Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Hey Pauli--

Your "inner fish".

Flock of Dodos.

Monkey Girl.

Where's the incense?

0 Replies

If only Bernard Shaw had been a witness at Dover.

"Clear the court!!"

Oscar Wilde would have been good fun.

As it was you had a bunch of po-faced presbyterians getting off on their own self importance.

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

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

Am I being invited to speculate on your wives then just as I was invited to make with insults.

You insult people and engage in personal speculations and you might expect to be answered in kind.

Unless such things are the exclusive pregrogative of AIDs-er of course. Such things are in a totalitarian set-up.

0 Replies

Crikey!!

I've just realised what time it is in Pa.

There'll be no late rising when AIDs-ers take over.

It'll be "Hands off cocks,on socks" at 6 a.m. I should think.

Has it come light yet fm?

0 Replies

The book "of Pandas and People" has become a bit of an embarassment to the IDjits. Seems , since its been outed at the Dover trial, its been classified as either a "lightning rod" or else its just plain"Radioactive" to the ID cause . So what did the Foundation for Thought and EThics do?. They rewrote it and retitled it yet again. The restructured book is now called "The Design of Life" . All this tweaking has been in response to tne unfortunate chains of decisions that have forensically removed the rug from beneath the feet of the Creationist/IDjit's "scientific" positions.
In case were interested,a blog has been established that somewhat carelessly cobbles all the arguments for "IDjicy as Science" . There are many that are just plain lies and bunk , but there are a few that are well crafted and worth debate. Heres the link.THE DESIGN OF LIFE BLOG

0 Replies

farmerman wrote

Quote:

but there are a few that are well crafted and worth debate.

Yes. But goodness, who with?

0 Replies

Let it never be said that we myopically look at only one side of an issue without being enlightened re: the other.

I really wantIDers to come up with some new discussion points , so the link may give em some. I hope he picks those that are well crafted.

0 Replies

Quote:

I hope he picks those that are well crafted.

Bill: "It is still early here at Riggley, Jim, and even though the team hasn't won a game in seven years, well, usually there's a mother or two out on the bleachers."

Jim: "And I guess we should tell the folks at home that it's a fine day today, the thermometer hovering agreeably around, oh, what would you say it's hovering around, Bill?

Bill: "Well, I'd guess somewhere around 45 which is ideal for our team, really, given the extra weight they are carrying. You know, Jim, that extra weight, as we've talked about before, ought to mean a few more homers than we are seeing..."

Jim: "We saw some?"

Bill: "Well, the old-timers speak of them, or speak of "it", I guess but...oh, hold on now, someone's sitting down behind the catcher there."

Jim: "My god, you're right! Maybe he'll do a wave." (laughter)

Bill: (laughter continuing) "Hey, maybe (laughing) maybe he's (more laughing) maybe he's a SCOUT!"

0 Replies

Bernie wrote-

Quote:

but there are a few that are well crafted and worth debate.

Yes. But goodness, who with?

This is quite well crafted I think considering I was trying to be polite.

Quote:

are you or are you not playing at it from within the confines of a strictly conventional, bourgeois Christian comfort zone?

And it has the added attraction that it is a part of this thread and not some extraneous garbage thrown up by a desperate search to find items with which to distract those of our viewers who are grappling with their "abc" picture tutors from the AIDs-ers staringly stark fear-raddled muck-sweat at the prospect of being a member of the "who with" brigade.

Which of you AIDs-ers would not become pious and devout churchgoers if that was a necessary condition of a romance, with a view to marriage, with a well-appointed widow whose dearly beloved had departed these sunny shores from nervous exhaustion leaving behind $600 million and properties dotted around the world's most salubrious locations?

Kneeling by the bed for an hour or two is not all that high a price to pay to escape from the disheartening humdrum of work in my ever-so humble and honest opinion.

What do you want to debate with us Bernie? The first one or the second.

I take on all comers at debating.

Choose a motion from the two above and we will see where it leads us in our scientific quest to get to the bottom of wande's original question.

You're treading water. Just about.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

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 .

