Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

rosborne979 wrote:

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)?

Every single one of the AIDers on this thread I believe has objected to any suggestion that a teacher should be allowed, much less instructed, to agree with the students that people, even hundreds of millions if not billions of people, believe in some form of ID. There has been vehement, even angry response to suggestions re the posted court cases that teachers be allowed to discuss any concept that other bodies of thought exist outside a strict view of Darwin or permit any discussion of those areas that science cannot explain.

And it has been a quite consistent phenomenon that every time I mention the subject in this context, I, or pro-IDers, are accused by one or more of wanting to teach ID in the public schools.

I call that not only dishonest, but I think it is also not irrational to interpret it as anti-religious.

0 Replies

Quote:

Every single one of the AIDers on this thread I believe has objected to any suggestion that a teacher should be allowed, much less instructed, to agree with the students that people, even hundreds of millions if not billions of people, believe in some form of ID.

I think you should go back many pages to find that youre all wet in that pronouncement. Many of us have said (me included) that science in schools shall be limited to evidence based theories and facts. However, should anyone ask a question, we dont just shut up or punsih the student for their curiosity (or their indoctrination basis). I would answer the question that ID is a beliefcum "theory" system that is a "Pseudo science" which has grown out of the writings of the 20th century Creationists like Russell, Price, Morris, Johnson,and Behe. I would then point the students to the wealth of information regarding the Creation/ID movements in the US and how they are congenitally joined. (cf Lenny Flank's "Who are the CReation "Scientists"?)

An example, one last time, of the fraud and decipt practiced by the IDjits are the following quotes by William Dembski

Quote:

"Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the GEnesis account, usually including the Creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousnd years ago. Unlike Creationism, the scientific theory of Intelligent Design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text(from the Discovery Institutes website)

but, same guy says later

Quote:

"We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the Theory Of Intelligent Design(ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialistic worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" -The Wedge Document

and of course, the ever popular "Father of Modern ID, Phil Johnson who said

Quote:

"Our strategyhas been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of Intelligent Design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools" -broadcast on the American Family Radio, Jan 10,2003"

Yeh and were the ones who are the indoctrinators and the liars. I must say that you (foxy) have a low threshold for truth

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

I think you should go back many pages to find that youre all wet in that pronouncement. Many of us have said (me included) that science in schools shall be limited to evidence based theories and facts. However, should anyone ask a question, we dont just shut up or punsih the student for their curiosity (or their indoctrination basis). I would answer the question that ID is a beliefcum "theory" system that is a "Pseudo science" which has grown out of the writings of the 20th century Creationists like Russell, Price, Morris, Johnson,and Behe. I would then point the students to the wealth of information regarding the Creation/ID movements in the US and how they are congenitally joined. (cf Lenny Flank's "Who are the CReation "Scientists"?)

While I haven't followed this thread with the diligence of a FM or a Spendius or a Foxy, I think that that's been the approach most have taken. Why would people who believe in science take any other approach?

Would, I wonder, FF, the right or requirement to mention what you would like to see mentioned in the classroom include then, the right or requirement to criticise creationism and/or ID, to show students the holes that are evident in those theories?

0 Replies

Ofcoarse not! They just want to introduce the idea of ID without the teacher having any rights to question it. How can they allow the teacher to question ID? There's absolutely nothing in support of it, but the imagination of the religious' (nuts).

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
Every single one of the AIDers on this thread I believe has objected to any suggestion that a teacher should be allowed, much less instructed, to agree with the students that people, even hundreds of millions if not billions of people, believe in some form of ID.

I think you should go back many pages to find that youre all wet in that pronouncement. Many of us have said (me included) that science in schools shall be limited to evidence based theories and facts. However, should anyone ask a question, we dont just shut up or punsih the student for their curiosity (or their indoctrination basis). I would answer the question that ID is a beliefcum "theory" system that is a "Pseudo science" which has grown out of the writings of the 20th century Creationists like Russell, Price, Morris, Johnson,and Behe. I would then point the students to the wealth of information regarding the Creation/ID movements in the US and how they are congenitally joined. (cf Lenny Flank's "Who are the CReation "Scientists"?)

