Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

My answer is that I think we, you and I, should start a new thread regarding the social changes brought upon human society by Darwin's revelation.

What do think the title should be?

Joe(The comfortable are a curiousity because they have no curiousity.)Nation

0 Replies

Joe(rather be uncomfortable)Nation, I must on this very rare occasion disagree with your thesis on the virtue of being comfortable.

I've been retired since 1998, and have lived a pretty comfortable life considering such simple facts like 90 percent of the world isn't (living a comfortable life, that is.)

I believe there's much to support the concept of a "comfortable" life, especially in this day and age when so many are struggling to keep their jobs, homes, and cars.

We are not rich, but comfortable; and that's a very good position to be in. Our generation was one of the best.

0 Replies

Joe( I sometimes have to risk my life because some silly piss-artist like spendi falls asleep with a fag in his mouth) Nation wrote-

Quote:

My answer is that I think we, you and I, should start a new thread regarding the social changes brought upon human society by Darwin's revelation.

What do think the title should be?

Monkey Business.

Like when a decent, hard working young man can't get married and buy an ordinary house to raise a family without his wife having to go out to work in some stupid soul-destroying job which frazzles her nerves and the few hundred bloody feminists who got famous causing it all are sat in their posh offices poring over face-lift catalouges and the latest things in body ironmongery and writing articles about how humiliating it is to have to put up with men and their disgusting habits and banging on in nervous squeaks about rape and stuff as though it's happening all over the place on a minute by minute basis in between gulping Prozac down with gin chasers and wondering what to do next while doing what they thought of doing next an hour ago.

This thread's okay Joe. Fire away. We are in the entertainment game.

0 Replies

Bring back the Pope.

If Mrs Clinton thinks she has experience she should use her privileged position to get access to the Vatican archives.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Joe(rather be uncomfortable)Nation, I must on this very rare occasion disagree with your thesis on the virtue of being comfortable.

I've been retired since 1998, and have lived a pretty comfortable life considering such simple facts like 90 percent of the world isn't (living a comfortable life, that is.)

I believe there's much to support the concept of a "comfortable" life, especially in this day and age when so many are struggling to keep their jobs, homes, and cars.

We are not rich, but comfortable; and that's a very good position to be in. Our generation was one of the best.

CI: Don't misunderstand me. Spendius knows what I am talking about, that's why he won't start another thread. You, for example, are one of the most uncomfortable persons I know. You do not, unlike Spendius and others, cling like a child to some seemingly solid myth for substance and support, rather you are the kind of human who strikes out into the world seeking new experiences and new visions, just the kind of thing that terrifies poor, very comfortable, very stagnant, Spendi. He shudders at the idea that women, for example, could possibly be of any worth whatsoever and is panic-stricken by the thought that a woman might have power in a relationship. (pity Mrs. Spendius if there ever was one.)

Spendius want desperately to reveal to the world his vision of what Darwin has wrought, but, and this is key, he doesn't know exactly what either that vision is or what the idea of Natural Selection has brought into our world.

Joe(He just knows he wants to be comfortable again.)Nation

0 Replies

Hey wande-

Kicky has started a thread entitled-

Quote:

Nothing Florida does should count at all.

What do you think of that?

0 Replies

Joe ( projecting like a ladder up to spendi's bedroom window from which smoke is billowing) Nation wrote-

Quote:

He shudders at the idea that women, for example, could possibly be of any worth whatsoever and is panic-stricken by the thought that a woman might have power in a relationship. (pity Mrs. Spendius if there ever was one.)

I'm not falling for that Joe. I have my reputation to think about.

0 Replies

kicky has the wit and instinct to gain the credibility of the most skeptical.

0 Replies

spendi, You still have a reputation? LOL Laughing

0 Replies

c.i. wrote-

Quote:

kicky has the wit and instinct to gain the credibility of the most skeptical.

What? After cancelling out wande's last forty thousand posts in one sweet, easy phrase.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

They HAVE to link ID with Creationism in order to logically dispute ID. Otherwise they look like idiotic loons with irreconcilable prejudices and no reasonable argument at all.

Speaking of loons, this reaches a new, unheralded low in Fox stupidity. "Intelligent design" is disputed on the grounds that there is not a scintilla of scientific evidence to underpin the goofy claims of its adherents. This came out poignantly at the trial of the Dover case when ID supporters were forced to admit on the stand that there is no scientific basis for their claims.

0 Replies

The following is from the cross examination of Dr. Behe during the trial of Kitzmiller v. Dover Board of Education:

Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes.

Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?

A That is correct.

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.

Behe is reduced to quibbling about a definition of "theory," and attempting to suggest that his definition of theory includes "intelligent design," which is why he was obliged to acknowledge that astrology is a theory by his criterion. Earlier in his testimony on that day he acknowledged that the definition of theory he uses is not accepted by the National Academy of Sciences.

The entire transcript of day eleven in Kitzmiller v. Dover, during which Dr. Behe testified, can be read here.

0 Replies

Settin'-Aah wrote,

Quote:

This came out poignantly at the trial of the Dover case when ID supporters were forced to admit on the stand that there is no scientific basis for their claims.

