

0 Replies

Chum wrote-

Quote:

We're in trouble if you know people, honorable vendettas notwithstanding.

Being in trouble is the only constant state of life isn't it? Otherwise who would buy all that junk to stop us thinking about it?

At least happy clapping is cheap.

Here's a question that drifted into the euphoric air of the pub late last night.

If a nuclear reactor could provide the energy to keep itself fed with fuels and servicings wouldn't it be a perpetuum mobile.

Isn't a nuclear explosion merely a dramatic focussing of the energy from fossil fuels?

0 Replies

Foxy quoted me as saying-

Quote:

"His books would be ones that Foxy allowed the fundies to remove from the library shelves without protest."

Oh--I stand by that. Which author was I referring to. Simon Raven. You would approve of the fundies taking them off the shelf I feel sure. But he's unknown in the US. Take Henry Miller's Opus Pistorum instead. And I think it a Christian book and by one of America's most renowned writers. I think you would not protest if the fundies banned that.

I don't think you see the point Foxy. Most people would agree with taking those books off the shelf. I'm making a point about indoctrination.

You never answered the question about the character references and character appraisal at job interviews. Why those for a science teacher if he knows his science. What have his personal habits got to do with it?

Quote:

What would I or anybody else presume from this other than I allowed the fundies to remove books from library shelves? This after I had expressly stated that I opposed such censorship, which you now acknowledge with this.

Well- I answered that. I know you protested the removal of "some" books. I said so.

What does "such" mean in that context. There's a value judgment in it.

And we need to know why you would oppose the censorship as well. If the fundies thought the books would corrupt the youth, the charge Socrates was arraigned on, what is the argument that they won't corrupt the youth because if you haven't one you are risking corrupting the youth for--well-what for?

You don't oppose censorship at all. Who does? Even I do.

I don't see your problem.

Quote:

Which my friend, is also making a huge presumption about what I would or would not do in addition to being patently absurd. As I am pro-ID and also pro-science, it is unlikely that I would consent to banning ANY book, short of hard core pornography, from the school library. Marx should be there as well as Frankl. Balance Neitzche with Augustine or Luther. Etc.

That's absurd. You know that those books are censored by their mode of expression. Kids can't read that stuff. It's boring.

It's pub time. I'll look at the rest later.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

If a nuclear reactor could provide the energy to keep itself fed with fuels and servicings wouldn't it be a perpetuum mobile.

There are breeder reactors, but they are not perpetual motion machines. No free (fish and chips) lunch.

spendius wrote:

Isn't a nuclear explosion merely a dramatic focussing of the energy from fossil fuels?

Nuclear energy is a different kettle of fish (and chips) than chemical energy.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know