Well, nothing that I've argued has ANYTHING to do with the Biblical version of Creationism. I don't believe anything Spendi has argued has ANYTHING to do with the Biblical version of Creationism. (Admittedly it is somewhat difficult to interpret Spendi at times but I think I have a handle on his philosophy.)

In fact, I am pretty sure that none of my students in comparative religion classes and/or theology classes nor any of my classmates when I'm sitting in classes would argue ID from the perspective of Biblical Creationism.

So the fact that you seem to base your entire argument against ID on Biblical Creationism and refuse to consider any concept that does not fit your prejudices makes which of us the dogmatic one? Hmmmm?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

So the fact that you hinge your entire argument against ID on Biblical Creationism makes which of us the dogmatic one?

That is not a fact, either with regard to speaking in general of those who laugh at "intelligent design," or specifically in regard to Farmerman. Therefore, as usual, you are a liar.

How many times do people have to tell you that "intelligent design" is not science, and that it is upon that basis that people object to it being taught as science for it to penetrate your incredibly thick skull?

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

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 .

Well, nothing that I've argued supporting ID has ANYTHING to do with the Biblical version of Creationism. I don't believe anything Spendi has argued has ANYTHING to do with the Biblical version of Creationism. (Admittedly it is somewhat difficult to interpret Spendi at times but I think I have a handle on his philosophy.)

In fact, I am pretty sure that none of my students in comparative religion classes and/or theology classes nor any of my classmates when I'm sitting in classes would argue ID from the perspective of Biblical Creationism.

So the fact that you seem to base your entire argument against ID on Biblical Creationism and refuse to consider any concept that does not fit your prejudices makes which of us the dogmatic one? Hmmmm?

0 Replies

Quote:

Which of you AIDs-ers would not become pious and devout churchgoers if that was a necessary condition of a romance, with a view to marriage, with a well-appointed widow whose dearly beloved had departed these sunny shores from nervous exhaustion leaving behind $600 million and properties dotted around the world's most salubrious locations?

I would have used a virginal Wedgewood heiress but for the fact that you lot are all elderly gentlemen and it would have been too indecent a thought.

0 Replies

It is bad enough that we've had literally hundreds of pages of drivel puked on us by Spurious, who knows nothing about science, nothing about the "intelligent design" movement, nothing about the educational system in the United States, and nothing about the court system in the United States. Now we've got Fox, who, incredibly, is even more ignorant than Spurious, but thinks she knows these things. She is doing a bad job of bringing up all of the shopworn arguments that others presented with more style and credibility, but which were shot down in flames nonetheless.

This thread was a train wreck after Spurious joined in. Now Fox is going from car to car murdering the survivors.

0 Replies

Was trying to add a comment to my post but Spendi posted before I could hit the send button.

If one points to other anti-IDers in books or articles as 'proof' and/or points to books or articles that anti-IDers discredit again as 'proof' against ID as a rational concept, how is that any less a religious dogma than is the theory of Creationism? Nobody can prove any theory of ID nor can anybody prove that there is no such thing as ID.

My point in this entire discussion has been to shut down the ideologues - both those who would push to have Creationism taught in the public schools and the anti-religionists who want to pretend that the Atheistic view is the only valid one. (They call it secularism of course and deny that it is pushing Atheism.)

For myself, I do not want Creationism taught in the schools. And I do not want teachers to be gagged and not be allowed to say that Darwinism is not the only body of thought relative to origins or how we arrived from the beginning to this point. There is nothing wrong with a science teacher admitting that there are still many questions that science cannot yet answer.

0 Replies

Foxy wrote-

Quote:

(Admittedly it is somewhat difficult to interpret Spendi at times but I think I have a handle on his philosophy.)

You ought to be ashamed of yourself my dear if your thought is true.

Which I doubt.

I am the reincarnation, perfected by careful inseminations of a long line of cave painters, Homer, Jesus, Ovid, Rabelais, Thersites, Sancho, Spendius, Marcel, I think that was his name, the only thing we knew about Marcel was that we thought that was his name, Frank Harris, Henry Miller and anyone else who shows signs of that fine breeding which doesn't derive from biology because that is an area of existence singularly lacking in the slightest sign of intelligence and, as such, is of no interest. (Except when it is of course: when it forces itself in upon us I mean.)

