97
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sun 23 Mar, 2008 01:29 pm
c.i. wrote-

Quote:
Dawkins is only one person; his quotes has no more weight than yours or mine. Why do you give him such high regard on matters other than his specialty?


I have made it pretty clear on the thread you don't read c.i. that I don't give Mr Dawkins any weight on this subject. And a good few times.

I mentioned him because AIDs-ers have brought him in the debate a few times to support their case and now it turns out he doesn't.

And he distinguishes most clearly ID from Creationism and fundamentalism which is another plank of the AIDs-ers ridiculously superficial argument.

It looks like he is climbing down to me. Maybe that is why he was allowed into the showing of Expelled. Reports of that showing didn't mention it though so I can't be sure.

Are there splits in your camp?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sun 23 Mar, 2008 01:31 pm
Quote:
His comments were welcomed by fellow scientists.


What do you make of that little gem boys?
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Sun 23 Mar, 2008 02:17 pm
spendius wrote:
Religion gives millions of Americans consolation and hope.
So does pornography.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sun 23 Mar, 2008 02:23 pm
It's a science thread Chum. You should define your terms.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sun 23 Mar, 2008 02:32 pm
It has often happened on this thread that my posts have been declared "masturbatory" by AIDs-ers.

Does that mean that we are engaged in pornography or merely that "masturbatory" is a term which springs often to the minds of AIDs-ers.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Sun 23 Mar, 2008 02:42 pm
spendius wrote:
It's a science thread Chum. You should define your terms.
An image is created on the CRT surface by varying the electron beam intensity to the pixels.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Sun 23 Mar, 2008 03:34 pm
spendi, quoting but misunderstanding s usual
Quote:
Dawkins, a Darwinian biologist, said: "You'd be rightly written off as uncultivated if you knew nothing of the Bible. You need the Bible to understand literary allusions."

And, although he resisted calling it God, he said that he believed in the possibility of a transcendent "gigantic intelligence" existing beyond the range of human experience


The Bible is one of many charming collections of myths that surround codes of conduct and fears of the unknown.

If you would pay attention to the quote ascried to Dawkins that he believed in the possibility of a transcendent gigantic intelligence. This implies a complete separation from the goings on and firing up of a Universe. In that Dawkins is consistent and unwavering. He ridicules the IDjits with as much vehemence as he ridicules fundamentalists. This is so because these two worldviews are joined by common ancestry.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sun 23 Mar, 2008 04:15 pm
Sophistry. See--I can do it.

As you are likely to know more about the matter than I do fm what do you think about the rice subsidy from a Darwinian perspective?

We can leave nepotism and property for a later date.

Quote:
The Bible is one of many charming collections of myths that surround codes of conduct and fears of the unknown.


But it is our's isn't it. When you attack the Bible you do to it what a prominent theatre critic can do to a play. Thus to attack it is to help take away those things you mention. And if there is anything wrong or inhuman about fear of the unknown then there are a lot of people who have something wrong with them and who are inhuman.

Doesn't Mr Darwin cover fear in birds and animals in general show signs of fear in almost their every action. Watch your dog sometime. scientifically I mean and not as a loving sentimentalist who imagines he has trained it. Whistles frighten dogs. That's why they run to their owners when they hear a whistle. For safety. They see their owner as a tortoise sees its shell.

I'm inclined to think that a "transcendent gigantic intelligence" can manage to perform any trick possibly even outside the rules of mathematics.

The problem with -

Quote:
He ridicules the IDjits with as much vehemence as he ridicules fundamentalists.


is that he's fool enough to think an IDjit is what you AIDs-ers say is an IDjit and as that has been a fundamentalist all along he would look pretty silly if he didn't ridicule IDjits as he does fundamentalists.

As it isn't of course because I'm an IDjit and I'm not a fundamentalist.

And he did only say "a possibility" anyway. But if there is a possibility it is pretty silly to trade a mere three score and ten years in a bet against eternity just so you can swap wives every time you fancy when, as I quoted earlier, marriage is an acquired taste, like eating periwinkles with a pin. Eating periwinkles with a pin is not like marriage because it's a lot easier and only requires swallowing a small amount of pride.

Hey-and c.i. says I don't know what "prejudice" means.

Isn't everything joined by a common ancestry. A biological birth. If you had teeth up your arse the restaurants would have curtains around the tables so you could still compete with each other in curtain styles instead of masticating and swallowing techniques. And you would'nt need knives and forks and the rest of it. See what I mean?

Pub.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Sun 23 Mar, 2008 04:41 pm
Your hand wringing is of a solitary nature.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Sun 23 Mar, 2008 04:43 pm
spendi
Quote:
When you attack the Bible


Whos attacking? It is what it is. Can you evidence otherwise?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Sun 23 Mar, 2008 04:46 pm
Quote:
A biological birth. If you had teeth up your arse the restaurants would have curtains around the tables so you could still compete with each other in curtain styles instead of masticating and swallowing techniques. And you would'nt need knives and forks and the rest of it. See what I mean?
no. I cant even unseratnd what youre trying to say> Does your therapist comment on your communication "skills"?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 23 Mar, 2008 04:49 pm
farmerman wrote:
Quote:
A biological birth. If you had teeth up your arse the restaurants would have curtains around the tables so you could still compete with each other in curtain styles instead of masticating and swallowing techniques. And you would'nt need knives and forks and the rest of it. See what I mean?
no. I cant even unseratnd what youre trying to say> Does your therapist comment on your communication "skills"?


It's just another one of those spendi gems that is so garbled that only he understands its meaning.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sun 23 Mar, 2008 05:44 pm
fm wrote-

Quote:
Whos attacking? It is what it is. Can you evidence otherwise?


