Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Spendi wrote

Quote:

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.

See, however much you don't want to admit it, I do follow your train of thought and I agree completely. It is the way of the Left--never debate the actual issue but keep dodging and weaving and throwing out insults and defamatory analogies, mistate the others' words to set up straw man after straw man, ask the same questions over and over and over again while never acknowledging the answer, and then accuse the other of being the one who is screwed up.

I agree that at some point it becomes an exercise in futility.

0 Replies

Please show us where we have misstated your words.

0 Replies

Foxy-

I didn't say you don't follow my train of thought on that particular matter. My previous remarks were about my general philosophy and I didn't say you couldn't follow that either. I contented myself myself with saying that you ought to be ashamed of yourself as a respectable lady if you did and I had my tongue in my cheek saying that.

I also don't think that the Left have a monopoloy of the things you charge them with. The Right are quite capable of indulging themselves in all those strategies and a few more besides.

It surprises me that you have not taken advantage of my catching them out on those two questions I posed when they are accusing you of dishonesty. It is a team game you know. Individuals count for very little. I placed the ball on the penalty spot for you. Why don't you drill it into their net instead of dribbling it back up to our defence zone.

They were easy questions to answer. And they have funked both of them, drawn the curtains and are muttering to themselves about things they have read in the papers or the science trade press releases.

Your obvious skills with our language are being wasted. Go for the jugular girl. wande is pretending he's out on other business which is what I would have done under his circumstances faced with those two polite enquiries.

0 Replies

Naw, I'm a lover, not a fighter. But thanks Spendi. I do appreciate what you said.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

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.

Then I think you misunderstand our point.

None of us object to any teacher responding to a question by saying that many people have beliefs outside of science.

What we object to is any implication that teachers should include this little tidbit of information in association with the subject of evolution.

Nobody has a problem with a teacher answering an unsolicited question. Our objection has to do with "disclaimers" unfairly associated with evolution in particular. Or with disclaimers associated with science education in general.

I agree that it is a subtle distinction, but it's an important one.

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.

That's because you are obscuring the accuracy of your stance on not teaching ID in science class, but associating that stance with the implied "disclaimer" you mention above.

0 Replies

Im trying to keep up here foxy but you keep changing tracks.

Is Buddhism even concerned with "Creation"? , Isnt it a path "to" rather than a celebration "of". My reading of your comments about the Buddha and Platos dialogues are that one is a discussion about avoiding the arrow of vanity and the other is a recognized myth which is hardly to be conflated with a scientifc "Theory" that ID claims it is. You might as well include the NAvajo story of the 4 earths and coyote, or the Hindu myths. ID is ID, its like (wishful thinking) "biology", except that it fails all the tests of evidence, objectivity, reproduceability, and falsifiability.

HAve I commented on your Plato/v Buddha posts before? Perhaps youve got me confused with someone else. Im not the only snotbag on this thread ya know Laughing

spendi

Quote:

It surprises me that you have not taken advantage of my catching them out on those two questions I posed when they are accusing you of dishonesty. It is a team game you know. Individuals count for very little. I placed the ball on the penalty spot for you. Why don't you drill it into their net instead of dribbling it back up to our defence zone.

IS anybody paying any attention to this guy? He's claiming some sort of tennis points about something he apparently posed, and then when I just asked about it, he gives me a snotty answer that he wont take time with me.
Spendi, you are the only person who can beat himself up without involving any innocent bystanders. Thats great. Now go have some suds.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Ros equates ID with 'magic' and thinks it is okay to tell students that.

Just to be clear, I equated the supernatural with magic. You extrapolated the connection of the supernatural to ID, and I agree with that connection.

The supernatural is by definition, magic.
And ID is by definition, an appeal the supernatural.

And I see no reason to hide those simple truths from anyone, kids or otherwise.

Foxfyre wrote:

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.

Then you would be wrong. Atheism and anti-religion has nothing whatsoever to do with observing when something is pseudo-science.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

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.

Can someone explain what she means by Plato or Buddhism being non-theistic ID? I just don't get it. I asked her to explain this many pages ago and she just told me to go read a book.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Setanta wrote:
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.

Can someone explain what she means by Plato or Buddhism being non-theistic ID? I just don't get it. I asked her to explain this many pages ago and she just told me to go read a book.

Can you show the quote where I told you to 'go read a book'? I might have referred you to a previous post in which I explained this in some detail.