0 Replies

Settin'-Aah wrote-

Quote:

How many times do people have to tell you that "intelligent design" is not science, and that it is upon that basis that people object to it being taught as science for it to penetrate your incredibly thick skull?

How long will it take to penetrate that granite lump on your shoulders that nobody is proposing to teach any such thing.

So you have set up this nonsensical idea that there is even a subject called intelligent design in order to bluster and bombasticate about objecting to it being taught.

It does not take long for a young lad, assuming he goes to a proper school, to realise that there is an intelligent designer or there is not. It also takes but a few moments of gazing at the blue patches in between the drifting high cumulus that he realises that he is in no position to determine the issue. Finding out that no-one else is either might involve a course of reading although not a particularly long one.

But he does have to proceed in life adhering to one or other of the positions and his choice will come to rest on that which seems to provide for it's experienced followers, his role models so to speak, a happier and more interesting life.

So it is probably a question of temperment which is said to derive its main outlines during infancy. Stripped down it comes to a sense of humour. All the world's a stage ain't it?

I just happen to be of that temperment which finds those who chose that there is no intelligent designer and that it's all a meaningless, random happening of no use, no purpose and with no cause, using these words in their Christian anthropomorphic sense, to be a bunch of pedantic, serious-minded, puffed-up pillocks who hide behind narrow arid technicalities whenever asked any questions not already within their rote-learned frame of reference and they are irredemiably hopless companions at the bar of public opinion where the beer flows freely. They can't even laugh at the plunge in financial values so utterly subjective are they.

I once had to show a scientist how to do the tango. He was perfect according to the instruction book he had used to train himself which had unfortunately omitted that aspect of the dance which is aimed at stimulating a biological response in his partner.

0 Replies

Settin'-Aah wrote-

Quote:

This thread was a train wreck after Spurious joined in. Now Fox is going from car to car murdering the survivors.

People like train wrecks. Don't you even know a simple thing like that yet?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

My point in this entire discussion has been to shut down the ideologues - both those who would push to have Creationism taught in the public schools and the anti-religionists who want to pretend that the Atheistic view is the only valid one. (They call it secularism of course and deny that it is pushing Atheism.)

Do you think that anyone who resists the push to have creationism taught in public school is an anti-religious atheism pusher? Or are referring to some other group of people (because not a single person on this forum has taken the stance you seem so worried about)?

0 Replies

excellent point ros, the topic of whether one is an atheist because one practices science, Was enetered into record herein by someone like RL or spendi, not any of the "pro science" crowd. Its merely a base attempt at scorn, a tool of ridicule, a sound byte that is often employed by the fundy preachers who try to dissuade their flocks against following the evils of evolewwww shun. I think weve patiently endured that attempt and have been careful to stick to the facts of the subject rather than getting into the silliness. (Of course we all take shots at spendi because he is here as his own audience and , as set stated so well, spendis ignorant about a lot of points that are focal to this entire discussion. SO much so that spendi just "makes **** up as he goes along" )

Quote:

If one points to other anti-IDers in books or articles as 'proof' and/or points to books or articles that anti-IDers discredit again as 'proof' against ID as a rational concept, how is that any less a religious dogma than is the theory of Creationism? Nobody can prove any theory of ID nor can anybody prove that there is no such thing as ID.

The difference foxy is that all the "Proof" against IDjicy is provided by the IDjits writings themselves. Eg, "OfPandas and PEople ", as a foundation document for DOvers ID resource, is , sadly , a book that was produced by groups connected with The Institute of Creation Research and the Discovery Institute, "DArwin on Trial" is as full of Creationist "science" as is Genesis.
The fact finders on this whole issue have nothing to hide, however foxy seems to continually try to deny the connection available in print.

I seem to recall spendi claiming that astrology was , indeed , rooted in science. I believe we can rest our case with him.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know