Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Love the signature Milf.******g brilliant.

spendius

As I have recently died and you haven't, I will take no guff from you on these matters. Unless, of course, it's quality guff.

Well the Spartans were the kings of one word replies. Another one of Leonidas' replies....

Persian Ambassador: The Great King wants you to lay down your weapons! You will not be harmed.
Leonidas: Let him come get them!

Bring 'em on.

There's nothing new under the sun.

Open the door Homer.

blathers-

How do you know.I'll have you know that I was once behind a thin pine tree and when the shooting stopped the other side,180 degrees on the other side,looked like whisked second hand nappies.And there were no comforting medical facilities close at hand.

it was Herodotus who wrote them.. bout 500+ years after Homer... i know more but my head is killing me.. i'll get more..

sp

Put down your bitters and compose that last bit so that it might at least fake coherence. Please. Thankyou.

? I'm really confused... Back to the matter at hand... What would Jesus say?

He'd say "those goddam insurgents really screwed up my plans."

The first legal test of whether school boards can mandate the teaching of intelligent design (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District) began yesterday in Pennsylvania. The only witness on the first day of the trial was Ken Miller, the Brown University professor of biology. Dr. Miller defended evolutionary theory and critcized intelligent design theory. Below is an excerpt from York Daily Record's report on the trial:

I'm glad Ken Miller started with the core issue at hand: "Intelligent design is not a science and therefore it cannot be construed as a science whatsoever."

I was worried that they would be distracted from the core issue by the irrelevant bells and whistles surrounding ID. Let's hope they keep focused.

rosborne,
In today's session of the trial, Dr. Miller is being cross-examined by the attorneys for the school board. (I will post something if I am able to get a transcript.)

Very simply put, ID cannot be objectively proved with facts. ID is only a (religious) idea, and it is not science. If the judge rules in favor of the school board, we can assume he is also a ID advocate.

They say that SD can't be proved absolutely as well.

What might be provable,and more pertinent,is the social effect of ID or SD under different economic conditions and for different people.SD's claim to fame is based on practical results rather than fundamentals.

Suppose,for example,that ID was more socially functional for IQs below ,say,115.Above that they would be making their own minds up by 21 and the teaching would be irrelevant.

I had been wondering for a while whether favouring SD was simply a polite way of claiming to be a member of the intellectual elite in view of all that "opiate for the masses" twaddle given out by Marxists.After all-what isn't an opiate? And there is a gender bias too which could then lead to a claim to "machismo".

I would fancy myself to win the case for ID in rural states and any apeal as well.

Attempting to equate SD with ID is the problem: it's a no brainer, except for the fundamental christians.

Can you not bring yourself to address the social function issue which is actually the only one of significance.

spendius,
I don't know about C.I., but the only social function I am concerned about is science education for young people. I would not want my children to be taught a strange hybrid of religion and science. Also, parents want to decide where their children learn about religion. Children should be taught religion at home or in church. It would be deceitful to present religious ideas in their science classes.

Surely what matters is what the judge thinks and your children are just a tiny fraction of the total of children he has to take into account.

Any argument based on what you want automatically validates arguments based on what other parents want and chaos ensues.

If I was to put my own view I would burn all the schools down and rebuild the educational system on other lines.

You are going to lose this case mate if you go into court with "what I want" arguments.

wande wrote-



Do you have a problem with children being deceived?Cripes.

I don't often get a chance to agree with Spendius...so allow me to take advantage of this opportunity.






A+


And if I may extend it into an area Spendius may find disagreeable...

...I often argue that theists who claim that "the existence of God" and "the nature of God" is something that can be known...

...automatically validates arguments along those same lines from other folks who have arrived at diametrically opposed "knowledge" of what the God that supposedly exists is like...what pleases and offends it...and what it expects of humans.