0 Replies

Im familiar with the Timaeus dialogues but dont know nothin about Buddhist Creationism and its nontheistic IDness. Perhaps we should call Asherman or JL Nobody since they are the Buddha scholars hereabouts.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Spendi wrote

Quote:
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.

See, however much you don't want to admit it, I do follow your train of thought and I agree completely. It is the way of the Left--never debate the actual issue but keep dodging and weaving and throwing out insults and defamatory analogies, mistate the others' words to set up straw man after straw man, ask the same questions over and over and over again while never acknowledging the answer, and then accuse the other of being the one who is screwed up.

I agree that at some point it becomes an exercise in futility.

Haw haw haw haw haw. Stop it; you're killing me.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Im familiar with the Timaeus dialogues but dont know nothin about Buddhist Creationism and its nontheistic IDness. Perhaps we should call Asherman or JL Nobody since they are the Buddha scholars hereabouts.

If I provide the link again, will you acknowledge that I did this time?

0 Replies

Of course, youve got me confused with RL maybe. I consider evry interception a way of learning how to pass the ball better next time. Im not afraid of chancing being wrong JEEZ, I do it for a living.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Of course, youve got me confused with RL maybe. I consider evry interception a way of learning how to pass the ball better next time. Im not afraid of chancing being wrong JEEZ, I do it for a living.

Okay, this is no way a complete discussion but is succinct and from a reasonably objective site. It is the same response I gave previously when somebody demanded that I verify my opinion that Buddhism embraces a form of ID:

Quote:

Buddhism: This religion teaches a range of beliefs about origins: That creation occurs repeatedly throughout time. At the beginning of each kalpa (cycle) land forms, in darkness, on the surface of the water. Spiritual beings who populated the universe in the previous kalpa are reborn; one of them takes the form of a man and starts the human race. Unhappiness and misery reigns. This is the interval that we are experiencing today. Eventually, the universe dissolves; all living creatures return to the soul life, and the cycle repeats.

Lama Shenpen Hookham of Buddhism Connect writes: "The Buddhist view is that everything emanates from the Primordial expanse of Openness Clarity Sensitivity and is illusionlike- never really coming into existence, but the illusion is created by infinite intricate connections that are not anywhere and not in time. Time and space are part of the illusion that is emanating from that Primordial expanse - so it is all very mysterious. From the Buddhist perspective there is no problem with life on earth having evolved somehow - but evolution is not in itself a full story or full account of life on earth. It leaves quite basic questions left unanswered. In a way one might want to argue that Buddhism is closer to creationism because our world is created by awareness - the awareness of the beings that inhabit it. Evolution only gives a kind of history of how that illusion unfolds. 6

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_denom2.htm

This is similar to the Platonian concept that everything begins as idea and it is that idea that manifests itself as the physical world we perceive.

0 Replies

I always believed that religion should not be injected into public school science classes. Now I believe that neither religion, Plato, nor Buddhism should be injected into public school science classes.

0 Replies

ros wrote-

Quote:

I asked her to explain this many pages ago and she just told me to go read a book.

That's good advice. It's quite obvious you haven't read so many books in the past. They are conversations which transcend time after all.

0 Replies

Good, Wandel, then we are in agreement. Because none of the IDers here have suggested that religion be injected into public school science classes. As has been said now many many times. How many more times do you think it will be necessary to say that before you catch onl? (P.S. Platonic concepts form at least some of the basis for a number of religions and Buddhism IS a religion. )

0 Replies

Im familiar with the dialogues of Timaeus and Socrates as included in Platonic thoughts on origins. They are a myth basis , as is any theistic myth.
As far as the Buddha goes, Im no scholar but Im skeptical that were including it in a discussion of what is , or is not ID . I can invoke many worldwide myth bases that, according to you , are ID in non theistic "Theories" . Im questioning whether we arent just exchanging legend or myth for theory. For example, Ive just glommed via WikiCREATION MYTHS AROUND THE CLOCK

0 Replies

Well ReligiousTolerance is quite a bit more reliable than your average Wiki article. RT does get it wrong here and there, but it is a pretty good source. But that's okay FM. I knew you wouldn't bring yourself to admit that both Plato and Buddhism do provide a concept of ID. It's so inconvenient to anti-religious prejudices and all.

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

Im trying to keep up here foxy but you keep changing tracks.

That's a privilege ladies have fm. Did you not know that? It's something to do with biology I gather. Part of the given. Get real.

Sheesh!!!!

Here's another question for you--Foxy avert your eyes please.

If we accept evolutionary principles will we have to wait until the girls come into season before we can give them one like all the other higher animals and plants have to do?

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know