They were not "forced" Settin'.

They were being polite due to the judge's domestic circumstances.

Decorous if you prefer, as well you might. In all the circumstances, the event having no significance outside of the fees, it was probably the best thing to do I think you would agree if you were up to speed on what they might have offered as scientific evidence.

Ladies didn't faint when Darwin gave his inaugural lecture on what he had discovered for no reason. They were Empire ladies of the hunting and shooting type.

It isn't very scientific to think that the only scientific evidence is that you know about. That's bigotry.

It was "poignant" though. You are right about that.

Go and hang the washing out you silly moo.

0 Replies

Astrology is well grounded in fact.

Don't confuse those who use the scientific theory of astrology for other purposes with the theory of astrology.

You would be, again, thinking that the only scientific evidence is that evidence you know about from your limited reading.

Dust the mantlepiece for goodness sakes.

0 Replies

What does it have to do with this debate that Behe is either a plonker or acted like one at Dover. Behe might easily have never been born.

Intellectual arguments don't depend on improbabilities of that nature.

Have you no socks to darn or what?

0 Replies

As bad as my spelling is...

As bad as my typing is...

... just one post from Spendi reminds me that the absence of content is much more pronounced than either of the two.

Phew.

BTW Spendi, you can't have it both ways; either there is or there isn't scientific evidence.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

They HAVE to link ID with Creationism in order to logically dispute ID. Otherwise they look like idiotic loons with irreconcilable prejudices and no reasonable argument at all.

Twasn't us that linked ID with Creationism. It was the good ole Discovery Institute, once again. (The folks that brought us the Wedge-remember that now?)

Quote:

The ID textbook Of Pandas and People was shown to be a minimally reworded creation science text. Following the 1987 Supreme Court ruling, a quick edit of the manuscript draft switched out the words "creationism" and "creation science" with "intelligent design theory," and "creation scientists" with "intelligent design proponents" but left definitions unchanged. ID, the judge concluded "is creationism re-labeled." Nor does simply omitting the words "intelligent design" disguise the concept.

"Devastating" early drafts of a controversial book recommended as reading at a US high school reveal how the word "creationism" had been later swapped for "intelligent design", a landmark US trial scrutinising the teaching of ID heard on Wednesday.
The early drafts of the book Of Pandas and People, were used as evidence to link the book to creationism, which it is illegal to teach in government-funded US schools.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8061

A word count was done on the drafts.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/10/i_guess_id_real.html

0 Replies

foxfyre

Quote:

They HAVE to link ID with Creationism in order to logically dispute ID. Otherwise they look like idiotic loons with irreconcilable prejudices and no reasonable argument at all.

Im amazed that most all of us know that we are into , perhaps the 2nd and 3rd generation, derivative literature of the original source information that Set and Pauligirl have posted
This material has been on the web since Decemebr 2005 , and several books , excerpting Behes testimony, Jones decision, MAtzkes and PAdians own line by line comparisons of the two versions of "Pandas and People", have reached NYT book lists, "Flock of DOdos", Monkey Girl""Why DArwin MAtters", Your Inner Fish" etc.

STill, foxy claims to be informed of the topic.I suppose the old Lucy proverb applies to foxy.'"If you cant be right, be wrong at the top of your lungs"

Spenid, on the other hand, is like Aesops fly on the spoke of a wagon wheel. HE keeps shouting "Lookit all the dust Im kicking up?"

I think that a thread on the social and extra-biological significance (and misapplication) of Darwins theory would be a wonderful thing. Then we could also dredge up some of the literature that discusses the past positions of the Lysenkos, MArx's, the NAtional Socialists, as well as the SOuthern Baptists Conference .

0 Replies

Pauligirl wrote-

Quote:

It was the good ole Discovery Institute, once again. (The folks that brought us the Wedge-remember that now?)

What does the ISMBK* have to say about the matter?

*The Institute of Sagger Makers and Bottom Knockers.

Or the CRA*

*The Campaign for Real Ale.

In relation to the psychosomatic problem ( another of the matters AIDs-ers have decided, in their search for the pure unalloyed truth, to leave behind the veil) Mr George Bernard Shaw wrote-

Quote:

The evidence is that all the improvement in our vital statistics that has been credited to doctor's prescriptions, to leeches, drugs, antiseptics and preventive operations, has been really produced by pleasant colours, pleasant smells, handsome buildings, furniture and utensils, fine clothes, noble pictures, music, and beauty everywhere.

and-

Quote:

As a matter of hard fact the aesthetic factor in life is prodigiously vaster than the so-called scientific.

Whatever one might say about exposing kids to science it has to be admitted that it is distinctly unpretty.

On that argument AIDs-ers are trying to make us all sick and that might explain why the medical profession is an active member of the coalition against religion. Blood clotting mechanisms in chiclids are not very nice and neither are those fossils in the recent pictures posted here. Not compared to a Cathedral wedding say.

What is a 16 year old kid going to think on being shown those fossil pictures?

0 Replies

see what I mean?

Mrs Spendius, I like that Very Happy

Only if shes tied up , duct taped and stuffed in his trunk, (if he has a drivers license)

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know