An example, one last time, of the fraud and decipt practiced by the IDjits are the following quotes by William Dembski

Quote:
"Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the GEnesis account, usually including the Creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousnd years ago. Unlike Creationism, the scientific theory of Intelligent Design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text(from the Discovery Institutes website)

but, same guy says later
Quote:
"We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the Theory Of Intelligent Design(ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialistic worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" -The Wedge Document

and of course, the ever popular "Father of Modern ID, Phil Johnson who said
Quote:

"Our strategyhas been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of Intelligent Design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools" -broadcast on the American Family Radio, Jan 10,2003"

Yeh and were the ones who are the indoctrinators and the liars. I must say that you (foxy) have a low threshold for truth

It is certainly untruth to compare anything I have said to what these guys are saying, assuming that what you've posted would not look different within its full context. Ros equates ID with 'magic' and thinks it is okay to tell students that. You describe ID as 'pseudo science' and think the teacher should describe it that way to the students. You seem to assume the student's curiosity would not arise without influence from the sources you posted. This would fall within my definition of pushing Atheism and/or anti-religion in the schools. I think your point of view on that is wrong and should be rightfully opposed.

I am guessing that most IDers have never heard of such writers or their writings. I think I have competently demonstrated that the concept of ID has been around long before any of the writers you cited were even a gleam in their daddys' eyes, long before there was Christianity or any other relatively modern religions, and can exist even without assumption of a deity or deities at all.

So you still seem to be the only one representing the argument from a low threshhold for truth.

0 Replies

Quote:

I am guessing that most IDers have never heard of such writers or their writings. I think I have competently demonstrated that the concept of ID has been around long before any of the writers you cited were even a gleam in their daddys' eyes, long before there was Christianity or any other relatively modern religions, and can exist even without assumption of a deity or deities at all.

Really? you must live in a closet then foxy. Do you have such little respect for IDers intelligence ?.

As far as "competently", I believe that you and I have different standards for defining competence.QAll ive seen from you is a ping ponging logic. Throughout youve claimed to have respect for science but you still wish to bedeck ID with some sort of scientific credibility when it just aint there.

"ID" that predates the Christian view was certainly all religious based was it not? The farther back we go, the more poofistic we get. For example The"scientific" concepts of "irreducible complexity" certainly werent cobbled together much before Behe(maybe you think thats what the Rev Dr PAley had in mind when he found his watch on a heath and told us so in 1802). Your not doing your case much good.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
I am guessing that most IDers have never heard of such writers or their writings. I think I have competently demonstrated that the concept of ID has been around long before any of the writers you cited were even a gleam in their daddys' eyes, long before there was Christianity or any other relatively modern religions, and can exist even without assumption of a deity or deities at all.

Really? you must live in a closet then foxy. Do you have such little respect for IDers intelligence ?.

As far as "competently", I believe that you and I have different standards for defining competence.QAll ive seen from you is a ping ponging logic. Throughout youve claimed to have respect for science but you still wish to bedeck ID with some sort of scientific credibility when it just aint there.

"ID" that predates the Christian view was certainly all religious based was it not? The farther back we go, the more poofistic we get. For example The"scientific" concepts of "irreducible complexity" certainly werent cobbled together much before Behe(maybe you think thats what the Rev Dr PAley had in mind when he found his watch on a heath and told us so in 1802). Your not doing your case much good.

And again--there have been so many agains--I have at no time even suggested that ID has any scientific credibility nor that it be presented as any form of science, psuedo or otherwise. And I am absolutely serious when I say that most people who believe in ID have never read Behe or Paley or any of the other sources you cite. For you to presume that the concept never came up before Behe, Paley, et al suggests a serious lack of knowledge about what ID is and its history spanning millenia.

I accept that you are a devout Atheist FM, and you can't stand the idea that an IDer could actually have a rational, undoctrinated, logical thought that doesn't fit your anti-religious views. But you are wrong about me and most of the others. And you can keep pointing to anecdotal evidence until we're all blue in the face, and it won't change that fact.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

And it has been a quite consistent phenomenon that every time I mention the subject in this context, I, or pro-IDers, are accused by one or more of wanting to teach ID in the public schools.

I call that not only dishonest, but I think it is also not irrational to interpret it as anti-religious.