Well there's all the experts King James got together to put the finishing touches to it. The outreach period.

Is that what you mean?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sun 23 Mar, 2008 06:09 pm
c.i. wrote-

Quote:
It's just another one of those spendi gems that is so garbled that only he understands its meaning.


I'm just collecting recordings of what the great crested garbler sounded like when it was garbling for all it was worth before it becomes extinct so that future generations can at least listen to anachronisms after they have been rendered emotionally sterile by scientific logic.

A bit like when we laugh at jokes abour cavemen clubbing women into submission.

And much as we do in literature classes at our institutions of the Higher Learning with Shakespeare and a few others. Get Shakespeare on your CV and you've cracked it. (Geddit?)

I wrote two plays in the pub tonight.

The Atheist and the Easter Egg was one.

Patience and the Gradual Approach to Husband Poisoning was the other.

I didn't bother with the diologue and stage directions to save you all the bother of getting your togs on, ordering a taxi, paying through the nose at the Box Office, sitting through two hours of repetitive bullshit, finding your way back home, and waking up tomorrow to read your favourite drama critic saying that it was nothing but a farrago of garbled incoherent crapology and you had better not waste any money on it.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sun 23 Mar, 2008 06:14 pm
fm wrote-

Quote:
Does your therapist comment on your communication "skills"?


I don't know. I stopped paying any attention to what she said after she gave me "What Katie Did Next" to read.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sun 23 Mar, 2008 06:15 pm
Otherwise I don't think I would be here to tell the tale.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Mon 24 Mar, 2008 05:49 am
NEWEST TEMPLETON PRIZE RECIPIENT REJECTS INTELLIGENT DESIGN
Quote:
The recipient of the 2008 Templeton Prize for Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities was Michael Heller, a Polish cosmologist and Catholic priest, currently Professor in the Faculty of Philosophy at the Pontifical Academy of Theology in Krakow. John M. Templeton Jr., the chair of the John Templeton Foundation and the son of Sir John Templeton, who established the prize in 1973, told the Times of London (March 13, 2008), "Michael Heller's quest for deeper understanding has led to pioneering breakthroughs in religious concepts and knowledge as well as expanding the horizons of science." Heller will receive the prize from Prince Philip at a private ceremony at Buckingham Palace on May 7, 2008; it brings with it 1.6 million dollars, which Heller plans to use to establish a center for the study of science and theology in Krakow.

In a March 12, 2008, statement (PDF) prepared for a press conference about the award, Heller addressed "intelligent design," writing, "Adherents of the so-called intelligent design ideology commit a grave theological error. They claim that scientific theories, that ascribe the great role to chance and random events in the evolutionary processes, should be replaced, or supplemented, by theories acknowledging the thread of intelligent design in the universe. Such views are theologically erroneous. They implicitly revive the old manicheistic error postulating the existence of two forces acting against each other: God and an inert matter; in this case, chance and intelligent design. There is no opposition here. Within the all-comprising Mind of God what we call chance and random events is well composed into the symphony of creation."

In 2005, responding to a piece in the Wall Street Journal that described the Templeton Foundation as a patron of the "intelligent design" movement, the foundation's senior vice president Charles L. Harper Jr. wrote (PDF), "Quite the opposite is true. ... Templeton support has gone to intelligent design proponents in rare situations, representing roughly 0.1% of our activity. In two of the cases cited, these involved grants won in judged competitions involving non-intelligent-design-related topics. The others involved two professors who we think have become public intelligent design advocates only after getting grants from us." A section of the Foundation's website discusses its position on "intelligent design" further, stressing that "we do not believe the science underpinning the 'Intelligent Design' movement is sound [and] we do not support research or programs that deny large areas of well-documented scientific knowledge."



March 20, 2008






source: NCSE on-line NEwsletter of MArch 20, 2008
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Mon 24 Mar, 2008 07:27 am
fm quoted-

Quote:
Within the all-comprising Mind of God what we call chance and random events is well composed into the symphony of creation."


So tossing a coin, some ethnic cleansing and torture are likewise composed into the symphony of creation one supposes and the observable evidence rather confirms that.

Quote:
They implicitly revive the old manicheistic error postulating the existence of two forces acting against each other: God and an inert matter; in this case, chance and intelligent design.


Which relies for meaning on the old manicheistic error actually being an error.

It was declared error, with the usual accompaniment of slurs and atrocity stories, not long after St. Augustine, when he couldn't get it up any longer, converted to Christianity from Manicheism and paved the way for the setting up of Authority against Revelation, and the separation of the Western religion under the Pope from religions of the Orient to which Jesus subscribed, and then, through the Gothic, the Renaissance being brushed aside, Protestantism and onwards to Capitalism and micro-wave Golden Wonder oven chips thus leaving wives free to pursue what they are really good at.

If that is a correction of error well--what can one say other than that it must be a correction of error under the authority of infallibility dogma.

It's a bit more complex than that of course but I have tried to keep it simple for obvious reasons.

Had they all remained atheists you would be out hunting beasts with pointed sticks with Mrs Willendorf waiting for your return to thank you all in the customary manner much as often happens nowadays after a candlelit dinner for two in a intimate setting monogamously.

On that basis there is probably good grounds for declaring other-wordly doctrines to be in error. But they are materialistic grounds and not spiritual ones.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Mon 24 Mar, 2008 07:38 am
Do you yell at billboards as you pass them in the road spendi? If you have a problem with what I quoted, I suggest you write to the National Center for Science Education and they will take the time to explain that youve missed the entire point of the news item because you were too busy cherry picking tidbits.

Maybe you want to duke it out with Dr Heller?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Mon 24 Mar, 2008 08:03 am
Fetch him on fm.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 07/15/2025 at 01:24:34