Jesus wept . . . one can only conclude that she has paid no attention to the subject of the thread. The entire exercise is in determining whether or not "intelligent design" ought to be considered "science" or "religion." Did she never read the thread title? It specifically is the charge of those who oppose superstitious nonsense in science classes to reject the idea of teaching a religious doctrine in a science class. That is not anti-religious, it is simply a realistic attitude about what constitutes science--and "intelligent design" ain't it. If someone wants to introduce their favorite creation fairy tales into public schools, let them work to get an elective religious studies class set up. There's no damned reason to ruin a child's science education so that pea-brained religionists can rant about what is or is not dishonest or candid.

Fer chrissake, we've had any number of idiots attempting to foist off on us the idea that "intelligent design" is science. Now we've got this feather-brained woman attempting to suggest to us that even if it is, it would "anti-religious" to exclude it from science class.

No wonder it seems there's no hope for public education.

0 Replies

fm wrote whilst I was at my early evening snooze-

Quote:

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" )

"Excellent point ros". That's wagon circling again.

My questions of earlier are not excellent points because fm daren't provide an answer. An "excellent point" is one of those simplicities fm can understand.

I deny absolutely saying that "one is an atheist because one practices science". In fact I don't recall anyone else saying it either. You are writing your own scripts fm. You allege we've said something we haven't said which would be a stupid thing to say and then you conclude we are stupid because we said it--which we didn't. On what seems to be the American definition of practicing science I would imagine thousands of such practitioners go to church every sunday and pray that one of the test tubes they have will start precipitating gold. Which leads me to doubt that any of the "fundy preachers" have said it either. Thus it is difficult to imagine any patient enduring going on and as for sticking to the facts after that little lot-- forget it. It's more fantasy.

Could you supply any links to my making up **** as I go along, as you have just been caught doing, and I am not so ignorant of a "lot "of points that are focal to this entire discussion as to run scared of answering any relevant direct questions that are put to me as you have proved yourself to be in the last few pages.

Stop blustering fm. It kids nobody and I sincerely hope not yourself either.

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

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

I placed a post on the Questions Game 3 years ago which not only demonstrated that astrology is rooted in science but impressed the posters on that thread at the time.

If your astrology strawman is that stuff you see in the papers that's your affair and nothing to do with me or science. You choose to think that in the same way you choose to think that myself or rl ever said that one is an atheist because one practices "science".

You are defining astrology the way it suits you to define it as is your usual practice in all things. It is a very bad habit old boy and if I was you I would do my best to eradicate from my mode of thought.

0 Replies

foxfyre

Quote:

For you to presume that the concept never came up before Behe, Paley, et al suggests a serious lack of knowledge about what ID is and its history spanning millenia.

"Serious lack of knowledge " is a presumption by you who gives IDers no credit for knowing who Behe et al are> Kind of ironic IMHO.
Im willing to learn how the concept of a non-theistic ID spans "millenia".

This may be a learning exp[erience for me. Im not so much of a hard ass to deny if Im wrong on a subject.

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

I would answer the question that ID is a beliefcum "theory" system that is a "Pseudo science" which has grown out of the writings of the 20th century Creationists like Russell, Price, Morris, Johnson,and Behe. I would then point the students to the wealth of information regarding the Creation/ID movements in the US and how they are congenitally joined. (cf Lenny Flank's "Who are the CReation "Scientists"?)

More of the same. I don't care what these guys say nor any of the others you mention and the same goes for "Creation/ID movements in the US".

They are incidents. They have nothing to do with wande's original question. Science has it's fakes and publicity seekers as well but I don't continually harp on about them because to do so is infantile.

I think my two questions have got you rattled fm. I think you know the answers to both but daren't come out with it and that's patent dishonesty. And the other AIDs-ers have been asked them as well and they are running around like headless chickens who don't know they are being laughed at.

0 Replies

splendi

Quote:

I placed a post on the Questions Game 3 years ago which not only demonstrated that astrology is rooted in science but impressed the posters on that thread at the time.

OOH alert the media. Who hell you think you are Mark Twain that we hang on your every word?Earth to spendi--- I just dont think a lot of people keep an index of "spendi spoor" to reference. If you posted it, go find it and post it here ya D. S.

0 Replies

Quote:

I think my two questions have got you rattled fm.

What the hell are you talking about, what 2 questions? Heres 2 randomly selected answers for your (probably) inane questions (Sorry I missed them but I was probably in urgent need of a dish of tapioca)

1.Yes

2. Only with proper protection

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

foxfyre
Quote:
For you to presume that the concept never came up before Behe, Paley, et al suggests a serious lack of knowledge about what ID is and its history spanning millenia.

"Serious lack of knowledge " is a presumption by you who gives IDers no credit for knowing who Behe et al are> Kind of ironic IMHO.
Im willing to learn how the concept of a non-theistic ID spans "millenia".

This may be a learning exp[erience for me. Im not so much of a hard ass to deny if Im wrong on a subject.

I gave you Plato and Buddhism as excellent examples of non-theistic concepts of ID and both pre-date Behe, Paley, et al. They also predate Christianity and probably had little or no knowledge of the Jewish stories related to Creationism. The reason I know that most IDers probably haven't read Behe, Paley et al or been exposed to their 'doctrines' is because most of my students, many with graduate degrees, who have gone through Creationism history in my classes had not been previously exposed to these. Nor had I until I needed to put together a curriculum on the subject.

Most people are not out to prove or make a point about Creationism or ID or anything like that. Most are just living their lives within the parameters of the beliefs they hold.

0 Replies

foxfyre, you still havent gone enough into your pronouncements of the Platonic "Creation" episode. WHich dialogues do you refer?

So your students dont know who Rev PAley is but you substitute Buddha? as a non-theistic version of Creation?

0 Replies

What's the point. You'll ignore it if I took the trouble and go off on some tangent fantasy setting up more sitting ducks for you to shoot at.

You keep thinking astrology has to do with Madame Rosa predicting you will meet the lady of your dreams all you want. It's not my problem.

The conjunctions of the planets are mere signposts. The sign saying Dover PA is not Dover. As the sign saying that Pluto is in Uranus means November here on earth, say. I'm guessing there. It represents symbolically the ground conditions in November which, in the old days, was a rough and ready statistical predictor of your future life having been conceived around Easter time and gestated during the summer with plenty of fresh vegetables available and jolly dancings and sunbathings for Mom and having your first few months of life snuggled up in shawls around the fire and a lot of other stuff far too complex for somebody who thinks, conveniently, that Madame Rosa is astrology so he can ridicule her thinking he is thereby ridiculing astrology itself.

Put the kettle on fm.

0 Replies

When called upon to provide examples (in a brief period in which she happened to be responding to me) of "intelligent design"--non-theistic or theistic--in either Plato or in Buddhism, Fox has completely failed to come up to the mark.

It is also inferential evidence that she has jumped in here without actually reading, or even skimming the thread. I have, on more than one occasion, i have referred to the teleological argument for god from design by Cicero (more than two thousand years ago), Descartes, Boyle, Hooke and Voltaire before Paley ever articulated it. I have quoted both Cicero and Paley in this thread.

What is pathetic, really rather sad, is that all of these statements were by way of teleological arguments for the existence of god, and not responses to a theory of evolution, which did not exist in the lifetime of any of them, including Paley. Yet here we have Fox attempting to imply that a non-theistic "intelligent design theory" is thousands of years old. At the same time--Holy Cognitive Dissonance, Batman ! ! !--she complains that teaching the theory of evolution while not permitting the teaching of "intelligent design" is anti-religious.

She wants her cake, and she wants to eat it, too.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

foxfyre, you still havent gone enough into your pronouncements of the Platonic "Creation" episode. WHich dialogues do you refer?

So your students dont know who Rev PAley is but you substitute Buddha? as a non-theistic version of Creation?

FM, you are not that dense. I gave excellent accounts of the Platonian and Buddist views which you commented on in an insulting manner. Please go back and re-read those and if you have a sincere unanswered question, I will be happy to answer it to the best of my ability.

As to your second sentence you appear to be intentionally obfusicating if not downright deliberately mistating what I said. Please try again.

0 Replies

He asked you for examples of arguments of non-theistic[/i] intelligent design in Plato or Buddha (God, you crack me up), while all you can come up with is teleological arguments for god, which have nothing to do with a theory of evolution.

His second sentence was not a statement, so he could not have mis-stated--it was a question.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know